Navy was in my 6th/8th graders school yesterday recruiting I AM LIVID!

what is the law?... i think it is alright to recruit on career day to seniors/jrs but to come into my 6th graders classroom and hand out Navy water bottles(sports gear) and talk to them of all the great opertunities the military offers is insidious without telling them that they will be made to kill and be killed too!

please help me with this before in go into the school admin and board with my protests...is it legal?

the Marines were in last m,onth and i let it go...but now i am about to implode!


Figure 1 - Mobile Van visiting New Mexico Schools

The U.S. Army and Navy Recruiting Commands are deploying a powerful recruiting weapon and they're using America's schoolyards and classrooms to do it. "The Army Cinema Vans, the Army Cinema Pods, the Army Adventure Van, the Rockwall and the Navy Exhibit Centers are crisscrossing the country as we speak, with high-tech "educational" shows that glamorize military life" http://awol.objector.org/mobile.html

but in the No Child Left Behind Act, the schools are supposed to give out your child's information to the Defense Dept. so they can send propaganda to your house.

I am not sure about this issue though. Although not literally on par, it is almost like the city-state of Sparta recruiting seven year olds for battle.

I am currently serving in my 19TH year in the Navy. For the most part, it has been a wonderful, life changing experience. We need more "liberals" in the military. There is nothing wrong with serving your country. Please don't bash the military. We are not all RAMBO.

As a former recruiter, this is what we call a SEED program. You plant the seed of "service with honor" and hope that some of these folks will grow into our future leaders. You'd have to stop all the NJROTC Programs, Sea Cadet Programs, and a bunch of other helpful recruiting tools.

No one is recruiting a 6th grader. You can not join the military until you are at least 17 and have graduated from HS. Even then, at 17, you need both parents permission.

Stop and think for a minute about the great Democratic leaders that have served this country. You'd have to think of Democrats, because you won't find many Repukes.

"any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile...can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction, 'I served in the United States Navy'" - John F Kennedy

"I take pride in the tradition of loyalty, self-sacrifice and service to our country that is the U.S. Navy's heritage, and I am honored to share a special bond with those who serve today," - Jimmy Carter

that we DON'T WANT the seeds planted in our children!! :grr:

What about the bouncing smily face in Wal-mart commercials, what about the McDonalds commercials, what about Britney Spears? If you don't think that seeds are being planted, your delusional.

Service to our country is not a Republican of Democratic thing. I think we could make it an issue, since most of the priveledged Repukes don't serve, but then you run the risk of one political party controlling the military. That is dangerous and scary. Civilian control of our military has been one of the main reasons this little experiment has lasted so long.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SERVING OUR COUNTRY IN THE MILITARY! If you don't want your kids to join, then tell them that and explain to them why, but to think that a one day visit by a recruiter (who is working their a$$ off) is going to influence your child more than you can is silly.

You can turn off a commercial- but a recruiter in a classroom has a CAPTIVE audience.

I served honorably in the Army- but I don't want some quota hungry E-5 trying to 'sell' the service to my son in his own classroom.

Be reasonable, career day, yes; classroom presentations? NO.

The military, just like the fucking tobacco industry, wants to hook those kids while they're young. Just like the church, they gotta get their BS programmed in before the kids start to develop critical thinking skills.

Let the military recruit on college campuses... where the audience has more than a 6th or 7th grade education. These recruiters are liars, they try to get these kids thinking that the military is like a movie where you get to fly helicopters and you get your college all paid for. They make it sound like a vacation.

They don’t tell the kids about all the shit they’re singing up for... a little gulf war syndrome, some shell shock, maybe a nice tri-point flag for your mother or widow.

I think we should only let the military recruit at schools if the recruiter is at least a double amputee. See how many kids they can fool when they can see first hand the great future as cannon fodder that the military can offer.

15 years regular Army, 5 reserve. I would make my kid wait until he's 18. Whether he wanted to serve or not, I would support him either way.

I think recruiters talking to sixth graders is a bit much. It smacks of Hitler Youthism 'give me a boy when he's seven years old...' I generally agree that we need people from every strata of society represented in our armed forces, but I don't see how recruiting campaigns directed at our middle schools accomplishes this.

plant a few seeds in our kids, too

after all, tobacco farming is a rewarding career. gotta support the tobacco farmers - good honest god-fearing patriots, just out to support their families with an honest day's labor. unfortunately, the future's a bit dim without being able to recruit a few thousand new consumers of their products each day to replace dying customers.

Are you really comparing serving your country, making a difference, and doing something honorable with growing tobacco?

If the military is really that hated here, then maybe I'm in the wrong place. I mean a guy comes in, tells your kids some stuff about the military, and you compare it to Hitlerism?

We are really going to win the military vote and convince people that we are the party of strength with arguments like that.

There is a lot of stuff that our kids (captive audiences) are exposed to every day in school, some good, some bad. It is up to us as parents to make the difference.

And I've got news for you. In VA and some places in the south, you take field trips to tobacco farms. In Ohio you take field trips to Amish Farms. Does that mean your kids are going to be smoking cigarettes as they trot down the road in their horse and buggy?

and talk about what he or she does, that's fine with me.

just like if a physician or lawyer, shows up and describes what they do - all ok with me.

but it the american medical association or american bar association show up with a slickly decorated van and start handing out freebies (i.e, recruiting!!) - i'd be pissed about that too.

somehow, the whole country is perfused with insane nationalistic pro-military fervor - if DU manages to be an island of sanity, great!

...are insanely paranoid and anti-military/anti-soldier unfortunately. I have yet to see one post speaking out against the "recruiting van" at school which wasn't at least borderline raving.

...the military recruiting 6th graders is wrong, in my opinion.

Was that acceptably sanitized for you?

No recruiter should have exclusive access to our children. period.

Today we have an all volunteer service- if Sgt. Sign-em-up wants to come to career day- no big deal; but getting a crack at a group of 11 and 12 year old's in a classroom setting is out of bounds.

It's wrong. It's so clearly wrong that I can't believe I'm having to explain it.

It is OUR military. They defend US. They are not Microsoft or McDonald's for God's sake.

Defend you own damn self- not enough people in the Army for you? Send your own kids and leave mine alone.

I'll raise them to make their own decisions without some slick media propaganda aimed at warping a kids perspective.

That's what they are there for, to defend us. If enough don't sign up, then we will have a draft to make sure we have enough people to do so.

Need proof? Look at the assholes in Washington who never served and are running the show.

Personally, I would limit the hell out of the exemptions and not allow college deferments, but that's me.

In the meantime, we have a volunteer military and I support it.

stop treating our vets like old dog shit. But instead of spending the money to treat our vets right, the military instead found it was cheaper to create this slick advertising campaign and try to fool young kids into joining up.

Just like the tobacco industry, they need new kids to replace the soldiers that the war industry is getting killed on a daily basis.

First you have the types that just yell a lot in all caps because they think that it helps people realize they really mean it.

Others just bash the military without really ever thinking about it.

The military was all over our school system, a whopping total of two people signed up after graduating.

My ass rides in Navy equipment.

And those of us who carried a Rifle and a Ruck sack see it differently?

perhaps in acronym mode.

We have it sooooo easy, you know. 8 months at sea, a ship that can kill you at any given moment, some that are designed to sink ON PURPOSE, landing a screaming lawn dart at 140 knots on a floating football field with 4 wires to catch you. Not to mention the CB's and SEALS and EOD and DIVERS that actually do carry rifles and ruck sacks, Oh and that other part of the Navy called the Marine CORPS.

Go Navy, Beat Army!

I don't EVER recall them claiming to be NAVY! LOL

I agree with you- the Navy has it pretty cushy- surpassing even the Air Farce!

In the classroom pointed all those things out to the kids during the presentation too, aren't you?

