White Men Need Not Apply

The U.S. has one of the most, if not the most, effective military organizations in the world.
I’ve got an idea!!!
Let’s change it!!!
Dolts.


http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-military-report-too-many-whites-men-leading-military-030711/

Report: Too many whites, men leading military

By Pauline Jelinek - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Mar 7, 2011 15:09:55 EST

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.
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.
………
The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.
………
Stretching the definition of diversity, the report also said the military must harness people with a greater range of skills and backgrounds in, for instance, cyber systems, languages and cultural knowledge to be able to operate in an era of new threats and to collaborate with international partners and others.



This is not “stretching the definition of diversity”; it is the only definition of diversity - competence in diverse areas of expertise - that matters in this context. I would prefer that this country be protected by people who know how to properly blow things up rather than by people who are meticulously sub-divided, percentage-wise, into groups based upon color and/or gender. If there happens to be a preponderance of white men who happen to be the best at blowing things up, then so be it - I see no reason to change it. Social engineering is fine for the Bureau of Land Management, or somesuch, but not for the military, where things actually matter.

God forbid we acknowledge whites sometimes get preferential treatment, especially in an institution archaic enough to make homophobia policy.

From the not-so-nefarious press release on the report:

Quote :

Retired Air Force General Lester Lyles, Chairman of the MLDC said, "Diversity is more than simply representing the American population -- it is about gaining a more effective military capability through inclusion - recognizing, and fully utilizing the wide range of talents, skills, and abilities of our Servicemembers." He continued, "The Commission envisions expanding opportunities while maintaining the military's high standards. This could be done by removing barriers that are unrelated to doing the job, such as barriers related to individuals' demographic membership, rather than their ability."

The Commission found a series of tacit barriers that occur throughout a Servicemember's career, including a lack of clarity about the promotion process and knowledge about career-enhancing opportunities and choices. As such, the MLDC recommended a sustained process of improvement, transparent and inclusive throughout the advancement of a Servicemember's career that will keep the U.S. military in step with the ongoing changes among the American people. Vice-chairman of the Commission, retired Army Lt. Gen Julius Becton explained, "Diversity is a leadership style that enhances performance through inclusion. Acknowledging and utilizing the contributions of all Servicemembers, and including them in the decision-making process is imperative."

The MLDC found one overt barrier to advancement into senior leadership, the policy excluding women from combat. As such, the Commission recommends that DoD and the Services remove institutional barriers to open traditionally closed doors, especially those relating to assignments in both the initial career field assignment and subsequent assignments to key positions. The Commission additionally recommends focus on the realignment of organizational structure, instituting a system of accountability, ensuring the succession of leaders committed to diversity, and the development and implementation of robust policies and strategic metrics. Lyles added, "Our diversity makes our country and our military great; the Commission's purpose was to build on this greatness."

Too bad. I'll miss Operation Get Behind the Darkies, too.

[quote="Heretic"]
From the not-so-nefarious press release on the report:

Quote :

Retired Air Force General Lester Lyles, Chairman of the MLDC said, "Diversity is more than simply representing the American population -- it is about gaining a more effective military capability through inclusion - recognizing, and fully utilizing the wide range of talents, skills, and abilities of our Servicemembers."

Absolutely.
I am all for having the military recognize the wide range of talents, skills, and abilities of people of all colors and genders. And the military force should be built upon talents, skills, and abilities, not demographics.
So I guess we agree on something.

happy jack wrote:

Social engineering is fine for the Bureau of Land Management, or somesuch, but not for the military, where things actually matter.

Except that diversity in our military actually does:

Quote :

The ultimate impact of the recommendations presented here and in the final report depends on the unwavering commitment of the President of the United States, the resolute conviction of the Secretary of Defense, and the concerted effort of military leaders at all levels to bring about enduring change. The MLDC is the third deliberative body established by an external authority to find ways to transform the U.S. military to become a more inclusive institution. Its predecessors were the Fahy Committee (1949-1950), created by President Harry S. Truman, and the Gesell Committee (1962), appointed by President John F. Kennedy. Historians have hailed the Fahy Committee as instrumental in desegregating the Armed Forces and thus paving the way for the Nation to move closer to its ideals. On the other hand, few even remember that the Gesell Committee existed, despite the fact that it recommended policies that might have enabled the military to avoid the harmful racial tensions and conflicts that occurred in the Armed Forces during the Vietnam War. The U.S. military is a learning organization capable of adapting to change and the needs of the Nation, provided that the Nation's highest leaders are willing both to change and to provide a clear vision of success that is followed by the sustained oversight needed to succeed. The Armed Forces have led the Nation in the struggle to achieve equality. To maintain this leadership, they must evolve once again, renewing their commitment to providing equal opportunity for all The time has come to embrace the broader concept of diversity needed to achieve military goals and to move the Nation closer to embodying its democratic ideals.

happy jack wrote:

So I guess we agree on something.

