Sam -- 250 from South Boston is what share of the populaion and 10 is what share of the Harvard population?

For all I know Harvard sent a larger share of its population to Vietnam than South Boston.

Yeah, right. Southie, in those days, had a population of around 20,000 or so -- that's adults and draft-age kids. Put the draft-age population at about, say, 4,000. In the same time period, Harvard had a student population of around 16,000 -- draft-age kids. I lived in Cambridge during the war years, and I guarantee you they weren't racing down to the recruiting station to enlist. And we're not even counting who didn't go from MIT (just up Mass Ave from Harvard).

The population of south boston in 2000 was 29,965.
250 is 0.8% of that.

The Harvard graduating class is normally around 400.

10 is 2.5% of that. If you use the entire undergrad enrollment of around 1,600 the 10 would be around 0.6%, or about the same share as that of south boston.

You are just throwing around meaningless numbers.

For all I know Harvard sent a larger share of its population to Vietnam than South Boston.

Do you have the answer to this question?

Or, are you just throwing around meaningless numbers?

This politicization of the troops and his son is anti-American. What a scum.

Triumph: were you similarly critical of Palin and McCain?

No, that's the price you pay for creating a sense that wars are something "other people" fight. Starting with Vietnam, it became remarkable for the sons of the rich to fight our nation's wars.

James... dead on. In Vietnam and the years after, if one could avoid Military service, one did. My ex-brother in law got into the National Gaurd and made no bones about it: His mother was very well politically connected and she did not want to see her only son die in a war no one cared about, so she got him into the NG (which meant, back then, "Not Going")

Times are different now, and I can only second James original thought:

"Godspeed to Beau, Track, and all the others."

May they all come back....

Starting with Vietnam, it became remarkable for the sons of the rich to fight our nation's wars.

Mark Shields had a stat he used to cite that went something like this:

South Boston sent 250 of its sons to fight in Vietnam, in the same time period, 10 went from Harvard.

I actually like the fact that three of the candidates on the two main tickets have children who have served or are now serving in Iraq or afghanistan-or in the case of McCain with two sons in the military-one just hasn't finished his schooling yet at the Naval Academy. It is clear they do have a stake in what is going on beyond the political one.

No, that's the price you pay for creating a sense that wars are something "other people" fight. Starting with Vietnam, it became remarkable for the sons of the rich to fight our nation's wars

How often since Vietnam have we had a war large enough to prompt those sons to enlist? Between 1992 and 2001, what service would the sons of the rich really been had they enlisted?

That's the price you pay for peace.

No, that's the price you pay for creating a sense that wars are something "other people" fight. Starting with Vietnam, it became remarkable for the sons of the rich to fight our nation's wars.

Decades ago, it would not have been the least bit remarkable that the sons of politicians were headed in to harm’s way when the nation is at war. Nowadays, though, it’s simply astounding.

That's the price you pay for peace.