You miss the point, dahling.
Mr. King (whose hackery sells like hotcakes for good reason), was simply pointing out that your job options are limited when you are illiterate, which is absolutely true.
It’s also absolutely true that the military has just about the lowest standards for hiring of any major employer in the nation.
This isn’t a slam on the army. It’s a slam on illiteracy.
What we don’t need are people who claim Christ as Lord and savior deliberately twisting another’s point of view in the name of defending the servants of the imperial killing machine.

Having worked in a school for 15 years I completely agree with King’s remarks. If you leave school unable to read, your options in our current economy are few. You can try to make it living on part time work, but even that requires some level of literacy. Or you can go on the public dole for a time.
Or you can go into the military, get some basic training as a combat soldier, and be deployed into whatever conflict we are facing at the time.
I agree with EmergingPoodle, this is not a slam by an elitist. This is the recognition that for those who come through our educational system without basic reading skills there are few options for making a living.
What options do you see for them, Michele, that do not involve accepting handouts or military service?

“whose hackery sells like hotcakes for good reason”
Just because a book sells doesn’t make it a classic.
“This isn’t a slam on the army. It’s a slam on illiteracy.”
It’s obviously a slam on the military because the military does have standards. You have to be able to read to enter. It’s a slam because the left thinks those in military are there because they can’t get a job anywhere else because they are idiots. But I’m not surprised you don’t get it or understand how elitist it is.
“What we don’t need are people who claim Christ as Lord and savior deliberately twisting another’s point of view in the name of defending the servants of the imperial killing machine.”
Don’t know if you claim Christ as Lord or not but if you do, maybe you might want to look to your own glass house before you cast that stone since you seem to think nothing of slandering our military, calling them “servants of the imperial killing machine” and you might want to spend a little time mediating on Romans 13, poodle.

“Or you can go into the military, get some basic training as a combat soldier, and be deployed into whatever conflict we are facing at the time.”
They have to be able to read.
There are many people who have volunteered to go to Iraq who have college educations. People are not in Iraq because they are illiterate. It belittles their service. And maybe you can’t see that this is elitist because you are as well.
“What options do you see for them, Michele, that do not involve accepting handouts or military service?”
I see them go back and demanding a proper education.

Nobody, including King, said ‘everyone in the service is illiterate’. They said that if you ARE illiterate, it is one of the few options available to you.
And yes, you USED to have to be able to read. You USED to have to have an actual high school diploma, not even a GED. You USED to have to have a certain minimum score on the ASVAB. You USED to have to be under a certain age, under a certain weight, and have a clean record.
A lot of things have changed since then.
(From a Navy Vet, a Navy Brat, and an aunt of two nephews-in-law in the service.)

I’m a confirmed elitist but this is nonsense. You have to be able read in the military because you have to be able to figure out the operating instructions for the weapons’ systems.

OK, I’m going to weigh in here as someone who grew up in the military, who is an evangelist for the joys and absolute necessity of literacy, and as someone resolutely opposed to sending soldiers into combat as anything but a last resort; certainly not under false pretenses as is the case with our invasion of Iraq, an act which constitutes treason in my view.
The officers who worked alongside my father, the fathers of my friends when I was growing up, were among the smartest, most capable, let’s-get-it-done-and-done-right guys imaginable. They prized excellence, bravery, devotion to duty. (And many of them, by the way, had advanced degrees.) Unlike the civilian world, the military gave little weight to where you came from, what your father did, what school you had attended, who you knew. What mattered above all was whether you could get the job done, because often the lives of others depended on it. That held true for both officers and enlisted men.
The values of the military have not changed, but it has been forced to lower its standards drastically because of this misbegotten and bungled war. Junior officers are leaving at an unprecedented rate, which not only has a negative effect on present circumstances but will continue to cause serious leadership problems in the future. Morale is plummeting. Military families are under an unbelievable strain; divorce rates and domestic abuse are both on the rise. Now soldiers are being told there’s no money for a G.I. bill when they finally do get home. So it’s no wonder that the only people now enlisting are often those who have no other choice.
Enlisting in the military used to be a good option for people who couldn’t afford to go to college; it teaches discipline, self-respect, teamwork; it offers job training which is often useful in the civilian world. And we NEED a strong military. But I couldn’t encourage anyone to sign up today. The Bush administration has effectively broken the military, abused and betrayed it. That is why, when I hear people mouth empty platitudes about supporting the troops while doing nothing to end this wretched war, nothing to call a halt to the profiteering that has resulted in so many deaths of American personnel due to substandard equipment and shoddy workmanship (witness the electrocutions recently reported due to KBR), nothing to force Congress into passing the G.I. Bill (McCain opposes it), nothing to insure that injured vets get the care we promised them, it enrages me.

