The latest
NY Times tripe on the military suggests that people only enlist for a steady cash flow during our recession. Certainly, the promise of a pay-check might tip the scales for some potential recruits in their decision-making process, but just joining the military for financial rewards is a pretty lousy idea. The pay scale for junior enlisted personnel is
publicly available, and you can see that an individual would have a much better shot at bringing in the Benjamins if they opened up a roller-disco or something. But that doesn't stop the grey lady from propagating the myth that people only sign up to avoid financial ruin. From the
NYT:
Sean D. O’Neil, a 22-year-old who stood shivering outside an Army recruitment office in St. Louis, said he was forgoing plans to become a guitar maker for now, realizing that instruments are seen as a luxury during a recession. Mr. O’Neil, a Texas native, ventured to St. Louis for an apprenticeship but found himself $30,000 in debt. Joining the Army, his Plan B, was a purely financial decision. With President-elect Barack Obama in office, he expects the troop levels in Iraq to be lowered.
This type of reporting in the media leads society to believe that they should not respect the patriotism of the Armed Forces. Because they had "nowhere else to go", young Americans can feel "less guilty" that only a small percentage of folks have chosen to serve. Recruits come into the military for a variety of reasons, but it all becomes moot as everyone is familiarized into the military lifestyle and ethnic/class/political boundaries are broken down as everyone dons the same uniform.
The NYT writer, Lizette Alvarez, has covered the same beat for her journalistic career, always proclaiming the military's troubles. Recently,
Old Blue did some outstanding analysis that her gripes with the military have nothing to do with objective reporting, and everything to do with making the current Republican administration look bad. So don't buy into the hype...maybe her articles will quietly go away after The O takes office.
What's disturbing is that imbeciles tend to believe this sort of nonsense that the military is not necessarily patriotic. Take Punk'd star and cougar-hunter
Ashton Kutcher, who had this to say at HuffPo:
Today, serving our country no longer simply means drop and give me 20, this is your rifle, defend this land we call home. National service is becoming a term used to define a much broader and equally passionate category of patriotism. This brand of patriotism is inclusive of a pure humanitarian effort guided by the simple virtue of the giving of oneself for the benefit of another in the name of the United States of America.
I am grateful that our nation has some excellent humanitarian workers here and abroad, but
Ashton Kutcher isn't exactly Mother Teresa. And his flippant attitude that the military is just about "give me 20" is an embarrassment. It's a sad state of affairs when our nation's cultural elite think
driving a hybrid is on par with sacrifices made in the military, but it's the reality we face.
When Kal Pen (aka Kumar of the great movie, Harold & Kumar go to White Castle) left the beautiful people of Hollywood to spend time with the bottom-feeding parasites in DC, he received some praise for serving his country or something. But now a FOIA request has revealed that he was mixed up in the recent NEA scandal which forced its Communications Director into resignation. From Washington Examiner (h/t Jammie):
