- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,114
- Reaction score
- 33,461
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This thread is now official boring.
Before we come to any conclusions I think someone needs to figure out WHY this phenomenon exists.
This thread is now official boring.
Minority's make up a smaller portion of the general population. So it would make sense they would make up smaller portions at the top.
This is a stupid proposal, that's what is really boring.
Make up in 2000, it has changed a few percentage points, but not enough to make any real difference for this example...
Whites: 69.13%
Hispanic: 12.55%
Black: 12.6%
Women In The Military: 20%
Now lets look at the article...
Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.
77% are white males.
8% are black.
5% are Hispanic.
16% are women.
The only disparity I see is with Hispanics. We don't know the level of recruitment within the Hispanic community or the education levels, so even that may be acceptable.
A non issue.
OMG! Affirmative Action is the last thing we need in our military.
It looks like the race and gender parasites want to use the military for some bull **** PC agenda.
Here's an idea.
A crazy idea.
But an idea.
How about we put race aside.
And put people in charge that will be good at their jobs... Regardless of their race... And if It happens to be too much one way or the other... Oh well :shrug:
We should lift the ban on women serving
Just who the hell is promoting affirmative action?
Seems to me that the article in the OP is bitching about there being too many white boys holding leadership positions in the military.
The only reason for such a study, is to say that there needs to be more brothas, bitches and esses assuming those leadership roles. Seeing how it's an all volunteer military and the most hazardous MOS's get promoted faster and farther and white males choose those MOS's in the largest numbers, it must be time to alter the promotion points to favor minorities and females. i.e. Affirmative Action.
Here's an idea.
A crazy idea.
But an idea.
How about we put race aside.
And put people in charge that will be good at their jobs... Regardless of their race... And if It happens to be too much one way or the other... Oh well :shrug:
The article presented what the writers perceived to be a problem (whether it actually is or not is another issue that can be debated). In no way did it suggest any solution, much less affirmative action.
The article presented what the writers perceived to be a problem (whether it actually is or not is another issue that can be debated). In no way did it suggest any solution, much less affirmative action.
The article was, I believe, written using incomplete data. See my analysis of the article in post #2.
Not sure how to comment on this, unless I have some more information.
1) What is the breakdown of recruits, by race?
2) How does that compare to the breakdown of officer candidates by race?
3) Out of those who apply to be officers, what percentage have a college education? This answer usually should be "all of them", but I would ask this question to clarify.
4) Out of those who apply to be officers, AND BECOME OFFICERS, what is the breakdown by race? (This is a control question, used to reveal racism within the ranks, if it exists, and would be a fairly accurate indicator of whether there IS actual racism within the military, as a whole)
5) Here is the key - What is the breakdown of people with college degrees, by race?
I would submit that, if the answers to these questions are what I would expect them to be, and also knowing that a college education is very, very expensive, then the issue here should not be about possible discrimination in the military, which was implied by the paper, but about the lack of opportunity for the poor to get a good college education. And, knowing that minorities comprise a higher percentage of poor people than rich or middle class persons, we would now have our answer - The report excluded data which would show the real reason that minorities comprise such a low percentage of officers. Therefore, the paper would be flawed, and probably is, because it implies racism when the real culprit is people not being able to go to college due to a lack of money, which would not be the military's fault at all. This would be another issue entirely, which should be debated on it's own merits.
Based on what I have already stated, I would once more submit that, if the answers to the questions I posed are what I expect them to be, then the conclusion of the paper is completely flawed, because it relied on flawed data, or incomplete data, from which to draw it's conclusions.
As for the military being predominantly white, maybe if the liberals didn't spend so damn much time whining about "the poor man dying in the rich man's wars", more minority men would see the military as the career and educational opportunity that it is.
It looks like the race and gender parasites want to use the military for some bull **** PC agenda.
What's next, a study there aren't enough transvestites, and mono-testicled midgets running the military?
You do know what is next though? Not enough gays at the helm. I'd bet a house on it. You know it's coming, and the cherry on top will be the journOlists painting our valiant military as a bunch of homophobes.
.
MSNBC said:...five years after the historic lifting of the bigoted dont ask dont' tell ban, gays have yet to find equality in the military, as it turns out those five years were not enough for any of them to reach 4-star rank.....
It looks like the race and gender parasites want to use the military for some bull **** PC agenda.