Absolutely, Charles. Which is why the current standards are horrid.
What they are banking on is teaching them enough functional literacy to do the bare minimum. Same as the standards on weight, the standards on age, physical condition, criminal background, ASVAB scores.
They are desperate enough to think they will be able (and willing) to do the remedial work to bring them up to the level that previous recruits had at their swearing in.

I find it interesting that you are extrapolating “all members of the Army are illiterate” from King’s remarks. That is not what he said.
And, if you will take the time to check the Army’s own recruiting standards, you will see that they now accept a greater percentage of their enlistees who fall in Tier 3 of the educational requirement: no HS or alternative diploma and not currently attending an educational institution. The Navy has recently announced that they are accepting more applicants who fall into this category.
From: http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/pdfs/enlistment_standards.pdf
3. Education
a. Possession of a high school diploma is desirable,
although not mandatory, for enlistment in any component of the
Military Services. Section 520 of reference (a) states, “A person
who is not a high school graduate may not be accepted for
enlistment in the armed forces unless the score of that person on
the Armed Forces Qualification Test is at or above the thirtyfirst
percentile; however, a person may not be denied enlistment
in the Armed Forces solely because of his not having a high school
diploma if his enlistment is needed to meet established strength
requirements.” Alternative credential holders (i.e., General
Education Development Certificates and certificates of attendance
and completion) and nongraduates may be assigned lower enlistment
priority based on their first-term attrition rates.
31st Percentile on ASQT…not terribly high a hurdle. And when my son (who is far from illiterate) asked the Navy recruiter about passing this test, he was told, “we’ll get you past any test they put in front of you, if you are serious about elisting.”
Literacy, according to our federal government (through No Child Left Behind), is defined as being able to read at a level within 12 months of actual grade level. I have seen children go through school with a reading level at least three years behind their actual grade level, and they have no problem whatsoever entering military service.
Not every person who enters the military is illiterate, Michele, and it is dishonest of you to suggest that King is saying that. What he is saying is that, in our current economy, a person who graduates high school unable to read or with deficient reading skills has few options, and that the military is often the only option open for these people.

I see them go back and demanding a proper education.
“Conservatives’ individualism comes out … in their understanding of poverty as simply a failure of personal responsibility.” (Keller, xx)
We might replace “poverty” with “illiteracy” in this example.
When did literacy become equated with elitism? Good grief.
Just because King deals in stereotypes doesn’t mean the military leaves recruits as they enter.
Twenty years in, my brother is the best person he could have been … because of his Navy training and experience.

“What they are banking on is teaching them enough functional literacy to do the bare minimum. Same as the standards on weight, the standards on age, physical condition, criminal background, ASVAB scores.”
Last year my son was courted by Army recruiters. We talked with them several times, and my son and I talked extensively about his choice. One of the conclusions that we both came to was that the Army was very willing to do whatever it took to get my son in their uniform. Weight and health standards could be fudged a bit, as could the tests. The consistent message was that there would be “no problem” for him to get into the Army.
For a student leaving HS with low reading skills, there are few employment choices available for them. Factory jobs, the refuge of the low-reader in the past, are no longer available, or those that are available require basic reading skills well beyond their capability (just go to any production line and try to run their equipment today without being able to read).
For these young men and women, the military is often the only viable option for them to make any kind of living.
This is the message King is driving at, and I am sorry you are trying to spin it, Michele.

