Probably because good men and women who want to serve would rather not do so under the leadership of our currently idiotic commander in chief.
The Army and Marine Corps are letting in more recruits with criminal records, including some with felony convictions, reflecting the increased pressure of five years of war and its mounting casualties.
According to data compiled by the Defense Department, the number of Army and Marine recruits needing waivers for felonies and serious misdemeanors, including minor drug offenses, has grown since 2003. The Army granted more than double the number of waivers for felonies and misdemeanors in 2006 than it did in 2003. Some recruits may get more than one waiver.
Or perhaps some like yourself who simply couldn’t not meet standards, waiver or no waiver.
Oh, and did you making to the global warming subcomittee hearing in the House today?
Oh yea, I forgot…it was cancelled cause of snow…
LOL
How IS that global warming working out for you?
The government thinks a minor drug offense makes you unworthy to work as a sanitation worker, but not to serve in the military. Interesting how liberals are supposed to be the ones who “don’t respect the troops.”
Oh shit. Someone catch pedro.
that was great august….shouldn’t you get back to the slurpy machine while waiting for your contract for some sort of syndication?
Wow
Look, my cartoons are supposed to be satire. I don’t really think right-wingers are so stupid that they’d jump out a window thinking they can’t die because by the same logic a cold day means there’s no global warming. I…
Awww, peed, hit a nerve?
yea S, you got me….I’m just sitting here reading headlines about record cold and snow and thinking, “Damn, those lefties just NAILED that global warming thing! I wonder if Al Gore took his private jet to Fiji just to watch the water rising…”
LOL
Haw! Haw! August works at the 7-11! pedromd07 you’re like Rodney Dangerfield reborn over there. You should send in headlines to Jay Leno.
Record cold and snow that followed record heat and record lack of snow.
So it’s not that we didn’t get winter, it’s that winter go here late and is now being extreme. Instability is the issue and the danger.
Maybe you don’t understand global warming because there’s very little on the globe that you do understand?
I really tire of the thread derailment. Your comment on the military is just fine, while wrongheaded but I didn’t write anything about global warming. I’m going to respond to both but please try a little respect and if you want to opine on things, you can get a blog for the cost of $0.
1. My point is, as the article pointed out, scraping the bottom of the barrel for military recruits. This is not a good thing. It shows that our armed forces are stretched thin and in the long run it will hurt America to have a lot of these loose cannons in the military (there’s a reason why people in the private sector don’t hire habitual offenders). I don’t know what that has to do with me or August signing up. I’ve never professed interest in the military and I certainly do not agree with how the militarily is currently being implemented – it’s putting troops in danger as well as me and you. You support the war in Iraq and the current Commander In Chief. You’re supposedly a doctor, so I don’t see why you don’t sign up.
2. It was 70 in December, now it’s cold. One cold day does not negate global warming. Chances are when you measure it out, 2007 will be the hottest year on record like 2006, 2005, 2004, etc. The increased warming of the earth is at least partially attributable to human activity that can be curbed or moderated. Every scientist not paid for by the oil and gas industry admits this because that’s what the science says. You and Matt Drudge can say “but baby it’s cold outside” but that doesn’t change whether 1+1 = 2.
Why does anybody bother repsonding to Pedro?
Personal insults, pomposity, bad-faith arguing. He’s not here to discuss he’s here to disrupt.
But I guess it is kind of fun to see what sort of idiot wingnut statements you can provoke out of him. This “baby it’s cold outside” schtick is probably the most moronic hobby horse Pedro has ever got on, yet he keeps riding it and riding it. He’s become a parody of himself.
Yeah Pedro, for a doctor you do seem to have an awful lot of free time to troll around on someone else’s blog. No disrespect, I mean I manage to get in the occasional read between my lectures on hyperbolic topology, but I got my tenure at MIT 17 years ago.
Now why don’t you respond with a mouth-frothing, ad hominem attack to learn me a thang or 2 about questioning your credentials?
Hey, can I get in on this?
Lessee…I’m the King of Portugal!! No, wait, I lead the major leagues in home runs!!! Oh, oh, how about: No, I’m the father of Anna Nicole’s baby!!!!
Say, this is fun.
August > Pedro
Pedro’s posts are so lame they make the other OW trolls look reasonable in comparison. Maybe that’s the intention.
On topic: The wedding picture of Ty Ziegler is popping up all over the blogosphere. It really brings the war home. If there is anyone left in this country who feels Bush’s war is worth it, they should look long and hard at that photograph. No wonder the military is scrounging for bodies.
You would have to be a goddamn fool to join any military that chickengeorge bush is in charge of.
The real king of Portugal is myself.