We do, but it's definitely not the "minorities will ruin our military if they're promoted." That's simply ridiculous...

happy jack wrote:

Not to worry. I have no doubt that the smart, capable servicemembers (you know, the ones any normal person would prefer to have handling the very serious business of the military) will manage to overcome those barriers and figure out the nuances of the promotion processes and career-enhancing opportunities.

Quote :

Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat

The draft report said the military's "combat exclusion policies" do not reflect the realities of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and create institutional barriers to women, who are prevented from getting key assignments that could lead to career advancement.

Or, from the Executive Summary:

Quote :

The Commission found that top military leaders are representative neither of the population they serve nor of the forces they lead. The extent to which racial/ethnic minorities and women are underrepresented varies across the Services, but the Commission found, on average, low racial/ethnic minority and female representation among senior military officers.
During the Vietnam War, the lack of diversity in military leadership led to problems that threatened the integrity and performance of the Nation's military. This is because servicemembers' vision of what is possible for their career is shaped by whether they see individuals with similar backgrounds excelling and being recognized in their Service. The performance of the Nation's military is tied to the individual’s belief that he or she will be treated fairly regardless of his or her background.
The Commission found four explanations for discrepancies in representation among senior military leaders: low racial/ethnic minority and female presence among initial officer accessions, lower representation of racial/ethnic minority and female officers in career fields associated with advancement to flag/general officer rank, lower retention of midlevel female servicemembers across the enlisted and officer spectrum, and lower rates of advancement among racial/ethnic minority and female officers.

So again, the report states that there are institutional barriers preventing promotions; that it's not the inherent superiority of us poor, offended white guys that's responsible. And nowhere in the report does it suggest to promote or reward those who are undeserving.

I have a lot of respect for the military, their work, their assessments, and their continued effectiveness in all fronts. This is why I routinely cite their assessments when referring to such monumental problems like Peak Oil or AGW. While the military may continue some outdated policies that hamper their effectiveness, its simply far more likely that your subtly racist assessment was wrong rather than a panel of high ranking military officials instituting new policies that would bring about our ruin.

Besides, you didn't care the last time the government deliberately tanked national security for the sake of PR. Even if your perception were accurate, I find it difficult to believe you're so honestly concerned now.

happy jack wrote:

I never said anything of the sort.
Please stop lying.

Well then I'm confused. You opened with the doom and gloom "The U.S. has one of the most, if not the most, effective military organizations in the world. I’ve got an idea!!! Let’s change it!!! Dolts.". The only change suggested is a diversification of our military officers by removing the institutional roadblocks suggested in the report. If diversifying our military won't diminish its effectiveness, what was point of your post?

happy jack wrote:

The rule which bars women from combat is the only thing that can legitimately be called an institutional barrier.

So it is their inferiority holding them back?

happy jack wrote:

Yeah, you're confused, all right - so confused that while you were reaching into your pocket to pull out the "anyone who disagrees with me is a racist" card, you completely ignored everything I said.

Yeah. Like your topic. "Whites need not apply." You're right. How could I possibly think your post had something to do with race?

happy jack wrote:

This is not “stretching the definition of diversity”; it is the only definition of diversity - competence in diverse areas of expertise - that matters in this context. I would prefer that this country be protected by people who know how to properly blow things up rather than by people who are meticulously sub-divided, percentage-wise, into groups based upon color and/or gender.

Yes, I read it, and it's still nothing more than a Palin-esque incoherent rant. First of all, it's common practice in science, especially in a social science, to first define your terms. That's all they were doing, setting an operational definition of a word they would use throughout their report. They did so in previous reports, and did so again, highlighting the differences from definitions used in previous reports per the scientific standards of the discipline that has been around longer than you or I. It's not a big deal. Clearly neither you nor the author of your article have a scientific background. Secondly, I don't see this as any cause for concern. They're not taking guns away from 97% of our soldiers and giving them desk jobs to study demographics. It was a panel of military officials who recognize that minorities are not unsuited for command and were looking for the reasons (and possible solutions) for the discrepancies.

Oh, the horrors!

happy jack wrote:

I am all for having the military recognize the wide range of talents, skills, and abilities of people of all colors and genders. And the military force should be built upon talents, skills, and abilities, not demographics.

And, like I wrote:

Heretic wrote:

[N]owhere in the report does it suggest to promote or reward those who are undeserving.

So... again, I really don't see what all the fuss is about. They're not promoting people undeservedly and there's no data presented by either you or the Commision itself to suggest that diversifying the military will diminish its effectiveness. I even presented evidence to the contrary.

So can we be done with this non-story already? I mean I'm sure Rush blew his top over it, but you? Really?