Not to mention that they may be killed or kill others while doing their job.
This is not to say that police presentations are less than honest too, in regards to the drawbacks of the career choice, but if you don't present the whole story, you are just advertising.

Are you really comparing serving your country, making a difference, and doing something honorable with growing tobacco?

There are many ways to serve your country, make a difference, and do something honorable... ways that don't involve military service. The Peace Corps and VISTA come to mind right away.

By analogy, there are many ways to earn a living growing things. Growing potatos, green beans, carrots, lettuce, apples and peaches are alternatives that come to mind right away.

No one has to choose military service in order to serve the country any more than they have to choose tobacco growing in order to grow crops.



We are really going to win the military vote and convince people that we are the party of strength with arguments like that.

How about we work to get decent financial and health benefits for our veterans?



There is a lot of stuff that our kids (captive audiences) are exposed to every day in school, some good, some bad. It is up to us as parents to make the difference.

I think that is exactly what Elsewhere's Daughter is trying to do. I wonder that you advocate making her job that much harder.

...what the Navy is doing with that "SEED program". You ought to have the common decency to admit that instead of playing word games.

I'm a former Navy officer, but I have a DISTINCT problem with recruiting at the 6th and 8th grade levels. That is WAY over the top, IMHO. At that age those kids need to be concentrating on what they're learning in school, learning how to get along with others, and just having fun. Period.

Sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that you can not recruit a person until they are 17, and even then, you must have the permission of the parents.

Is it recruiting if a Police Officer talks to a bunch of 6th graders, or a Fireman, or a CEO? Do you want to eliminate the D.A.R.E program because the local police bring a police car and pass out T-shirts? How about the McDonalds program that give free hamburgers with a "A" on a report card?

I respect you for your service, but it seems there are some misguided people here that think the ultimate sin is serving in the military. Maybe as a former Officer, you can explain to them that most of us in the military are here to do a job and "defend" our country. If we don't like the way the current administration is using the military, if we want to return our military to the Department of Defense, not the Department of Offense, then we have an obligation to do what I intend to do, and make that choice in November of 2004.

Don't bash the military because we have a misguided administration. Do something to change it. Believe me, I've served under Reagan, BushI, Clinton and now Bush II.

The military should have a government it can be proud of, not the other way around.

to bad the recruiters don't do the same

your analogy/arguement of DARE and CEO suck and are moot

:dunce:

You seem to buy into the myth that all recruiters are used car salesman. They are not. I was honest with the folks I recruited and told them about Field Days, and Mess Duty, and Physical Training, and 18-19 hour work days, and family separation, and sleeping in a 2 inch thick rack. I told them that the normal car glove compartment had more storage space then they would.

But, I also told them what I know to be true and believe to this day. You are doing something that is extremely honorable for this country. You will see some places and sights around this world that will make you a richer person. If you work hard, you will advance. If you stay, you will have a good career and decent retirement. If you get out, we will pay for your college. If you serve your time honorably, we'll help you get a home loan.

Most recruiters THAT I KNOW PERSONNALY, do the same thing. I hate to sound like Jack Nicholson, but if you don't like it, then pick up a rifle and man that wall.

...then why are they there?

What possible reason could the military have to show up at a schoolf for 11-14 year-olds?

Nothing to do today, so they thought they'd visit? Come on...why are they there?

They're not recruiting just planting the seeds. I don't want my children farmed in school.

I am currently serving in my 19TH year in the Navy. For the most part, it has been a wonderful, life
changing experience. We need more "liberals" in the military. There is nothing wrong with serving your
country. Please don't bash the military. We are not all RAMBO.

I accept what you say, but why do the "Rambos" get all the glory?

As a former recruiter, this is what we call a SEED program. You plant the seed of "service with honor"
and hope that some of these folks will grow into our future leaders. You'd have to stop all the NJROTC
Programs, Sea Cadet Programs, and a bunch of other helpful recruiting tools.

I suppose what you are saying is that this is more like "career day." There are certainly lots of good things that the military offers young people. Problem is, in order to access those good things, you have to be willing to fight and die in wars. Every career has its drawbacks... routine chores that people hate to do except that they are part of the job. Still, fighting and dying in a war is more than a small, routine, bothersome chore-type drawback.

No one is recruiting a 6th grader. You can not join the military until you are at least 17 and have
graduated from HS. Even then, at 17, you need both parents permission.

Isn't it also true that the recruiter will promise the recruit whatever the recruit asks for, and that once the recruit has signed his or her name on the line all those promises become meaningless?

I don't mean to dump on you here, but I tend to agree with the first poster. Recruiters aren't telling the truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth. There's a huge difference between neglecting to mention the real possibility of piles of paperwork and neglecting to mention the real possibility of death. Don't you think so?

signed my dumb, poor a$$ up as a janitor :evilgrin:

and yes it was a LIFE CHANGING experiance :evilgrin:

peace

(and it isn't always), but it is not geared to elementary school kids. The time to do the recruiting sales pitch is in high school. Period.

I served in the Army for 10 years. I have one son in the Army (finishing his Iraq tour) and two in the Navy (one on his way to Iraq). I have nothing whatsoever against military service. Still, I strongly disagree with the tactics recruiters are using nowadays. I don't want the government trying to persuade impressionable 12-year-olds that the military is somehow "cool". It isn't.

This is yet another aspect of the militarization of our society that the neocons are working to instill. I oppose it vehemently.

I am confused. She is saying they were there at the school for those grades. How can you say they were not?

I agree, that is far far too young to start this stuff.

Their tactics are rather ridiculous as well. At a local community college they had a recruiting rally on campus, with the country music band, and they kept singing songs like one called My Redneck Girl, or something like that.

They used less than noble images to get to their target audience.

Don't tell me that they don't use such things. One of our sons was a navy recruiter once, so I speak of tactics I am familiar with.

I have two family members who had military careers, one a Naval commander. Even they do not approve of this intrusion into the schools.

preparing the ground for a latter attempts at recruitment - targeted at the immature and/or weaker-minded.

- Does it really matter if it's 'illegal'? The Bush* government can literally get away with anything as our country suffers from 'war fever'.

- Is it unethical and wrong? Of course it is.

but I would be screaming my head off and calling every parent i could think of who might support me.

That is absolutley disgusting. And scary. Our beautiful children, looked on by these vultures as ripening cannon fodder.

While I support the armed forces and appreciate the sacrifices they make for our country, recruiting grade and middle-school kids is infuriating! It's like Joe Camel, except worse.

Market researchers say it's easiest to bend a young mind. That's why so many commercials are geared to youth. Get them hooked on Pepsi over Coke when they're teens and you've got them for life.

The example I heard said it costs about $45 per young person in a TV campaign to get that consumer loyalty. It costs about $600 per consumer to get him or her to change her mind as an adult from Pepsi back to Coke.

Edit: typos, "example" replace "number"

The military are recruiting our kids when they are quite young and impressionable, when military combat sounds so wonderful, when it matches their images of heroism in war movies, and the action of their shot em up video games. I decided to get some facts about this trend and write a brief history. Our intent is to begin to produce a fact sheet for parents on how to resist militarism in Las Cruces schools.

Militarism in Middle Schools - Several people shared how here in Las Cruces, in Sierra Middle School, military recruiters give kids k-rations and rides in military vehicles. "There is always someone in a military uniform at the school." At Camino Royal Middle School, a sign to teachers, requested 'invite the military to speak to your classes.' Recruiting 400,000 soldiers a year is a tough business. Recruiting our middle schools kids is over the top. They are being recruited for Junior ROTC (JROTC) high school programs as the first step, and they are being sold on militarism.


Figure 1 - Mobile Van visiting New Mexico Schools

"The Army Cinema Vans, the Army Cinema Pods, the Army Adventure Van, the Rockwall and the Navy Exhibit Centers are crisscrossing the country as we speak, with high-tech "educational" shows that glamorize military life" http://awol.objector.org/mobile.html

Thank you for the great information, too. Wow! What a website!