Pedro: NOT a doctor. And a lousy liar.
My apologies OW, I shouldn’t hijack the thread like that. But you gotta understand how frustrating it is to see you post about global warming when it is seventy, but ignore it when the pendulum swings again.
JB you aren’t the famous Jame Munkres are you? Of “Topology” fame? Well in any case, you know your math (MIT!), so you can explain random variation in a system and statitics a little better to these guys. You know, random variation around a mean, stuff like that.
I’m glad you guys respect the troops! We wouldn’t want anyone to be accused of being a filthy liar by claiming otherwise!
OW predicts:
How many of those years have been hotter than 1998?
Remember kids…”not caring that there’s no plan, no conditions for victory, and shrugging off deaths as the cost of business” = “supporting the troops”
My god… the stupidity on display here is phenominal.
” But you gotta understand how frustrating it is to see you post about global warming when it is seventy, but ignore it when the pendulum swings again.”
Because, my goodness, you don’t think warmth is measured at the WARM end of the temperature scale, do you? And there’s bonus stupidity if you look deeper too! Of course Oliver doesn’t understand your frustration… because he doesn’t share your bias now, does he?.Did you really think he was going to say “Yes, your hatred for me is reasonable.” Really? Did you really think he’s going to say that? Are you still so immature that you don’t realise people out there have opinions different to yours, and actually believe them?
And JWG was hilariously stupid too; observe!
” You would have to be a goddamn fool
I’m glad you guys respect the troops!”
Gosh, if Michael hadn’t already pointed this out, I’d have to explain that, for example, saying “Someone would have to be a fool to jump into a lion’s cage whilst wearing a suit made entirely out of pork chops” does not equal “I don’t care in the slightest if he gets mauled to death”
And behold, the pedantry cometh!
“How many of those years have been hotter than 1998?”
Well let’s see…
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
So Oliver got it wrong! 1998 was the hottest year on record! And that means?! … er… mumble mumble… um… That mean’s… he’s wrong about the overal Global Warming trend too… maybe… because it’s er… not… going… up… at… all? Help me out here, guys!
“The 1990s were the warmest decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.548°C above the 1961-90 mean. Ten of the eleven warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past eleven years (1995-2005). The only year in the last eleven not among the warmest eleven is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990).”
Oh. That doesn’t help at all, does it? Sorry, I’m just not as good at this Gotchya politics as you Bushites… shouldn’t have tried to use an actual science based claim, eh, because then people just go and look up the science.
“Well in any case, you know your math (MIT!), so you can explain random variation in a system and statitics a little better to these guys. You know, random variation around a mean, stuff like that.”
And god damn it Pedro, the above graph also plots the mean, and shows it’s merrily on it’s way up. Couldn’t you have tried to bluff about knowing something no-one could cross reference in under a minute?!
And do you know the really funny thing? An excessively COLD winter would also be a “random variation around a mean, stuff like that.” So not only is the basic Pedro claim wrong (the trend is up), it even shoots down Pedro’s own counter-example, that it’s suddenly, randomly, a bit cold! Nooooooo! Save me, you Righties, how do I maintain the same blissful arrogant ignorance as you do even when my own arguments just show how little I understand?!
“Other than eating, reading comics and remaining a moron, do you have any other hobbies Ollie?”
Ahh I get it. Some of you just dont bother to even pretend to be other than an asshat, thus avoiding making any objective claims at all. Henceforth I shall become this great myself! I have seen the Light of the Right!
And for the irony impaired amongst you; I’m being sarcastic, so no need to try and upset my delicate sense of self-honesty.
You would not respect the choice this person made. Not wanting someone to be killed does not equal respect for their choices. I don’t want any Leftists to be killed, but I don’t respect many of their choices. You just can’t be honest about not respecting those in the military.
Actually, 2005 was the hottest (so far). 1998 is the second. What that means is that Oliver was wrong about believing that each year has been hotter than the next. He made a statement based on an incorrect premise, and I corrected it. That’s it. Simple.
Ok, I was wrong, I acknowledge that scientific facts beat an assertion. Can you guys join that club now too?
Actually, you are using data that ended in 2005. 2006 was the hottest year on record.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html
Actually, I am using data through 2006. Your link is talking about the USA. I am talking about Global (i.e. the entire Earth) Warming.
2006 ranks 5th globally.
And the reason 2006 ended up bringing the US extra warminess is due to the El Nino. Otherwise, 2006 would’ve been as high as it’s been during the past decade but not the highest.
What the fuck EVER. What difference does it make?
And what does any of this have to do with felons in the military?
It doesn’t. JWG can’t see the forest for the trees and it’s way more important he’s just always right.