Heretic wrote:

Yeah. Like your topic. "Whites need not apply." You're right. How could I possibly think your post had something to do with race?

You act as if I were the one who brought up race.
Is it possible that you overlooked the headline (you know, that part with the really big lettering) accompanying the article?

Report: Too many whites, men leading military

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

This is not “stretching the definition of diversity”; it is the only definition of diversity - competence in diverse areas of expertise - that matters in this context. I would prefer that this country be protected by people who know how to properly blow things up rather than by people who are meticulously sub-divided, percentage-wise, into groups based upon color and/or gender.

Yes, I read it, and it's still nothing more than a Palin-esque incoherent rant.

What the hell is incoherent about suggesting that people be judged by their abilities?

Heretic wrote:

So can we be done with this non-story already?

You can be done with this story whenever you so choose.
Except you will choose not to be done with this story until you have assured yourself that you have had the last word.

Sorry, Heretic...I base my opinion on what Happy Jack stated. Based on that, skin color is not the issue.

Guess never watched Forest Gump...Bubba was his best friend! Now that fictional story just gives you a true non-fiction glimpse based on race in the military.

I understand things were different back then, but my dad was a Marine. Color didn't matter. Back then they qualified, regardless of color...and my dad had quite a few black men covering his and each others' back.

And your argue
Net based on color doesn't hold water, cuz we can't even get the only black sheep in the family in the Coast Guard, cuz he is 20 years old, dropped out of high school, won't finish his GED for four years now, but will get hiss azz kicked out this month. The military won't take him with no education.

I wouldn't trust he is even smart enough to follow rules in the military. I wouldn't trust him fighting the enemy, he is so stupid.

AND, that is my white little idiotic nephew you will find living under a bridge someday.

It is called, "TOUGH LOVE!"

He is white, and somehow an embarrassment. All the other nieces and nephews are holding college degrees.

So, do not base it on color. I have a white one the military wouldn't trust. It is about education and wanting discipline and defending your country.

Just making a point...color dies not matter.

But, education does..can't finish high school, you don't qualify. NO MATTER WHAT COLOR SKIN YOU HAVE.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

God forbid we acknowledge whites sometimes get preferential treatment

For an exercise in self-loathing, it's actually pretty funny.

I agree that it's funny. But I'm curious as to why you characterize it as "an exercise in self-loathing."

Could you clarify?

Crap! I thought this thread was about me!

Well...pardon me.

I THINK IT IS ABOUT SKIN color, rather than brains.

I am white, that's my problem.

Allow me to correct the last posting.

I interpreted the title and story as saying whites seem to qualify more than anyone.

Which is not entirely true.

Playing FOX news, I tried to be "Fair and Balanced" telling them skin color did not matter.

I have that nephew I would love to kick overseas..and do something with his brain.

But he doesn't have one and I can't change his brain nor, skin color to fit right in where he belongs.

He does not want to grow up. So, whatever skin color you are, doesn't matter. Brains do.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Crap! I thought this thread was about me!

Oh, crap.

JUST caught on...

BIG WHITE GUY!!!!!!

Now I get it.....LOL!!!!!

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

For an exercise in self-loathing, it's actually pretty funny.

I agree that it's funny. But I'm curious as to why you characterize it as "an exercise in self-loathing."

Could you clarify?

Gladly.
Verbatim from the clip:

"... we're gonna pay hard for this shit, you just know that. We're not gonna just fall from number one to two. They're gonna hold us down and f**k us in the ass forever, and we totally deserve it."

It's comedy, Jack. It's admittedly a bit "off color," but I wouldn't read a whole lot into it.

happy jack wrote:

You act as if I were the one who brought up race.
Is it possible that you overlooked the headline (you know, that part with the really big lettering) accompanying the article?

Report: Too many whites, men leading military

Oh, you just didn't read far past the headline; now I'm getting it. Removing the actual report from the equation, you make far more sense.

I couldn't square your doom and gloom concern over undeserved promotions in an article about a stupid demographics report from the military. The only variable left in such a nonstory worth making it a story was race, which like I said, was a ridiculous tirade I'd expect from Rush, not you. But if it was just a knee jerk reaction to a poorly written headline and article...

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Gladly.
Verbatim from the clip:

"... we're gonna pay hard for this shit, you just know that. We're not gonna just fall from number one to two. They're gonna hold us down and f**k us in the ass forever, and we totally deserve it."

It's comedy, Jack. It's admittedly a bit "off color," but I wouldn't read a whole lot into it.

I realize that it's comedy, and I presumed that when I said ...

happy jack wrote:

... it's actually pretty funny.

... you would have realized that I knew it was comedy.

Yeah. It looks like I'm the one who was "reading too much into it." Sorry about that.