In my own example, I got sent off to an Honor Military Academy in 8th grade during the height of the Vietnam war. My grandpa told me it would be good if I got a military perspective on life, the reality was my folks were getting a divorce.

In 9th grade, the next year, I became a member of Jr-ROTC. The chain of command indicated Richard M. Nixon was my commander-in-chief. OK, that's what the law said, and we drilled and studied and marched and went to chapel...

Many of our instructors were combat veterans, including several who had served in Vietnam. Of course, several of my friends at military school had fathers and older brothers in the armed forces.

One of my best friends and the kid everyone was certain "was going places" in life had lost his older brother, a US Marine, in Vietnam the prior year. This all happened more than 30 years ago, and I remember the pain this young kid and his mom and dad suffered!

Despite the military mindsphere, every single cadet was against the War, including the guys we thought of as "right-wingers." The reason? The juniors and seniors knew what was really going on and kept the younger cadets informed. We ALL knew Nixon was lying and the war was wrong.

Things might have been very different if we didn't have the older kids keeping the younger kids informed. Sixth-graders wouldn't have had a chance to know what was going on.

Market researchers say it's easiest to bend a young mind. That's why so many commercials are geared to youth.

The example I heard said it costs about $45 per young person in a TV campaign to get that consumer loyalty...

Aye, and there's the rub: Where do you draw the line? When are you merely taking advantage of the fact that someone is TOO young to ask the right questions about, or see the big picture around, the things that are being presented to them? Am I to believe that 12-year olds TRULY understand the concept of finding "honor" in possibly getting their heads blown off five years down the line--especially with a nutcase for a commander-in-chief? To them, it's all a glorifed video game, and the military is exploiting it.

Military recruitment is not the sin, Maxrandb--it's trying to convince people to join who you know full well are too young to grasp what it truly means. They shouldn't be targeting anyone who isn't in high school, and it should be done on-site, not through letters and phone calls via information provided by the schools.


rocknation

having the local Police department, of a government agency, in to "recruit". Or your local Park Service, or the "Computer Tech Firm, Inc".

The responsibility for other discussion on the subject should be on the parents, not the school.

I find all of them objectionable. What's next? Career Days at day care centers? If you don't get kids focused on their career path by two, it's too late!

I say, let kids be kids and focus on educating them and developing critical thinking skills in school. If they want to offer an after school or before school activity involving career choices, fine. Keep them out of the schools during a time when students must attend, and be subject to only one point of view.
Or, if you must propagandize them, require attendance of a discussion led by someone with an opposing viewpoint, like an injured vet, or someone who lost a friend or relative to war. Give them both sides and let them decide.

My son goes into 6th grade next year and I will give him ORDERS to NEVER EVER speak to ANY recruitment officers! THAT is ridiculous! Damn! Let kids be kids while they can be! :mad:

schools.

You say our Navy is dishonorable?

This is nothing new. I had visitors from various groups come by my school as a kid. Military, business, police, etc. They were all extolling the virtues of their career choice. So what?

And, baring act of war, Military Service is a pretty good job. It isn't for everyone, and the entry level is a bit underpaid, but overall the prospects for promotion are great and the retirement package is still excellent.

Your right to freedom of the press was not gained by a reporter.
Your right to freedom of speech was not gained by a poet.
Your right to freedom of religion was not gained by a preacher.
Your right to freedom of assembly was not gained by a protestor.
Your right to vote was not gained by a politician.
THEY WERE ALL GAINED BY THE MILITARY.
If it weren't for the military, we would all be speaking German.

I am honored to have served our country for nine years in the service, and if you think the military is dishonorable, then you must also think of me, and Wesly Clark as dishonorable.

Also, don't forget that the military is not a private corporation. Neither is that school a private corporation. They are both branches of the government. So what you have there is one branch of your gov't paying a visit to another branch of the gov't.

Millions of jews and other undersireables wouldn't be dead.

Spare me the military is so pure speech. They can change from granting rights to war crimes in a heart beat with the right single commander in charge.

I think for the past 30 years we can see that. Can you name me one war the states have been involved in since 1970 that was truly about protecting rights?

The militarys actions can be honorable, yes. Problem is under Bush rule it certainly is NOT, and there is a very good chance it won't be for another term.

Is the defense against those who would do us harm. Our military follows the guidelines of the civilian authority. Your beef is with that authority, not the military. Or it should be.

I take great offense to that!

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html

Rank Country Military expenditures - dollar figure Date of Information
1 United States $ 276,700,000,000 NA
2 China $ 55,910,000,000 FY02
3 France $ 46,500,000,000 2000
4 Japan $ 39,520,000,000 FY02
5 Germany $ 38,800,000,000 2002

(snip)


166 Bermuda $ 4,028,000 January 2002
167 Gambia, The $ 1,200,000 FY02
168 San Marino $ 700,000 FY00/01
169 Sao Tome and Principe $ 400,000 FY01
170 Iceland $ 0 NA - the least free people on earth.

In other words, somebody else with a bigger military protected them.

Or was it simply to present information with no other goal or comment?

It's easy to have no military expenditures if someone else pays the tab. It's much the same attitude that the EU has. They want American troops to cool every hot spot they choose.

Then why is the project of establishing an indepent EU army blocked by the US?

Perhaps because there is already NATO and the worldwide alliance structure is already so complicated that if one nation goes to war, they could easily draw in others. What would an EU army do that NATO doesn't?

A NATO mission includes US participation (usually anyway) - I thought that was your problem. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Iceland has it easy and counts on other nations for its defense. Someone has to pay for such a luxury and they choose to have others do it for them.

The IDF was hardly created to defend (just)Iceland.
I mean 300000 citizens and no borders... what would you expect? They have an armed coast guard.

its citizens must not enjoy any of the listed freedoms, based on the ridiculous previous post that i replied to (#77, i believe).

so now the story seems to be evolving that these freedoms exist due to the united states military, yeah right!

without presenting extensive documentation, i think any relatively aware person knows full well that the underlying foundations of freedom of the press; freedom of speech; freedom of religion; freedom of assembly; and the right to vote were well established long before the united states military was in existence. these rights were largely brought about via incremental advances through the tireless efforts of untold numbers of now-invisible people. on occasion the military (of the usa or elsewhere) may have contributed to the advancement of these liberties, at other times they set them back - overall the military is largely irrelevant.

Sure, tell that to my ancestors who were freed as a result of the Civil War.

you appear to be being intentionally obtuse

first, the military organizations (native african to capture the slave in the first place, and the british and american navies to allow "safe" passage to britain or the colonies) allowed the slave trade to prosper in the first place

second, military organizations both opposed (confederate forces) and supported (union forces) the freeing of your ancestors - so it's a wash.

third, the slaves were freed in the uk before they were in the usa, without military intervention - how in the world could that have happened if the universe functions as you believe it does?

One side won. The side that won freed my ancestors.

As for the rest, the military enforces the civilian authority. It wasn't their fault that slavery was legal, they simply obeyed the law.

Yes, slaves were free in the UK. HERE, it took armed forces to do it. Hence militaries are NOT irrelevant.

considering that your logic is badly muddled. if the military "simply obeys the law" as you now claim, that means that they enforce laws whether they are good or bad, or whether they are moral or evil - that certainly discounts the hypothesis that we can thank the military for our freedoms. rather, you are now essentially saying what ever forces are in play that allow freedom-enhancing laws to come into effect are what is important. once again the military is rendered irrelevant in the promotion of freedom.

The definition of both of those terms is a rapidly moving target.

Slavery was legal and moral for thousands of years. Thankfully, now it is not, though some still practice it and, no doubt defend it on one of those two grounds.