Me: “What options do you see for them, Michele, that do not involve accepting handouts or military service?”
Michele: “I see them go back and demanding a proper education.”
ROTFLMAO…Michele, we’ve been trying to ram an education down their throats for 12 years! We’ve fought their parents, who seem to believe that their kids can do no wrong and demand that the failing grade they EARNED be changed so that their precious little student can wrestle or play football. We’ve fought their parents who consistently fail to come in for conferences, return notes home, respond to e-mails or phone calls about their student’s performance. We’ve fought their parents who ALWAYS take their child’s side in any kind of dispute, because as we all know their little angel could not have done that terrible thing (be caught with pot, get into a fight, call the teacher a (female dog), or disrupt the class so much that no one else could learn in their either).
Your’s is the typical answer of someone who has never worked in a public school, and probably has never stepped foot in one since they graduated X years ago. I’d love to invite you and your family out here to Iowa to check out any number of the schools here. I’ll even pay your way and put you up in a local hotel for a few days, just so you can see what teachers here have to put up with.
When you have done everything possible to get the child to read, and they REFUSE to read, how can that be the problem of the school, Michele? When the student consistently blows off homework assignments and repeated calls to the parents does NOTHING to improve the situation, how can that be the problem of the school, Michele?
No, Michele…nothing would make teachers and administrators in school happier than to have the kids actually DEMAND to learn to read, write, do math, and learn history. We’d LOVE it if the kids did that, or if their parents did that. But after them being AWOL for 12 years, don’t you think it’s a bit disingenuous of them to come back, after the kid is out, and demand that which they refused for the last 12 years?

Moonshadow: “Just because King deals in stereotypes doesn’t mean the military leaves recruits as they enter.
Twenty years in, my brother is the best person he could have been … because of his Navy training and experience.”
Again, I never heard King say that they left them as illiterates. Like you, I know a number of young men and women who came out of the military with excellent skills, a great education, and a fine character.
There’s a young man here in our apartment complex who served 4 years in the Navy. I recall when he was back in high school. He was your typical teen, and into many of the problem areas that teens often get into. But now, his whole demeanor has changed. He is an apprentice electrician. He holds down a good job, with good benefits. And his behavior and attitude are as solid as a rock. When you ask him about it he is very quick to credit his Navy experience for most of what he is today.
Nobody is saying that the military fails these young men and women. But what King is saying is that for those who leave school unable to read, there are pitiful few choices open to them other than the military.

i remember when i was in my early twenties and failing community college (i was enrolled in a community based corrections program–i guess i thought i was qualified because i had so many delinquent friends) and my father had had enough of me and he said if i don’t go out and get a union job (1980s!)that i had better just march my ass down to the recruiting office and sign up and learn to be a dental hygienist (good wages, security). i did go down and sign up for the required physical. i was tall, strong and healthy and the recruiter grinned widely as he said “just sign on the dotted line.” i never showed up for the physical. instead i found out about massage therapy and convinced my parents to pay for my education. my father thought i was crazy. it was a new field with no opportunities back in the early 80s.
when my daughter became a cutter and had several suicide attempts and hospitalizations in the mental health ward a friend suggested i encourage her to join the military. she said the discipline helped her daughter get through some troubles. does the military take unstable people? if they could just have turned all her anger and bipolar energy outward toward an enemy she could be an amazing killer machine! but she is a cashier at a salvation army and with all the death energy surrounding our family that is just fine by me.
on the other hand my father served 20 years in the military (hated it, but loved us and wanted us to have security and health benefits) and american soldiers liberated my grandfather from the camp he was imprisoned in in ww2. i respect a person’s sincere desire to serve their country and their fellow man. but being a young soldier does not automatically make one an angel. young airmen were notorious for hitting on us teenage girls on and off base!

And the idea that someone who is aggressive and unstable is a good candidate for warfare has been shown time and time again to be wrong. That’s why the old ‘prison or the military’ choice (an actual one, not an elitist saying) was eliminated.
The very worst soldier is one who likes violence and looks forward to killing. Not on a moral, but as a discipline and strategic level. They tend to be problem soldiers and often are the type responsible for the sort of behavior that lands them in Levenworth.

