Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

From WTVD in NC:

RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) — Dozens of undocumented students at Wake Technical Community College are pushing for changes to a policy that requires them to pay out-of-state tuition.

The students are forced to pay the out-of-state fees, which are nearly four times the cost of in-state tuition, even if they graduated from a North Carolina high school and have been living in the state for some time.

They broke into your house and camped out on the couch and now they claim they live there and it’s their house.

They’re undocumented students the way a drug dealer is an “unlicensed pharmacist” or a rapist is an “unexpected sex partner”.

Five students were arrested at Thursday’s protest after repeated warnings to leave the campus. Wake Tech officials said the group didn’t file the proper paperwork to protest at the college. The five individuals, ranging in age from 17-27, are all charged with second-degree trespassing.

Meanwhile, undocumented students moved their demonstration to the highway demanding equal tuition rights.

“I think it’s discriminatory because they give us the opportunity already to be able to study here. We work really hard,” said undocumented student Jose Rico.

They should all be deported.  Every last one of them.  This smug, snotty entitlement mentality of a criminal alien who’s breaking the laws and benefiting from laws they broke needs to end.  They shouldn’t be getting second-degree trespassing convictions, they should be getting deported by ICE.

Illegal aliens who’ve broken into the US are demanding in-state tuition there in NC.  In many states, these invaders already have it.  (NE comes to mind.)

Meanwhile, US citizen veterans who are from the state of NC are forced to pay out-of-state tuition:

Some military service members and veterans are being denied their most well-known government benefit: college tuition coverage.

Ted Spencer, a Navy veteran who grew up in Charlotte, N.C., continued to pay the state income tax during his service. But he was denied the in-state tuition rate at North Carolina State University because military service had taken him to California.

The federal government covers the cost of the $8,000 per year in-state rate, but Spencer needed loans and scholarships to cover the $22,000 out-of-state tab.

“It’s mind-blowing to me that North Carolina – a state that is known for being extremely military friendly and home to the largest military base in the United States – would be so difficult when it comes to military veterans who want to call this state home,” Spencer said.

This is the case in other states as well.  Illegal aliens get in-state tuition while veterans pay out of state.  Residents, legal immigrants and citizens of the United States pay out-of-state tuition in neighboring states, while illegal aliens who are criminal invaders from another country get in-state tuition – benefits denied to citizens and legal immigrants.

The US is about the only nation where someone can break into your house and demand to stay because they’re inside the house now, while the guy peacefully ringing the doorbell is kept out and your kid is kicked out of his room by the home invader.  We need comprehensive immigration reform that cuts out all exceptions and requires ICE and the fedgov to do their jobs and deport every last illegal, no exceptions, no waivers, no patience for liars about asylum – deport them all.

I’m in the process of reading Michael Lee Lanning’s “Inside the LRRPs – Rangers in Vietnam”.  It’s a good book, and nestled in the middle of Chapter 6: The Men With Painted Faces, where he discusses how LRRPs recruited their men and officers, is this quote:

While colleges and universities were a prime source of officers for all of the services, they also were a haven for those more interested in maintaining their draft-exempt status than in education itself.  The length of the Vietnam War and this draft loophole produced America’s most-educated generation, as students stayed in college past undergraduate level to earn masters, doctorates, law degrees, or anything to remain deferred until the magical age of twenty-six, when a young man was no longer draft eligible.

It’s stated so succinctly that it encapsulates and explains a major leftist swing in academia.

Those who stayed on for years and years in college were often those who sought to elude the draft, who hated the war (though many were fine with war for their own causes), and who thought they were more intelligent than those around them.  Certainly years and years in academia resulted in increased knowledge, even if it was devoid of wisdom or experience necessary to frame that knowledge.  They hated the war, yet they would ultimately side with LBJ and his “Great Society” social experiments as they became the educated ruling class.   They decided they knew, and now know, what’s best for everyone else.

With degrees and experience, they could get into government jobs, with their education – a luxury just a few decades before, they could now take the lead in society with their papered cleverness.  Those who stayed in academia then set the tone for future generations of leftist academics.