The military obeys the civilian authority. By so doing, it ensures that we retain our freedoms. If it were the other way around, that would not be the case.

which is a much more succinct rebuttal of post #77 than i managed to provide, ugh.

My rights exist regardless of the military.

My rights exist regardless of the government.

My rights are inherent.


All the military does it prevent outsiders from infringing on my rights.

"Wesly Clark as dishonorable"

Anybody who says that journalists are OK targets in war does not know the meaning of honor, let alone have any.

If your local school receives any federal funding, it is required by law to allow military recruiters on the grounds, and the administration is required to furnish personal information on every student to the military. Individuals can opt out, and there's usually a notice in the first snow flurry of paper that goes out at the beginning of each school year, where it's sure to be noticed by harried parents wading through immunization forms, grade requirements, dress codes, absence policies, sports and extracurricular activity fee schedules and about a jillion other pieces of paper their children bring home that first week.

The Portland Public Schools used to ban military recruiters from on-campus visits, but the school board was overruled from Washington DC by the "smaller government, local control" Republicans.

Feel free to say :wtf:

it is only required for students who are Juniors and older. My children are opted out and the school district is sending a special mailing to parents of sophmores on this, giving them the opportunity to opt out before their kids get to 11th grade.

I doubt that they have the right to enter a school campus at any time to speak with kids of any age. But they may have convinced the adminstrators to let them in. If they have that right, I'd like to see proof.

ElsewheresDaughter has posted the text of the statute authorizing military recruiters to ask, and the obligation of the schools to accommodate, a request for on-campus recruiting, as well as furnishing of names and address of the students. While there are "opt out" provisions, there doesn't appear to be a prescribed method of notifying parents of these provisions. As such, it will then be up to the school administrators to determine how to handle that, and the variations could differ markedly, from special mailings and meetings, to a mere verbal notification.

I would contend that school administrators have quite enough to do without acting as go-betweens for the military, but as I said, the "less government, local control" Republicans plainly see it otherwise.

I wonder who Lil George's favorite philosopher would shoot or bomb?

Recruiters do not have the right to visit students any time they want. They are only to have the same access as post secondary facilities. Schools certainly don't let colleges in to elementary and middle schools to talk about going to college. Schools, therefore, should not be forced or coerced into letting recruiters into these schools either.

I agree about the notification requirement. It is totally up to the schools if they so desire. Fortunately my school is very progressive. But being a DUer, I would have been in their face making a stink about opting out it if they weren't.

What else do we have to offer our country and the world? The Pentagon can't account for trillions and they get trillions more while education and senior services budgets are slashed. And we have no jobs to offer our young--especially those with the least prospects and a diminishing ability to afford college. This is the first I heard about them going into the elementary schools, I knew they were lurking around the high schools--especially in the less affluent areas where they also bombard local television networks with the glorious portrayal of excitment, honor and patriotic duty fighting for freedom and democracy propaganda. Then when these kids come home, if they come home they are ignored and the glowing promises are broken and their benefits are cut...

911 is no excuse for this and we should not allow military interests to dominate our national priorities and future agenda, ESPECIALLY since we are bogged down in yet another escalating military disaster.

This is why when Sir Clark goes out on the campaign trail and encourages our young to join up, he earns my contempt.

Even an 'enlightened' avowed multilateralist such as the Genius General Clark would be a step in the wrong direction towards the further militarization of our culture and reverence for Might Makes Right, uniforms and governance by weaponized terror.

How would the Muslim world react to a Military President of the United States while the current all out crusade is being waged against them? There is probably centuries of healing needed...again.

and encourage the kids to report their parents as terrorists, too?

Servie in the U.S. Military does not make you a Nazi. Insuinating that it does nothing for your arguement besides make you look foolish and reactionary. There are a great many service members on this board, and many more who are still serving their country as a part of our elected representation from the Democratic Party.

Fear of Loss of Funding to High Schools keeps Principal from informing Parents about Opt-Out.

this is a Jan 30 2003 report from Anne Wing in Las Cruces:


I've spoken with Virginia Foltz, Superintendent of Las Cruces Public Schools, regarding the issue of supplying military recruiters with names, addresses, and phone numbers of public high school students. She told me that the schools were not under any legal obligation: 1) to inform parents of the policy; nor 2) to inform parents that they could "opt out" of having their child's information released. I asked her if the public schools had a MORAL obligation to inform parents. She is concerned that if she lets parents know about this policy, federal aid to the LCPS will be stopped. She feels like she has to weigh the federal funding against the civil liberties of the parents and students. This is unacceptable. When I told her that I intended to attend the next school board meeting and express my concerns, she backtracked and said she would review the directive she received from Washington. She then called me back and now appears willing to take action to let parents and students know what their rights are regarding this issue. I will let everyone know how this develops.
Peace,
Anne Wing

BTW ...my children are not in "high school"...this was done in my daughters 6th grade clasroom...this MUST be illegal!

section 9528 of the Not Child Left Behind Act, Public Law 107-110.

SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING
INFORMATION.
(a) POLICY-
(1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION- Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of
the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational
agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an
institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone
listings.
(2) CONSENT- A secondary school student or the parent of the student may request that the
student's name, address, and telephone listing described in paragraph (1) not be released without
prior written parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of
the option to make a request and shall comply with any request. (emphasis mine)
(3) SAME ACCESS TO STUDENTS- Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act
shall provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as is provided generally to
post secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students.
(b) NOTIFICATION- The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall, not later than 120
days after the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, notify principals, school
administrators, and other educators about the requirements of this section.
(c) EXCEPTION- The requirements of this section do not apply to a private secondary school that
maintains a religious objection to service in the Armed Forces if the objection is verifiable through the
corporate or other organizational documents or materials of that school.
(d) SPECIAL RULE- A local educational agency prohibited by Connecticut State law (either explicitly by
statute or through statutory interpretation by the State Supreme Court or State Attorney General) from
providing military recruiters with information or access as required by this section shall have until May 31,
2002, to comply with that requirement.
The law clearly states that it is the responsibility of the local educational agency to inform parents of the "opt out" alternative. Our concern is that students' privacy may have already been compromised by the school district's failure thus far to comply with the consent requirements of the law.

Could this be considered "kiddie blackmail?"

I have been receiving several calls from various recruiters because my daughter is a senior in high school.

Since I have Caller ID, I can see the call coming in so I give them my prepared speech:

"Has your daughter made plans for after high school?"

Me: "If you think, for one second, that I would allow her or any of my children to serve in Bush's military and go to this illegal war in Iraq, you are completely out of your mind."

Then I hang up.

nt

Whether she goes to school or goes into the military will be her choice. You can try and hide the options, but they are still her options not yours.

What parent wants to send their child in harm's way under the most deceptive and dangerous circumstances? What young person, given the option to get an education or pursue their ambitions want to go off to war, leave family, friends, a potential future, their dreams, and entire life of potential, to go to some foreign land to drop bombs and kill people, based on a lie? Shipped off to some dismal desert where they are unwelcomed and attacked non-stop, where they live in fear and learn to hate and kill without remorse, where they see death and suffering and maimed orphans---all so the likes of Richard Perle and Chalibi can live out their little twisted, criminal fantasy.

I am quite sure that is not the way the "choice" is offerred.

It is a choice. We have a volunteer military. You don't want in, you don't get in. End of story.

Now, of course, many join despite the wishes of their parents. Since they are legal adults, they will make MANY decisions that their parents do not wish. Such is life.

As for those who feel they wish to serve their nation, they have my respect. Such a choice is never easy, but no matter how stupid Iraq is, we still need a military. And if no one joins, we will have a draft.

how come none of them ivy league brats with the trust funds aren't breaking down the recruiters doors?