Felons in the military?
One of two things will happen. Either the felons will fail or they won’t.
If they fail, they’ll either get kicked out of the military or get sent to a military jail.
If they don’t fail, some drill sergeant will make a citizen out of ‘em.
The sun will come up the following day, no matter what.
Or you can get recruits like Private Stephen Green who is deployed to Iraq where he and his buddies rape a 14 year old girl and murder her and her family to try and cover it up.
Green was not a felon prior to his enlistment. He had a charge for alcohol possession. Please raise your hand if you never had any alcohol before you were of legal age.
Since Green was not a prior felon, what does his example have to do with Quaker’s point?
Or are you trying to say that anyone who had alcohol before they were legally allowed to do so are more likely to be rapists after they join the military?
I don’t think he even mentioned alcohol.
Quaker mentioned “felons”.
Midderpidge brought up Green as a reply.
I pointed out that Green’s only legal trouble (for which he needed a waiver)was with possession of alcohol — not a felony.
Green is an example of someone who needed a waiver to enlist, but he does not provide an example of a felon needing a waiver.
Why does midderpidge think that Green is useful to bring up in response to Quaker’s comment?
OK, fine. Let’s say we keep the standards just the way they are and we DON’T let any felons into the military.
Warehouse them?
Let’s see, moral character waiver, later discharged for anti-social personality disorder. It doesn’t mean he might not have slipped through before the war, but they are allowing double the waiver cases now.
Unrelated, there has been significant increase in Gang and Supremecist group activity in the military. Are these the guys you want trained in urban warfare?
So what DO we do with the felons after they’ve done their time?
Here’s Kevin Drum’s post on the subject:
You can stop with your arguments quaker. This is something that “George Bush’s” military did, ergo it is prima facia wrong….according to the nutroots…
Pedro, are you entirely with it? This is like reading Stephen Colbert’s Wikipedia edits about George Washington not owning slaves: the conclusion is disconnected from the statements.
This is something that “George Bush’s” military did, ergo it is prima facia [sic] wrong
I’d say “This is something that George Bush’s administration did, ergo…” (unlike you rebumplikins, I don’t blame the military for the incompetent leadership in Washington).
And I wouldn’t say that everything Bush did was prima facie wrong, I’d just say that based on the past six years of evidence it’s a good working assumption to start with.
And for Quaker and others, the issue is not allowing ex-cons into the military per se, its the increase in that practice between 2003 and 06.
Nice post, American Morning, but you’re speaking Urdu to Zulus.
Also, isn’t it ironic that we let ex-cons fight the war on terror for us, but many states (especially republican-controlled ex slave-states) deny them the right to vote)
My feeling is that if you are going to take felons and moral waivers, you have to have better psychological and background screening as well as better follow up monitoring. I think the military would be great for the majority of petty criminals to instill discipline and pride and give them job training, etc.
The states deny some or all felony cons (who have already fulfilled probation or parole requirements) the right to vote are:
AL, AZ, DE, FL, KY, MD, MS, NV, TN, VA, WY
AL, FL, MS, TN, VA were part of the Confederate South
AL has only had 3 Republican governors (26 Dems) in the last 100 years.
FL has only had 4 Republican governors (22 Dems) in last 100 years.
MS has only had 2 Republican governors (26 Dems) in the last 100 years.
TN has only had 5 Republican governors (19 Dems) in the last 100 years.
VA has had 5 Republican governors (22 Dems) in the last 100 years.
Sooooo……
Who are these “especially republican-controlled ex slave-states” to which you refer?
Would you care to use some facts to back up your claim?
While I agree with your thought…
Do you have any data that shows that people with waivers are creating more problems than non-waiver enlistees?
Or are people just complaining about granting more waivers as the size of the military is being increased (by congressional mandate) because they want something to complain about?
I think the military would be great for the majority of petty criminals to instill discipline and pride and give them job training, etc.
I gotta say, I think so too. While I don’t think we should build an amry of Hannibal Lecter’s or anything (would you put that leg down, please?), I think the military would be a good start to breaking the cycle of recidivism.
Is there any data?
The data has to be there…I just wonder if anyone has put it together. It seems like the military has an interesting social experiment going on.
Jeepers, JWG, I used to think you were one of the smarter wingnuts around here. That post was worthy of Pedro or Dugger.
Is there some reason you want to trace things back 100 years? Is it perhaps because you know the following: 50 years ago most southern racists were democrats. Today, most southern racists are republicans. Yay GOP!
Let’s keep it simple: all the states you mention were “red” in the last two elections.