It becomes crystal clear in retrospect that so many of our nation’s current problems and things that make traditionalists’, conservatives’, and libertarians’ eyes roll – like a toy gun buyback in California – stem from the fact that our nation’s education system was demographically remade in the late 1960s and early 1970s by people whose defining trait was cowardice.

While it may not be a new revelation, and of course exceptions existed and remain, that trait has stayed dominant into the present day, and permeated education, society and culture.

Milton Friedman’s distilled short version of why vouchers work:

HotAir has the news roundup on Alabama’s introduction of a voucher system, where the left reacted with rage.

Milton Friedman’s elaborate, thorough version of why vouchers work, why centralization is a problem, and why decentralization and freedom to choose solves many educational problems:

Around 18:40, he begins to discuss “the modern view”, which is much of what Cass Sunstein and the masters-of-men anointed elite regulators believe.  Friedman then goes on to explain how that relates to schooling, and the collectivist vs. individualist view of the purpose of education.

Because it had rifles on it.

An Illinois father wants a school district to reconsider its dress code after his son was asked to remove a U.S. Marines T-shirt or be suspended, FoxNews.com has learned.

Daniel McIntyre, 44, of Genoa, told FoxNews.com that his 14-year-old son, Michael, was asked to remove the T-shirt by eighth-grade teacher Karen Deverell during reading class at Genoa-Kingston Middle School on Monday. Deverell, citing the school’s dress code, said the garment’s interlocking rifles was problematic and had to be removed from sight, McIntyre said.

If that’s the case, most Marines in uniform above the rank of PFC wouldn’t be allowed in.

usmc rank structure

I’m sure his school administrators would’ve loved one like this:

black peace shirt

And there are plenty of military-themed shirts that are far more aggressively styled.

That guy sitting two seats to the left sure doesn’t like having someone much smarter than he is telling him he’s wrong.

Mary Katherine Ham at HotAir begins to ask why men are falling behind in education, while women’s education is improving vastly:

Even addressing the issue of male academic underachievement can result in backlash from people incensed that society would bother caring about the disadvantages of men after spending decades and centuries ignoring the disadvantages of women. I understand that impulse, but as a person who cares deeply about her brothers, father, husband, and the possibility of raising decent men, should the opportunity arise, I have to care. Many others would no doubt feel the same if the problem were addressed with any frequency.

Boys score as well as or better than girls on most standardized tests, yet they are far less likely to get good grades, take advanced classes or attend college. Why? A study coming out this week in The Journal of Human Resources gives an important answer. Teachers of classes as early as kindergarten factor good behavior into grades — and girls, as a rule, comport themselves far better than boys.

She could begin to find the answer to the question here:

In fact, the greatest danger I see to us right now is that in our desperation to bend over and give women everything they want and everything that they say they need, we’ve unbalanced society to the point where we’re just in danger of seriously toppling over.

And really, the only difference I see between the traditional role and the new one for men with respect to disposability is that maleness, manhood – it used to be celebrated, it used to be admired, and it used to be rewarded – because it was really fucking necessary and because the personal cost of it to individual men was so incredibly high.

But now, we still expect men to put women first, we still expect society to put women first, and we still expect men to not complain about coming in dead last every damn time.  But men don’t even get our admiration anymore.  All they get in return is to hear about what assholes they are.

GirlWritesWhat has a rather large video series where she breaks down what’s going on in the gender politics realm, and how the feminist movement often ignores the fact that women have held a lot more power than they often claim.  These two videos wreak utter havoc on many feminist arguments.

When taken in that context, it’s easy to see why boys are falling behind.  Traditionally strong male roles are demonized, while the idea of male privilege (which was there to balance for male disposability) is still believed to hold some kind of influence.  Girls still get the advantages of traditional chivalrous protection, and now they get institutions that seek to “balance the scale”.  Girls are favored, boys are not.  Girls are given advantages while boys are told they’re the oppressor and that they’re needed as much as a fish needs a bicycle – because that’s how the educators view them as well.

It’s a cultural shift, much of it pushed by feminists of both genders and chivalrous men who wanted to put women higher on a pedestal with regards to the rest of life – who didn’t understand, didn’t know, or didn’t care what the effects of neglecting one gender at the expense of the other would mean.  We can see throughout the Middle East what nations that denigrate women amount to; and now we’re beginning to see what a nation that denigrates men amounts to.

Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children. Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This “pre-adulthood” has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it’s time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn’t bring out the best in men.

It’s been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.

Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man. But these rational choices on the part of women only serve to legitimize men’s attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There’s nothing they have to do.

They might as well just have another beer.

Thomas Sowell’s quote about traditions being the distilled experience of millions of lives holds here quite well.  While some traditional roles that involve male disposability may start to decline as society advances (and some have), and some that involve protection of females decline, throwing all those gender roles away has led to big problems as well.

Interesting the WSJ writer’s use of the term sand box.  She uses it euphemistically to discuss a play area for child-men, but there are plenty of men in another sandbox on the other side of the world out doing traditional male roles as well (and some women who are also there out of their own sense of civic virtue – which goes to their personal character and changes in culture that allow them to serve – without sidetracking this too far).  Traditional roles aren’t totally broken everywhere – but that speaks to a different part of American culture.

Drudge has these three stories stacked together to tell a larger story this morning.

Armed Guard Disarmed Teen In Atlanta School Shooting

Atlanta • A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

Wayne LaPierre’s simple statement proves true again, and those who reject defense seem that much more foolish.

Georgia School Had Metal Detectors

ATLANTA (AP) — A middle school where a 14-year-old boy was shot and wounded in the neck by a fellow student had metal detectors, and school officials were investigating how the shooter made it past them.

At airports, we have metal detectors.  The objective is to control points of entry to airports, and guarantee that most weapons are prevented from getting on the plane.  The TSA’s intrusive measures and the treatment of everyone like a criminal (they even molest pilots who could fly the plane into the ground if they so chose) are somewhat akin to gun control – they focus on tools and not on people with ill intentions.  But for the moment, let’s look at how they use metal detectors to deter weapons with metal parts from being brought onto airplanes.  This is airport security:

airport security

See those big silver, gray, and black things?  Those are metal detectors.  See those other things that are varied colors up top, mostly blue in the middle, and black on the bottom, with a shiny spot on their top right corner?  Those are guards.  Some may be armed, some may not be armed.  Some just act as screeners, some act as responders.  The metal detector is just a tool.  The person doing the guarding is what makes the difference.

So how could he get past the metal detectors?  By walking.  How did he get past the guards is what people should be asking.

An off-duty armed resource officer who was at the school was able to grab the gun away from the suspect, who was taken into custody. Charges against the shooter were pending, Campos said.

Or they should be asking why the guard who was there was off-duty and why they’re relying on his dedication to be there on his own time – or just luck that he was there, and why they don’t have full-time guards.

And the third story: Newtown Calls For Armed School Officers

The Newtown Board of Education wants more armed police officers in the towns four elementary schools after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary last month.

Last night, they decided to ask the town to approve the request to include one additional full-time Newtown police at each of the elementary schools in next year’s budget.

Today, members of the board will be meeting with state and federal officials about obtaining additional funding for security.

“Our parents are demanding of us that things are made safe and secure and certain measures are put in place,” Chairwoman Debbie Leidlein said. “So we’re being very thoughtful.”

Remember, that federal school security funding was stuff that Obama cut off.

 

From Brandon Smith at Alt-market.com:

Obama’s more aggressive socialist support base (useful idiots) along with the establishment controlled mainstream media are attempting to squeeze every last ounce of political advantage from the Newtown massacre to gain superiority in a battle over one of the last portions of the Constitution that people still seem willing to fight and die for:  The 2nd Amendment.

In the past few days I have seen an unprecedented tidal wave of media stories promoting anti-gun sentiments and prejudice against gun ownership.  Counterpoints to this philosophy are almost never given credence in print or on television, and when they are, gun rights advocates are interrupted with incessant Alinsky arguments attacking their characters or distracting away from the real issues.  What the MSM is attempting to do (blatantly and shamelessly I might add) is to create the illusion of consensus.  Through a deluge of constant propaganda, they hope to implant the false perception that a “majority” of Americans are in support of strict gun control or even confiscation.

The problem is more people like the NRA than like the media.

