Though I actually agree in a roundabout way with some of what John Leo has to say here -- the paucity of military experience among this generation of journalists is problematic (just as it is for CEOs and congressmen and teachers and salesmen and bloggers, as a matter of fact) -- this graf doesn't pass the giggle test:

In all my years in journalism, I don't think I have met more than one or two reporters who have ever served in the military or who even had a friend in the armed forces. Most media hiring today is from universities, where a military career is regarded as bizarre and almost any exercise of American power is considered wrongheaded or evil. [Emph added]

Really, now. An entire generation of journalists was under arms in World War II, and John Leo, who isn't exactly a cub reporter, has only met "one or two" with military experience? Hell, I've met more than that -- and it seems pretty safe to assume that Mr. Leo enjoys a wider journalistic acquaintanceship than yours truly.

So, what gives? Why would a respected conservative columnist tell what appears to be such a transparent untruth? I dunno. But I sure hope Chatterbox is paying attention.