Monday, May 21, 2007

Teachers and Students Don't Show Open-mindedness Towards Those Entering West Point

The New York Post has a story about New York City members of West Point's Class of 2007, the first graduating class that entered West Point after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Unfortunately, the article had to be called "Cadets Battle on the Home Front".

"Everybody was all busy protesting the war at the time," Marya Rosenberg, of the Upper East Side, recalls of her decision to go to the USMA after her graduation from elite Hunter HS.

"I had one girl ask me what I was thinking about doing for college, and when I told her, she said, 'How could you do something so immoral?' They made fun of me in the yearbook."


The yearbook. That's not a free press issue, it's the freakin' yearbook. Where was the adult in charge when the decision was made to mock a student in the yearbook? Ah, the open-mindedness, the compassion of liberals.

Mark Zambarda, 21, a Staten Island resident and son of an NYPD narcotics detective, found even his mother hoping that he would quit West Point.

"I encouraged him to get out if he could," said Nancy Zambarda, a Merrill Lynch administrator who wanted her bright son to apply to medical school. "As the reality of it started setting in, as a parent, I really got scared."


Nothing like having your parents support you in chasing your dreams, I guess.

"One of the teachers, when I walked down the hall in my uniform, yelled, 'No blood for oil!' " she said. "Then I talked to my old art history teacher . . . and I wanted to tell him I'm taking a bunch of art history courses now. He was, like, 'Oh, so you'll know what [the] buildings are before you drop bombs on them.' "


Words fail me. Well, the four-letter ones don't, but the ones I can write here do.

8 comments:

David said...

"They face the grimmest odds of any in the last century of warfare. New York magazine reports that of the almost 3,800 military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, 49 have been U.S. Military Academy alumni. That's three times the percentage of graduate deaths in Vietnam, six times higher than former cadets in World War II, and 13 times the proportion of those killed in World War I."

Even if these numbers are correct, they're using a strange definition of "odds." What they appear to be referring to is the proportion of the overall deaths represented by West Pointers. What people normally mean by "odds" in this context is the probability of an individual's survival, and by that measurement their odds are certainly better than than WWII and probably also the other wars cited.

Law and Order Teacher said...

I only wish the media and politicians who insist that they support the troops would get rid of the disguise and tell the truth about their feelings against the military. We have teachers in our building like the ones cited here. They have more compassion and respect for students who go to jail than they do for military members. All I hear is how horrible the military is and in the next breath they speak with compassion for those students who choose break the law. I try to explain that the military is great start for some to learn self-discipline and goal setting. It also is a good way to pay for their education. I paid my way through college on the GI Bill and it was Godsend for me. I just wish they could muster the same compassion and respect for students who choose to join the military. We're against the war but for the troops. My a**!

allen said...

I wonder what percentage of the officer corp were graduates of West Point in the wars mentioned by the author? Certainly the manpower requirements of World War One and Two would have vastly outstripped the capacity of West Point. That means some percentage of the officer corp would've been civilians who met the educational requirements or OCS graduates.

The substantial improvements in communication and transportation technology would've reduced the percentage of personnel devoted to logistics, releasing a greater percentage to combat assignments.

Nigel said...

Meh. This isn't the first time that many of the American public feels a certain amount of distain/embarassment towards the US military.

Once again, we are in a war that is not widely supported—and unfortunately, the soldiers feel the brunt of the animosity. Hell, I don't support the Iraq War in the slightest, but I support the soldiers 100%.

Unless they do something stupid like Abu Gharab (spelling?), then they're—you guessed it—just stupid.

I certainly won't join the military, and I sure hope my children don't (unless, of course, we're in a time of peace or at the very least involved in a cause worth fighting), but I have a substantial amount of respect for that in uniform.

I wish people wouldn't blame the soldiers for the faults of the administration——regardless of the circumstances.

Mike said...

Oh dear. Too dirt-stupid to understand that their way of life, and ultimately their very lives, depend upon our soldiers, and too ill-bred to behave like responsible adults. And these maroons are teaching?

David said...

For a related story, see my post An Incident at the Movies.

Darren said...

Yet these same people would be among the first to go when *their* buddies take over. No fascists like the intelligentsia.

Catch Thiry Thr33 said...

As a Reservist, I don't think Nigel has one drop of respect for the military, contrary to what he thinks. He allegedly supports the troops, but not the mission. (Meaning he just thinks it's GREAT if we surrender RIGHT NOW.) He doesn't want his children to join the military...unless, of course, it's peacetime, and he is given the luxury to pick and choose the battles to support.
News flash to Nigel and these teachers quoted in this story: freedom is NOT free. It MUST be fought for and earned.