Smith cites a specific Reuters piece, and dissects it:

What is the author’s ultimate methodology?  What edict does he hope the Obama Administration will implement?  Use the threat of lost federal funding to force schools across the country to institute government approved “gun safety and violence prevention” programs.

But what does he mean by “violence prevention”?  The author dances around the specifics of the issue while throwing out a couple small placations to states rights advocates, but slips up by admitting he wants the gun control ideology taught to schoolchildren while blaming the American “gun culture” as equally responsible for the attack at Newtown:

“…Public debate and discussion about the role of guns and gun culture in American society must be a key component of that process. The question that many Americans will be asking is: Why did the shooting occur and how can we prevent another shooting in the future? It is not just that guns are available, it’s also the culture that surrounds them. It’s about the people and the tools, not one or the other. A comprehensive attempt at gun control would better inform Americans about gun safety and the hazards of guns. But how best to do that? I offer one possible solution: the power of federal government intervention through schools.”

“…the Obama administration would begin to chip away at a culture of violence that is clearly deeply rooted across the country…If we can link federal funds to mandatory standardized testing then we can certainly do the same for gun-control education. This will not only be a practical step to ensure that an event like the Newtown shooting does not happen again. It’s also a moral one to combat a culture that’s buying an increasing number of guns—guns that can easily have dire effects in the future.”

And there you have it.  The answer, according to gun grabbers, is to force schools to reeducate your children to fear and disdain the very idea of gun ownership.  This is almost the equivalent of a “Prima Nocta” policy against the gun rights movement.  Essentially the Reuters author’s philosophy is to “breed us out”, taking away our ability to pass on our 2nd Amendment principles to our children through propaganda conditioning, instead of trying to fight us head on.

Is this really the point we have come to in America?  Where hack journalists feel no qualms about openly calling for the execution of political propaganda in public schools to manipulate little kids into believing what the establishment wants them to believe?  I realize that this is sadly already happening in many ways, but it has always been a subversive and secretive process because, well…because it is abhorrent and they know it!  Now, they openly petition for it as if it should be commonly accepted?!

Here is the bottom line:  If you can’t convince people through rational debate that your position is the correct one, and, if you have to threaten them, lie to them, or brainwash them before they will adopt your ideas, then there is something wrong with your ideas.  The truth wins out eventually under its own power.  Only disinformation needs to be forcefully injected into the public consciousness.  Obviously, there are a great many truths behind the concepts of individual self defense and gun ownership if gun grabbers find it impossible to prevail without subverting our youth.

It’s a good piece, and worth reading the whole thing.

HotAir has a good roundup of quotes on Obama’s exploitation of kids here.  It’s worth looking at a couple of them closer.

From Brendan O’Neill of Sp!ked:

There was something nauseating about the way Barack Obama surrounded himself with children as he unveiled his gun control plans. It looked like emotional blackmail. “Look these innocent babes in the face and tell them guns are good” – that was the implicit message of this cynical, innocence-exploiting press conference, which brought to mind one of the late Wacko Jacko’s weird child-centred peace concerts more than it did a serious Lincoln-style presidential address. What Obama and his advisers appear to have overlooked is that it doesn’t matter one jot what children think of guns, or anything else for that matter: politics is an adult business, and should be shaped by adult arguments, not childish fears.

Obama’s anti-gun stunt was a see-through attempt to circumvent the democratic realm of grown-up debate and competing interests by laying down the trump card marked, “But what about the children?!” In the wake of the horrific Newtown school massacre, Obama received numerous letters from upset children, and he cynically decided to scan and publish them on the White House website and then invite the letter-writers to attend his big gun-control announcement. “I just wanted to tell you that I feel really sad”, says one of the kiddie letters. “Can we stop using GUNS? I am really scared of guns and criminals around the world.” This is probably the first time in history (and let’s hope it’s the last) that a 200-year-old constitution fought for tooth-and-catapult might be rewritten on the basis of what a precocious eight-year-old felt as she watched the evening news.

While it’s interesting and fairly important to note that young folks almost ready to vote (or young voters) actually want to buy guns, what’s unimportant is an elementary schooler’s opinions.  Though it is worth noting how those opinions are manufactured by the left via subversion through teaching, because, again, they control education.