If our young were actually told the truth about war and it's consequences, with phsically and emotionally wounded vets filling the ranks of the homeless or addicted to drugs and alcohol. Yeah right, a fucking glorious future---especially for the moms whose kid's school budgets are slashed. You have to wonder who is serving who, when it comes to sending our children in to kill the children of others.

Come on. We all make choices based on circumstances. We choose jobs, careers, homes, cars, food, clothes and lovers based on these circumstances.

Well, it seems your version of the truth about war and its consequences would leave out what happens when nations don't fight. Nations like Austria and others that simply gave in to Hitler rather that challenge. Yes war is terrible and the only way to prevent it is to be prepared to fight it.

Some things ARE worth fighting for.

Korea, Viet Nam, endless excursions and covert missions to undermine democratically elected governments in Latin America, Gulf War 1, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Now.

How many were truly justified and could have been avoided or resolved using a different criteria? Detente worked for years and yet we continue ongoing aggression in other countries who don't want us there, who never posed a threat to us and never asked to be liberated and now resent our presence as they kill us and we kill them.

Jolly good show.

There is no one to have detente with. The collapse of the Soviet Union complicated things. Previously, most struggles were seen in that context of West vs. East. Now tribal, ethnic, religious, etc. struggles take millions of lives each year. Are we to stay out of all of it? Should we have allowed Saddam to take Kuwait for instance?

great recitation of right-wing talking points!

perhaps after we ok'd saddam's invasion of kuwait, the honorable thing would have been to let him have it, i really don't know.

however, if any of your anti-saddam piety is to ring true,

just explain to me why we haven't liberated zimbabwe!! i can't find it online, but in this month's atlantic monthly there's a detailed list of what mugabe has done to his country:

genocide against his own people (saddam gassed his own people . . . )
invasion of neighboring countries (should we have let saddam keep kuwait . . .)

i don't remember the whole list, but tit for tat, everything (and more) that saddam has been alleged to do, so has mugabe. so stop giving me right wing talking points, i have 76 tv channels at home for that!!

I'm not right wing. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait needed to be stopped -- both morally and for practical reasons.

For the record, I opposed Iraq II from the beginning.

As for Mugabe, I'd love to see us oust that bastard. But there are folks here who support him and others who oppose military action of any sort.

gulf war 2. besides the false "babies thrown out of incubator" propaganda, the u.s. blatantly blocked any negotiated settlement (how else to justify all that noble military spending?):

During the months of build up to the war the US priority was to block any possibility of a negotiated settlement that would allow Iraq to pull out Kuwait. Within a few weeks of the invasion the basic outlines for a possible political settlement were already emerging. This involved an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, alongside negotiations over any outstanding border issues between the two states. These issues were very minor: fist, the lease over two uninhabited mudflats to give Iraq greater aces to the Gulf; and second, the resolution of a dispute over an oil field that extended two miles into Kuwait over an unsettled border. The US rejected the proposal, or any negotiations. The New York Times reported that the Bush Administration was determined to block the "diplomatic track" for fear that it might "defuse the crisis". It was only in early December 1990, when there was a shift in US public opinion away from support for war, that the Bush administration announced a “last-ditch” effort for peace with a meeting between Secretary of State James Baker and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. Although this was presented as the US going “the extra mile” for peace, it was no more than a sop to public opinion. The US did not want a negotiated settlement, also sabotaging French, Russian and Arab attempts to mediate a settlement.

The last reported offer called for total Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. There were no qualifications about borders, but the offer was made in the context of agreements on other "linked" issues: weapons of mass destruction in the region and the Israel-Arab conflict. The latter issues included Israel's illegal occupation of southern Lebanon, in violation of Security Council resolution 425 of March 1978, which called for its immediate and unconditional withdrawal from the territory it had invaded. However, the US rejected diplomacy and any attempt to link Kuwait to wider issues in the Middle East. Just hours before the 15th January deadline expired, French representatives proposed a four-point peace plan, which garnered the support of the majority of the Security Council. This was vetoed by the US and Britain.

http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/1991gulfwar.html

genocide against his own people (saddam gassed his own people . . . )
invasion of neighboring countries (should we have let saddam keep kuwait . . .)

i don't remember the whole list, but tit for tat, everything (and more) that saddam has been alleged to
do, so has mugabe.

I suppose I would have waited for Saddam to get old and sick and then stepped in to talk about a more democratic government. He is pretty old already, isn't he?

Meanwhile, if we're so concerned about the Iraqi people, why on earth sanction them and prevent them from getting food and other basics? That sounds like bribery... if you want food, depose your leader. Sheesh! Starving people don't depose anyone! They are too busy trying to get food.

The answer to your question, though, is simple. Saddam has oil. Mugabe doesn't. Plus, if a lot of Africans are dying, people in the U.S. don't seem to get quite so upset by it. Somehow, they don't look enough like us, they don't seem to have anything we want, and they have that problem with AIDS that just winds up costing money instead of bringing in money. Maybe if they just could find some oil somewhere...

they are to be crushed without question.

For example, Kuwait was slant-drilling Iraqi oil and the US gave tacit support for Saddam to invade and then the Kuwaitis in league with US gov-oil interests put on their little act in front of the congress to rally support for Daddy bush's first foray into Iraqi oil fields.

Well, you can reason with me and I'm quite brown actually.

As for the horrors of Iraq I, if it were so bad, how come so many nations signed on?

Well, you can reason with me and I'm quite brown actually.

As for the horrors of Iraq I, if it were so bad, how come so many nations signed on?

...I hadn't added anybody to my ignore list for a while. Now I can do it again.

Yes, good idea Muddle, lets give her fake M-16's too, so she can practice while she's deciding on a career.

Christ, she's a kid. Let her stay one.

When she's 18, she can make the choices.

If the military shows up at my kids school, I'll walk him out and tell those fuckers what I think of them.

To Quote Clint Eastwood...

"You a bounty hunter?"
"It's a living."
"Dying ain't much of a living, boy"

and impressionable. Easier to brainwash that way.

Just tell them you're not interested. It's most likely just a public relations goodwill event anyway. Recruiters are aiming at the Jr. and Sr. in HS. Even for them, a NO is all that is required.

The Army Recruiting Command advertises the vans as a "A Learning Experience." The Navy baldly calls them, "Recruiting Vans." But so-called academic slide shows are packaged with far more blatant advertisements for the U.S. military. The vans are designed to recruit, not to educate. "The vans zero in on our target market, and that's in high schools," explained Fred Zinchiak, Public Affairs Specialist in the Sacramento Army Recruiting Battalion. The Cinema Van's so-called "academic" shows include We the People - "217 years of American history from the birth of the nation through Operation Desert Storm" and Math. It All Starts Here, one of several shows explicitly geared to junior high school students. But the real intent of the Vans is to portray the military as a glamorous, painless "opportunity." The Army slide shows feature Combat Arms - The Tough Choice, with 21 minutes of artillery, armor, and combat engineering, doubtless without the carnage that results when these weapons are actually used; Path to the Future, bringing to multi-media life the recruiters' empty promises about education and career training; and Path to Professionalism, a "guide on the transition from civilian to soldier," which glorifies a soldier's first year without mentioning the hazing, humiliation, and loss of civil rights endemic to basic training. The Navy's videos include Steel Boats and Iron Men, Sea Warriors, Angels Over America, and, The Navy and You – Full Speed Ahead.

Millions of American men and women serve in the armed forces protecing our nation. There is nothing wrong with that occupation whatsoever. How those forces are used is up to the civilian authority.

impressionable minds....nazism imho

What are the Recruiting Vans?