Read it and weep:
“Alabama Republican Party Chairman Marty Connors stated a bald truth: “As frank as I can be,” he said, “we’re opposed to [restoring voting rights] because felons don’t tend to vote Republican.”"
Check the Governors…you know…the ones who actually help run the state.
Go back approx 40 years if you want (from when the Civil Rights Act began)…the stats are the same.
Are you trying to argue that these felon restrictions only recently appeared in all these states?
BTW:
Since 1967:
AL has had 3 Republican governors (8 Dems)
FL has had 4 Republican governors (5 Dems)
MS has only had 2 Republican governors (7 Dems)
TN has only had 3 Republican governors (4 Dems)
VA has had 5 Republican governors (6 Dems)
Soooo……
There have been more Democratic leaders in each of these states since after the Civil Rights Act.
Yet it’s the Republican’s fault that felons have voting restrictions.
Feel free to provide…oh, I don’t know…some actual data demonstrating how these are “republican-controlled ex slave-states”.
JWG, thanks for the excellent demonstration of Republican math.
You know, the kind that counts five cold days in Poughkeepsie and pronounces global warming a fraud.
The kind that counts a billionaire’s million-dollar tax cut and 1000 other guys’ one dollar tax cut and concludes that the average American got a $2000 tax cut.
You start with a hundred years, then cut it down to forty. Why stop there?
If you want to talk about today, which is, you know, what we’re talking about, why not look at, say, the last fifeen years.
And if you want to be honest, look at years in office rather than number of governors.
In every one of those states, Republicans have been in charge more than Democrats:
MS: 11-4
TN: 8-7
AL: 9-6
FL: 8-7
VA: 8-7
In addition, 60% of those states (MS, AL, FL) currently have republican governors.
So have fun if you like cherry picking other numbers. You still won’t be able to come up with a single democrat saying something like this:
“As frank as I can be,” he said, “we’re opposed to [restoring voting rights] because felons don’t tend to vote Republican.”
No we’re not. When were these felony restrictions on voting put into place?
Remember, that’s the point you were attacking…how the eeeevil Republican leadership of ex-slave states was holding back the felons?
Unfortunately for your argument, these laws have been on the books for about one hundred years (which is why I initially used that figure — they weren’t “cherry picked”).
There has been a lot of time available for those non-evil Democrats to change the laws.
Many states have been revising their felony voter restriction laws in the past decade — including those with Republican leadership.
That racist-Republican-dominated-ex-slave-state of Alabama recently made it easier for felons to vote under — yep, you guessed it — a Republican governor.
And just to rub it in a little, that evil Bushitler, when he was governor of Texas, even ended the two-year waiting period before voting restrition for felons who had completed their parole.
As far as your quote is concered, while repugnant, it is quite accurate based on studies.
Are you seriously going to argue that many Democrats who recently began supporting easing voting restrictions for felons are NOT doing so because it would lead to more votes?
Politics is dirty and ugly. It is easy for us to sit on the sidelines and take the moral high ground (e.g. I personally think felons should be able to vote once they have served their sentences). But most politicians win races by being practical rather than moral, and they only take stands on issues that wll help them.
That being said, you have presented no facts to support your case that evil Republicans are to blame for felony restrictions in the south, while I have shown that Democrats have had lots and lots and lots of opportunities to fix any laws they deemed inappropriate.
Now that demographic studies have recently come out delineating how Republicans and Democrats would or would not benefit from various felony groups, we are seeing the parties take sides in their never ending struggle to hold power.
As a side note, I think you completely missed the fact that you undermined your own argument:
Your original thesis = ex-slave states are restricting felons and are controlled by Republicans
My comment = past 100 years dominated by Democrats
You = Not fair! Democrats were racists back then (because felons are only black?)
Me = since after Civil Rights Act (when racist Democrats became racist Republicans) states STILL dominated by Democrats
You = No, no, no! You can only look at the past few years! (No cherry picking there, eh?)
If we can only look at the past couple of elections in the South in order to find Republican governors, then you must be arguing that the South wasn’t dominated by Republicans until recently.
Who has been controlling these felony restricting ex-slave states? What racist changing event took place recently that made it necessary to only look at the past “fifteen years” in order to find Republican governors?
Try since the start of the War on Drugs to be fair. That’s when prison populations really started to grow and to skew racially.
oliver, blueoregon implemented a great troll-b-gone system after a long run where (probably paid) trolls hijacked every post in the first comment.
in response, blueoregon put a button for donations to democrats on the page. every time a good democrat was tempted to feed the trolls by engaging in their idiot debate rather than discussing important stuff like health care and the destruction of our military by republicans, they’re encouraged to instead make a small donation in the troll’s honor to democrats.