The use of children to front a potentially big overhaul of Americans’ constitutional rights is really about silencing dissent, exploiting the wide-eyed innocence of worried children to try to shame those adults who still dare to say: “But what about my constitutional rights?” Indeed, it is normally only the most censorious, authoritarian regimes or groups that use children to front or follow through political campaigns. Who can forget the Child Spies in George Orwell’s 1984, those “ungovernable little savages” whose simplistic moralism made them the perfect monitors of adult behaviour? Today, all sorts of fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-masses campaigns – from Green efforts to guilt-trip us over our carbon use to Mary Whitehouse-style demands to censor wicked art – exploit or evoke children to get their message across. And that message is: “It doesn’t matter what you adults believe or want or desire – the feelings of children are way more important.”

Of course, the left is governed by those same impulses and feelings, just with fancier wording.

From Ben Shapiro:

“What you tend to do is you tend to demonize people who differ from you politically by standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook, saying they don’t seem to care enough about the dead kids.” Morgan could only stammer, “How dare you!”

A few nights later, he invited me on again, specifically to stand once again on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook — only this time, he would bring the parents of those children to make the imagistic point. His counterargument to accusation was to prove the veracity of my accusation.

But that’s all the left’s got on issues ranging from gun control to the debt ceiling: appeals to emotion and to the supposed moral shortcomings of their opposition.

It’s the emotional appeal.  To the low-information voter, whether because life gets in the way, or because they’re disinterested, or because they’ve been dissuaded and demoralized due to circumstance or tactics to keep them from voting, it’s an emotions game.  That’s why we have a republic – to prevent the angry lynch mob of democracy that the Founders understood could only be checked by strong rule of law and a deliberative republic.

And seperately, from Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner:

Whenever a politician proposes a policy surrounded by children, skepticism is in order. But skepticism, logic and sound argumentation are the enemies of President Obama in his gun control push, which kicked off Wednesday on a White House stage filled with kids.

After December’s Sandy Hook massacre, Obama has reached deeper than usual into his bag of debater’s tricks and rhetorical ploys. He assigns evil motives to those who disagree with him on policy. He tries to pre-empt cost-benefit analysis with facile assertions that any policy is mandatory if it will save “only one life.” And the most contentious policy he seeks — a ban on so-called assault weapons — has near zero correlation to the problem he claims to be addressing.

Obama on Wednesday told voters to ask their congressman “what’s more important, doing whatever it takes to get an A grade from the gun lobby that funds their campaigns, or giving parents some peace of mind when they drop their child off for first grade?”

Obama’s direct and unmistakable implication: The only reason to oppose an “assault weapons ban” is for campaign contributions. In his press conference, he credited “an economic element” to “those who oppose any common-sense gun control or gun safety measures.”

Obama rules out the possibility that some people deeply value the constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms. Concerns about unintended consequences? Obama doesn’t acknowledge those. Anyone studying the 1994 “assault weapons ban” can see it did little to curb violence. But in Obama’s mind, that argument is just another cover story for “I Want More NRA Contributions!”

It’s called projection.

It’s one of the reasons why conservatives can understand what leftists are thinking, but the left lacks the thought necessary to figure out what conservatives stand for.

Former Texas State Representative and Luby’s Massacre survivor Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp said these words that are allow instant understanding of almost every political figure:

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

Generals are ultimately politicians, and retired General McChrystal gave his opinion the other day on how citizens shouldn’t own effective guns.  It’s also worth noting he’s lived on military bases where everyone is disarmed except for the military police.  His interactions as a younger officer are often dealing with discipline problems among troops.  I have little doubt this has colored many of his views about what people should be allowed to do and what they shouldn’t be allowed to do.

Now yesterday, he says this:

I personally believe that national service is important for the nation, and that’s having all young people serve a term of national service. Certainly not all military. But I believe those things do have two effects. One, those things that bind people to their nation are important, and another thing is that we’re also a nation that doesn’t get to know each other too well. Someone from one part of an inner city never meets another person from an upper class neighborhood. We need some things that pull people together in shared experience. We need to be ten years after the fact when they are meeting somewhere, ‘Where did you serve?’ begins a connection that allows them to move on because we are getting too fragmented in my view.