Seven Army Cinema Vans, each equipped with nine slide projectors and three screens. Four Rockwalls for simultaneous rockclimbing and recruiting. Eight Cinema Pods, carrying the recruiters and slide show directly into classrooms. The Army Adventure Van, featuring an M-1 tank simulator, a Cobra helicopter simulator, and a "Weaponeer" an M 16 rifle simulator. The Weaponeer provides each student with a printout showing exactly where each "hit" tore through their depersonalized, but human, target. Five Navy Exhibit Centers include a "Nuclear Power Van," and an "America's Sea Power Van." Seven parking spaces long by two deep, the Vans provide, according to the Army, "educational multi-media shows." The Recruiting Commands, who control the vans, aim to keep them filled all day long with class after class of students. Local recruiters are always present at these "educational" events. The Army's 16 vans visit a total of 2000 schools per year, propagandizing 380,000 "recruitable" students. The Navy visits approximately 500 schools, including community colleges and vocational schools. Both vans stop by shopping malls, state fairs, rodeos - wherever young people can be found. Two "National Science" vans, sponsored by the military and the National Science Center, also tour the country. In each case, the Pentagon's Recruiting Commands and local recruiters use school grounds, school facilities, and school time to glorify the armed forces and their version of history.

Come on. I know some folks here hate the military, but don't be ridiculous. This is nothing new.

It is common for schoolchildren to meet representatives of all sorts of career paths. That helps them choose what career they wish. I've even done talks to school kids about careers. Everybody does the same thing. You take in freebies from your company because it is marketing and then you tell the kids what is great about what you do.

Wow, the military, which when called upon to fight actually shoots people, so they use a video game to influence kids. Shocking. Like kids have NEVER seen a videogame of shooting before.

Sorry, this is not propaganda. Our nation has a volunteer military. As such, the military needs to recruit. There is a simpler solution, but I doubt you would like it because we could just draft and then your children would be in no matter what.

and yes this is nazism brown shrit shit!...and very scary to 11 year old minds...are we to become like them...why not just open up Madrases?

Career visits are common in all sorts of grades. That's what this was. I'm sorry if you don't consider the military a legitimate career, but it is.

every year when I was a kid living in Hawaii and play rock music and tell us about the air force at wahiawa middle school in 1979

using rock music to recruit fourth-graders

didn't realize it at the time, but they must have been reacting to ongoing efforts of the military to brainwash our kids (as is the topic of this thread)

Member of the band for 15 years, travelling around the country performing, playing the clarinet and sax.... now a target. The band was softsell, the new groups going into the schools are hardsell.

(besides those you claim are protecting our nation)

are overseas killing innocent civilians in support of the global american empire.

but if kids are indoctrinated at the age of 11, guess they'll never know any better

I have a math issue with that.

back in post #26

perhaps jon stewart could feature you debating with yourself . . . ?

besides, the bullshit about "protecting our nation" is wearing a bit thin,

have a look at a century of us military interventions:

http://www.swans.com/library/art6/zig055.html

and then come back with a straight face and tell us whether the military

(a) protects our nation
(b) spreads mayhem where-ever it can (i.e, the foe is too weak to pose a meaningful threat).

Not, millions "overseas killing innocent civilians in support of the global american empire."

There is a regular post argument between du-ers with experience in the military and du-ers who revile militarism and abuse of power and can't imagine taking orders to kill from a corrupt power structure.
Vets react by declaring "I'm no brainless automaton. I'm hard-working, self-sacrificing and principled." There are difficult paradoxes inherent in saying "the problem is upstream in the command structure, not down here where we just take orders so we can feed our families."

Examination of social indoctrination in public education and the corporate government's need for obedient soldiers who are motivated by noble lies about "defending our freedom" reveals how war is perpetuated by participation and support from the very people who suffer the most from the fighting.

Prussian education tactics+Patriotism+Fundamentalism=Nazi America.

Read the 9/03 Harper's magazine essay by John Taylor Gatto, a former NYC and NY state Teacher of the Year, author of the Underground History of Public Education.

In an essay called 'How Public Education Cripples Our Kids and Why,' he details how Prussian culture was adopted when public education became widespread in the 1800s.
>snip<
"...compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table.

Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses...

The actual purpose of modern schooling...six basic functions:
1)THE ADJUSTIVE OR ADAPTIVE FUNCTION-
Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgement completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting things should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) THE INTEGRATING FUNCTION-
This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) THE DIAGNOSTIC AND DIRECTIVE FUNCTION-
School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.

4) THE DIFFERENTIATING FUNCTION-
Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only sofar as their destination in the social machine merits-and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) THE SELECTIVE FUNCTION-
This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit-with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments-clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) THE PROPAEDEUTIC FUNCTION-
The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country...the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers."

Pretty horrifying, isn't it? I went to that school for sure. There is a concerted effort to re-militarize our culture to push back the cultural changes brought about by the Vietnam War horrors. The Glorious Lies need to be re-established and the draft will be back in 2005 after the election season. Teach your children well.

I don't impugn the honor of the people who are currently in the military or who are veterans, but I dispute the notion that the military as it is currently constituted is "protecting our nation."

In my lifetime, the American military has been used to intervene in a civil war in Southeast Asia, send advisors to help crush justifiable peasant revolts in Central America, invade an island 30 miles long, throw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait after our government gave him tacit permission to invade it, go into Somalia with no clear purpose, and now to invade a country that wasn't theatening the U.S.

Ever since the Korean War, and perhaps before, it's no longer about "protecting our country" but protecting global business interests.

I have watched the growing militarization of society since the Reagan administration, which abruptly cut back on all federal aid for college while raising the budget for ROTC, which then became the only way that low-income students could go to college without incurring heavy loans. This year I have read heartbreaking stories of fine young people, not even out of their teens, who joined the military because they wanted money for college or because there were no jobs in their town, only to get killed in a stupid, senseless,immoral war.

I don't have children, but I tauught 18- and 19-year-olds for eleven years. I know exactly how young they are, and it tears me up to think of people that age, who should have their whole lives to look forward to, dying for Bush's ego.

This whole bullshit line about job opportunities for poor and minority youth is just another example of the rightwing's "I'm only thinking of them" approach to deception. The Bushies need cannon fodder, but if you object to military recruitment tactics, then you're "denying job opportunities to poor and minority youth."

Hey, Bush, how about creating some jobs (fixing infrastructure, for example) that don't require those poor and minority youth to get shot at?

As long as our military is used for Bush's private vendettas or to protect corporate interests, then I will be against military recruitment in schools.

To oppose it is to cripple our ability to defend our nation.

US Military Spending
FACT: The United States annual military spending will total $397 billion in 2003.
FACT: This is more than is spent on education, transportation, healthcare, housing, and commerce combined.
FACT: The United States spends over $1 billion per day on its military.
FACT: The 2003 U.S. military budget exceeds the budgets of the next 25 nations combined.
FACT: The U.S. military budget accounts for more than 36% of total world military spending.
FACT: 41% of Americans tax dollars are spent on the military.
FACT: Number of Americans living below the poverty line: 33 million+.
FACT: Amount of money needed yearly to feed and provide basic healthcare for all of the world s poor: $13 billion.
FACT: The military budget increase alone for 2003 is $46 billion.
FACT: Amount of money needed to provide health care for all uninsured children in the U.S.: $19.5 billion.
FACT: 24 federal programs will be eliminated in 2003 under the Bush budget. These are mainly education, healthcare, and human services programs.
FACT: Highway and transportation projects will be cut by $9.2 billion in 2003.
FACT: Estimated cost to the United States of a war in Iraq: $100 billion.
FACT: Cost of a National Missile Defense shield: $200 billion.
FACT: 2003 U.S. budget allocation for our nuclear weapons program: $16 billion.
FACT: 2003 budget allocation for social services: $16 billion.
FACT: The United States annual military spending will total $397 billion in 2003.
FACT: This is more than is spent on education, transportation, healthcare, housing, and commerce combined.
FACT: The United States spends over $1 billion per day on its military.
FACT: The 2003 U.S. military budget exceeds the budgets of the next 25 nations combined.
FACT: The U.S. military budget accounts for more than 36% of total world military spending.
FACT: 41% of Americans tax dollars are spent on the military.
FACT: Number of Americans living below the poverty line: 33 million+.
FACT: Amount of money needed yearly to feed and provide basic healthcare for all of the world s poor: $13 billion.
FACT: The military budget increase alone for 2003 is $46 billion.
FACT: Amount of money needed to provide health care for all uninsured children in the U.S.: $19.5 billion.
FACT: 24 federal programs will be eliminated in 2003 under the Bush budget. These are mainly education, healthcare, and human services programs.
FACT: Highway and transportation projects will be cut by $9.2 billion in 2003.
FACT: Estimated cost to the United States of a war in Iraq: $100 billion.
FACT: Cost of a National Missile Defense shield: $200 billion.
FACT: 2003 U.S. budget allocation for our nuclear weapons program: $16 billion.
FACT: 2003 budget allocation for social services: $16 billion.
Sources: Center For Defense Information, National Priorities Project, Federation of American Scientists, United States Census Bureau, UN Development Program.