Karen: “The very worst soldier is one who likes violence and looks forward to killing. Not on a moral, but as a discipline and strategic level. They tend to be problem soldiers and often are the type responsible for the sort of behavior that lands them in Levenworth.”
It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between the lowering the standards for enlistment with regards to criminal convictions and arrests and the increase in the number of violent incidents within the military (rapes, sexual assaults, mistreatment of prisoners, etc.).

Oh, and the dishonorables for similar activities IN the military.

Michele, when you are wrong, you are so spectacularly wrong it makes you look worse than foolish, it makes you look dumb.
“It’s obviously a slam on the military because the military does have standards. You have to be able to read to enter.”
You also have to be able to read to enter Grade 4, no?
Like EmergingPoodle said, “the military has just about the lowest standards for hiring of any major employer in the nation”
Not only that, now they are upping their quota of criminals and gang members they hire.
“It’s a slam because the left thinks those in military are there because they can’t get a job anywhere else because they are idiots.”
No, even idiots can get deferrals. George W(armonger) Bush comes to mind, and we all know about his glorious service to his country, eh?
The apparently qualified yelladawgNC gets it right: “The values of the military have not changed, but it has been forced to lower its standards drastically because of this misbegotten and bungled war.”
Not to mention the Imbecile-in-Chief also won’t let eminently qualified Arabic translators do their job because they love people of the same sex. Beyond not letting them DO their jobs, he FIRES them from their job. Talk about STOOPID!
Seems you have deliberately spun King’s words and got his meaning entirely wrong (as several comboxers point out above). That you chose to do this twice (2 separate threads on the same topic) doesn’t speak well to your comprehension level.
Your comment, “Just because a book sells doesn’t make it a classic”, (although true) simply makes you sound petty. How many bestsellers have YOU written? Besides, who is to say “Carrie” (or any of King’s other numerous #1 best-sellers) ISN’T a “classic”?

“How many bestsellers have YOU written”
To make a judgment on a writer the question isn’t how many books I’ve written, the question is how many I’ve read. And enough to know what I’m talking about. But don’t listen to me, go read the reviews of his books yourself.
“Carrie” *snicker* “A classic” *snicker* are you serious?

Michele,
Your original comment was “Just because a book sells doesn’t make it a classic”, so I still believe my question as to how many books that “sell” you’ve written was both fair and pertinent. I think that’s a fair question because it had to do with your comment – just exactly how well do your books “sell”?.
Note, I didn’t ask how many GOOD books you had written – that would have been in response to your calling Mr. King a “hack”, iow it regards the quality of the books in question. I could now ask how many GOOD books you’ve written, or I could just dismiss you as another mere “hack” bloggiste based not on the quantity of what you type but the quality of its content.
And yes, I was partly kidding about “Carrie”. However, I would NOT be kidding if I had mentioned “The Shining”. Or maybe “The Green Mile”. Or “The Stand”, or “Hearts in Atlantis”, or “Misery”, or “Needful Things”, or … (well, I haven’t listed even a 10th of his novels let alone any of his screen plays, but I hope by now you get my point).
And I am very sure that horror afficianadoes would indeed consider “Carrie” to be a ‘classic’, just not in your sense of the word.
Oh, and don’t let’s forget his book, “On Writing”. Seems he can not only write – both WELL and prolifically – he also has the bigness of heart to share with other aspiring writers some actual tips on how to be a better, more successful writer.
What’s the name of YOUR book on successful ‘writing’? It seems to have slipped my mind.
Speaking of snickering …

Further to Michele’s denigration of Stephen King as a “hack writer”, seems Mr. King was a “Recipient of the National Book Foundation’s Medal for DISTINGUISHED CONTRIBUTION TO AMERICAN LETTERS AWARD, 2003″.
So much silence on this from Michele. It speaks volumes about your mean-spirited, unbased but certainly biased attack.