No.

We don’t need a peacetime draft.  During wartime, if it’s necessary, it’s one of the burdens placed upon members of a society.  During peacetime, it’s an expansion of standing armies that we don’t need.

McChrystal is pushing for a draft (or alternate service) as some kind of a “shared experience” and cultural social program.  He wants to bring people together by herding them into military camps so they can have “experiences”.

The reason for the slow, ongoing Balkanization of the US is that there are politicians who benefit from the Curley Effect (Democrats) and encourage it.  The reason someone from one part of an inner city never meets another person from an upper class neighborhood is because the limousine liberal has made the inner city dude his pet cause – someone he taxes the suburban joe to subsidize – while all the while hating both; and driving wedges between Americans.  Look at the tax fight for the last few months wherein Democrats fought the government to a standstill so they could begin to liquidate the Kulaks.

There isn’t a lack of connection because of lack of military service – there’s a lack of connection because social engineer politicians have developed their constiutencies that way.  Instituting another social engineering program – that of a peacetime draft for “service” is just as bad.

The reason we honor military men and women is because they provide the peace that we enjoy.  They fight so we don’t have to – that’s why they’re given respect.  I fought so others wouldn’t have to.  It’s a volunteer military for a reason.

America is supposed to be a society without classes and castes.  In many places, it still is.  Ranchers who own 20,000 acre spreads still talk to their ranchhands, and while one’s the employer and the other the employee, that’s all there is.  They aren’t from different classes, just different income levels.  In cities where half the people or more live off handouts extracted from the other half at gunpoint by a sliver of a redistributor class, there is a divide – and it’s a divide that didn’t used to exist.

McChrystal is one of those who believes Americans to be a crowd that needs to be lorded over and controlled, supervised and taken care of.  The whole reason we have the class problems we do now is precisely because of social engineer progressive politicians like him.  Instituting one more policy will only exacerbate the harm as it brings people into the military who don’t want to be there.  Try telling the 47% that get handouts that they owe someone else something and are being drafted.  That’s going to lead to a schism within the military and a breakdown of good order and discipline all around.  People whose lives consist of “gimme gimme gimme” are not going to be exemplars of civic virtue and rectitude.

Leftists often lament the fact that the military is becoming more rural and Southern, but that was going on well before they started noticing it.  That all started happening because their own institutions and beliefs demonized the military.  Those in deep blue states often don’t have much interest in the military because it often stands counter to ideas they’ve been taught.

The idea of self-sacrifice by choice in order to preserve the liberties of their land is alien to people in a world where the government disarms them, won’t let them drink a 16 0z soda or have a cigarette.  Their liberties have been taken by their masters, they have nothing to stand up for.

(Also keep in mind that the people in those deep blue states are the kind that reward, promote, protect and have as educators the terrorists who planned to kill troops and their dates at an NCO dance at Ft. Dix.  So as a general rule, should it be surprising that someone who’s venerated by the left as an educational hero, and who dominates education and brainwashes the children for 12 years, might be an indicator of why there’s a divide?)

That whole cultural divide has been built with a lot of effort by devotees of Cloward and Piven and the Curley Effect.  If you want to change it, you don’t change a victim of 12 years of state-sponsored indoctrination and expect it to wear off in 2-3 months of training.  You get rid of the 12 years of indoctrination.

Now, if the retired general was advocating something like Starship Troopers, wherein completion of voluntary service risking one’s life was required to vote, I could see the logic to that.  He’s trying the reverse.  He’s trying to make everyone serve in order to instill virtue and understanding that cannot be instilled.  If he was saying “hey, if you aren’t willing to put your butt on the line and ‘some skin in the game’, then you don’t get a voice when it comes to government”, he’d find some sympathy for that – but he’s also find that 47% of handout voters would be vehemently against it because they’ve been trained by their political leaders to vote themselves largesse.  This is also why McChrystal’s draft will never pass, and why even if he wished it into existence, it would never work – he’d be drafting people with this mentality:

ask not what you can do for your country ask what your country can do for you occupy

All you’ll do with someone of that mentality is waste the military’s time and add to the 10% of shitbirds already there who join up anyway.  Drafting them in peacetime will be a failure in every way.