http://members.cruzio.com/~egar/military_expense.html

That would be a decent-sized list.

Let us know, please, what you think the reasons are for others wanting to do us harm.

but like they said "the new and improved XXX bomb, capable of producing 5000 new terrorists with a single blast"

but you have to admit that the pro-military folks have a nice racket going - the more military interventions there are, the more the cycle of violence escalates, and therefore provides justification for an ever increased level of "protecting our nation"

Some are legit, some are not. Our military doesn't sort through and allow the legit ones to attack us. It is their job to protect us from all attacks.

Further, it's pretty hard for a nation of nearly 300 million people not to do something wrong periodically that would result in people hating us.

Their real job is to implement the President's foreign policy.
Hence, their job is to be used by corrupt civilians for the purpose of implementing economic and/or politic change in other countries.

Vietnam: tin, rubber, oil
Iraq: oil
Central America: push all powers to the right, eliminate leftists

The form of the military is a beautiful thing: self-control, discipline, determination, teamwork, honor.

The function of the military ultimately is to kill that which it is told to kill. If our civilian infrastructure lived up to the principles that this nation claims to cherish, then function would also be beautiful.

But in real life, it is put in the hands of deeply flawed men.

Does that mean we shouldn't have one? That the military is being used improperly is the fault of the civilian authority (ChimpCo). The military's purpose is to defend the US from foreign attacks, not to further war profiteers. If it's only used for self-defense purposes (not made up ones), then it is just. Ideally the military provides enough of a deterrent that it never needs to be called into action.

I wish that the military would uphold their oath to "defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic."

The most consistent harm comes from the White Housed and the Military/Industrial/Congressional complex which destroys constitutional accountability to the electorate and wages a war against the American people by starving them while corporations loot the treasury.

with a guilty conscious. Ignore them.

they just moved 6th grade to middle school from elementary school here

FBI, Secret Service, ATF and U.S. Marshalls recruit. They want to turn our kids into killers.

who find nothing wrong with the death of progressive ideals and teachings, but who are all for the indoctrination of our very young into the mindset of war. Has Columbine and its ilk taught us nothing?

I'm sickened with you, ED. :(

OK, we have a voluntary military, how would you ensure that we have enough people volunteering? Would you recruit or not? Would you inform children that the military is a viable career choice or not?

if our government weren't trying to run the world.

It would be a more attractive career choice if it really were simply on alert to defend the country.

(And no, I'm not an "isolationist." It's the militarists who are the true isolationists, because they disregard the opinions and interests of the rest of the world and arrogantly play games with other peoples' lives, as we are currently seeing in Iraq.)

Hmmm, OK, so we are supposed to ignore the world every time it asks for our help? We remain the sole super power and certainly the UN has shown itself unable to handle anything of a military nature.

It sucks, but I don't see anybody else doing it.

so don't pull that "ask for our help" crap.

Nor were they opposed to us sending troops to the Balkans. Nor were they opposed to us sending troops to Africa recently. Etc.

What in hell is a super power? The country with the most lethal weapons? Is China a super power? What countries are asking for any 'help' other than that of a financial nature or military purchases. Don't hear of much 'help' going to those countries who are asking for the basics of life such as food, life saving medical help.

No. Sixth graders are "children"... adolescents are "children". For God sake, isn't puberty war enough? Leave those kids alone.

Daddy's gone across the ocean,
Leaving just a memory,
A snapshot in the family album.
Daddy, what else did you leave for me?
Daddy, whatcha leave behind for me?
All in all it was just a brick in the wall.
All in all it was just the bricks in the wall.

Let's see, they are just about to enter their teens. Some already have the hormones of a teen. They can and do make decisions about sex, drugs, etc. They are also beginning to make decisions about life. I know people who made career choices before that.

You can't hide them from the world. You can only educate them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ah, no. This is about hegemonism -- not self-defense. This is about indoctrination, not education. This is about, in the words of Richard Perle, "Total War" .

I will NOT sit by idly while the corrupt * regime attempts to mold our children into little copies of Hitler's youth, and anyone who agrees with this methodology scares me.

Leave those kids alone.

I do have a simple solution for you, you could try home education. That way, if you wish to remove your child from what is taught in the school system, you can do so.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:scared:

And I fear they will not only try but that they'll actually implement re-education programs if we don't stop them now.

On Hitler Youth:

"To survive, any regime must gain the support of future generations. Hitler and his chronies were well aware of this and immediately upon seizure of the Government executed plans to ensure it. The Hitler Youth (Hitler-Jugend) was Hitler's primary means tool to ensure that the younger generation would be committed and totally loyal to the National Socialist regime. Hitler had to be sure that German boys would be willing and prepared to fight in the upcoming war that he envisioned from the very begining of his political "awakening" after World War I. War was not what German parents had in mind for themselves and their boys. Thus a thorough indoctrination of the youth was needed and this was the role assigned to the Hitler Youth.'

'Several accounts exist of Hitler Youth members. One of the most chilling is the story told by a 9-year old German boy, Alfons Heck. Why would a 9-year-old child believe, "I belonged to Hitler body and soul. My fate as bound to the Fuhrer's"? The devotion of these children clearly shows in the newsreals and propaganda films like Triumph of the Will (193?) and (Der) Marsch zum Fuehrer/The March to the Fuehrer (1940). These children did believe. The Hitler Youth movement largely succeded in gaining the willing support of German youth to the goals of Adolf Hitler. They were committed to the New Order, although few fully comprehended what Hitler had in mind. As Heck's chilling true account shows, like 8 million other German Hitler Youth, he was so captivated by Hitler that he watched his favorite childhood friends be taken away to be murdered while he cared for nothing but to win the war or die for Germany and its leader. Graphic documentary footage dramatizes how songs, youth camps, speeches, and education reinforced Hitler's mesmerizing lies of racial science and a master race. Heck, now an adult who can barely believe his own fanaticism and Hitler's atrocities, sees no reason why history cannot repeat itself. "



"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them" - George Santayana

What do they want them for? Powder monkeys? More lads and young blokes for 'er Majesty's Royal Navy? What kind of shit is this?

Government information on the program is here under the title
"Access for and Disclosures to Military Recruiters":

Search Results for:archived Access to High School Students Information on Students by Military Recruiters-
http://www.ed.gov/searchResults.jhtml?rq=0&tx=Access+to+High+School+Students+and+Information+on+Students+by+Military+Recruiters&GO+-+Submit+Search.x=20&GO+-+Submit+Search.y=8

Letter from Paige to Rumsfeld"-
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht10-09-02c.html?exp=0

Policy Guidance-
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht-10-09-02a.html?exp=0


Q.Where can I get more information on the requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 503?
A.The Office of the Secretary of Defense may be contacted for copies of the statute, or questions relating to it:
Director, Accession Policy
4000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-4000
Telephone: (703) 695-5529

Q.Where can I get more information on the requirements of § 9528 of the ESEA?
A.The Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) in the Department of Education administers FERPA as well as § 9528 of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

School officials with questions on this guidance, or FERPA, may contact the FPCO at FERPA@ED.Gov or write to the FPCO as follows:

Family Policy Compliance Office
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-4605
Telephone: (202) 260-3887
Fax: (202) 260-9001 http://www.ed.gov/offices/OII/fpco/

Sample Opt-Out Form:

STUDENT REQUEST TO REFUSE RELEASE OF CONTACT INFORMATION TO MILITARY RECRUTERS
To: Your School Superintendent

I am writing to request that you do not make my name, address, or telephone listing available for military recruitment purposes, as is provided under Paragraph 2, Subsection (a) of Section 9528 of Public Law 107-110*. I look foward to your prompt response to this letter.
Sincerely,____________________

Name:_______________________School___________

Address:_______________________________________

City/State/Zip:__________________________________
*Public Law 107-110,
The No Child Left Behind Act,
Provides that either students or parents may request that information not be released to military recruiters without written parental consent and that schools must notify parents of the option to make such a request and must comply with any request.


Links:

Military Recruiters at School-http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/7838

High School Student Rights-
http://comdsd.org/pdf/hs_1.pdf

Teach Peace Make Our Schools Military-Free Zones-
http://comdsd.org/pdf/teach.pdf

http://www.warresisters.org

http://www.afsc.org/youthmil.htm

AFSC Youth Program - No Child Left Unrecruited
http://afsc.org/newengland/nh/finalafscyouth/nochildunrecruited.html

"Military Out of Our Schools" Poster-
http://www.objector.org/moos/moos_poster.html

my school board...:yourock:

I was at the Friends conference on militarism in schools in Philadelphia this summer. I got this flyer with cheap tools to start an anti-recruitment program of your own. I don't vouch for the availability of the materials but I have the flyer on a page on my site. See if you can get and use the stuff!

~Project YANO Sample Outreach Educational Tools
http://www.returningsoldiers.us/Yano.htm

Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities (Project YANO)
P.O. Box 230157, Encinitas, CA 92023 - (760) 634-3604; ProjYANO@aol.com

Access to High School Students and Information on Students by Military Recruiters-October 9, 2002

Q.What are the recent changes made by Congress concerning military recruitment of high school students?
A.Congress has passed two major pieces of legislation that generally require local educational agencies (LEAs) receiving assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)1 to give military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as they provide to postsecondary institutions or to prospective employers. LEAs are also generally required to provide students' names, addresses, and telephone listings to military recruiters, when requested.

Q.Where are these statutory requirements found?
A.These requirements are contained in § 9528 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. § 7908), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. No. 107-110)

These requirements are also contained in 10 U.S.C. § 503, as amended by § 544 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (P.L. No. 107-107), the legislation that provides funding for the nation's armed forces.

Q.What is the effective date for these military recruiter access requirements?
A.While there are differences in the effective date provisions for 10 U.S.C. § 503 and § 9528 of the ESEA, both provisions apply to all LEAs receiving ESEA funds by not later than July 1, 2002.

Q.What are the requirements of § 9528 of the ESEA?
A.Each LEA that receives funds under the ESEA must comply with a request by a military recruiter or an institution of higher education for secondary students' names, addresses, and telephone numbers, unless a parent has "opted out" of providing such information.

Section 9528 also requires LEAs that receive funds under the ESEA to provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as they generally provide to postsecondary institutions or prospective employers. For example, if the school has a policy of allowing postsecondary institutions or prospective employers to come on school property to provide information to students about educational or professional opportunities, it must afford the same access to military recruiters.

Q.Under § 9528 of the ESEA, what notification must LEAs provide to parents before disclosing names, addresses, and telephone numbers of secondary students to military recruiters and officials of institutions of higher education?
A.Under FERPA, an LEA must provide notice to parents of the types of student information that it releases publicly. This type of student information, commonly referred to as "directory information," includes such items as names, addresses, and telephone numbers and is information generally not considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. The notice must include an explanation of a parent's right to request that the information not be disclosed without prior written consent.

Additionally, § 9528 requires that parents be notified that the school routinely discloses names, addresses, and telephone numbers to military recruiters upon request, subject to a parent's request not to disclose such information without written consent. A single notice provided through a mailing, student handbook, or other method that is reasonably calculated to inform parents of the above information is sufficient to satisfy the parental notification requirements of both FERPA and § 9528. The notification must advise the parent of how to opt out of the public, nonconsensual disclosure of directory information and the method and timeline within which to do so.

Q.If an LEA has not provided notice relating to "directory information," may it release a student's name, address, and telephone number when requested by a military recruiter?
A.As noted above, an LEA may provide a single notice regarding both directory information and information disclosed to military recruiters. If an LEA does not disclose "directory information" under FERPA, then it must still provide military recruiters access to secondary students' names, addresses, and telephone listings. In addition, the LEA must notify parents that they may opt out of this disclosure. In other words, an LEA that does not disclose "directory information" must nonetheless provide a notice that it discloses information to military recruiters. The notice must be reasonably calculated to inform parents.

Q.If a parent opts out of the public, nonconsensual disclosure of directory information (or any subset of such information), must the three data elements be released to military recruiters upon their request?
A.If a parent opts out of providing directory information to third parties, the opt-out relating to name, address, or telephone number applies to requests from military recruiters as well. For example, if the opt-out states that telephone numbers will not be disclosed to the public, schools may not disclose telephone numbers to military recruiters.

Q.If the school does not list one or more of the three data elements (e.g., telephone number) among its directory information, may it release that information to military recruiters?
A.If a school does not designate one or more of the three items as "directory information" under FERPA, it still must provide all three items to military recruiters upon request. Also, in that case, the school would have to send a separate notice to parents about the missing "directory information" item(s), noting an opportunity to opt out of disclosure of the information to military recruiters. An easier method, of course, would be for the school to designate all three items - name, address, and telephone listing - as "directory information."

Q.How are the requirements under § 9528 of the ESEA enforced?
A.Schools that do not comply with § 9528 of the ESEA could jeopardize their receipt of ESEA funds.

Q.How does § 544 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 amend the former requirements under 10 U.S.C. § 503?A.Section 544 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 revises Title 10, Section 503(c) in several important ways. First, the recruiting provisions now apply only to LEAs (including private secondary schools) that receive funds under the ESEA. Second, these provisions now require access by military recruiters to students, under certain conditions, and to secondary school students' names, addresses, and telephone listings. Third, as discussed earlier, they require LEAs to notify parents of their right to opt out of the disclosure of their children's names, addresses, and telephone numbers and to comply with any such requests from the parents or the students.

Q.How are these requirements under 10 U.S.C. § 503 enforced?
A.In addition to the potential for loss of funds under ESEA noted above for failure to comply with § 9528 of the ESEA, an LEA that denies a military recruiter access to the requested information on students after July 1, 2002, will be subject to specific interventions under 10 U.S.C. § 503.

In this regard, the law requires that a senior military officer (e.g., Colonel or Navy Captain) visit the LEA within 120 days. If the access problem is not resolved with the LEA, the Department of Defense must notify the State Governor within 60 days. Problems still unresolved after one year are reported to Congress if the Secretary of Defense determines that the LEA denies recruiting access to at least two of the armed forces (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, etc.). The expectation is that public officials will work with the LEA to resolve the problem.

Additionally, the Department of Defense has developed a national high school data base to document recruiter access. Presently, 95 percent of the nation's 22,000 secondary schools provide a degree of access to military recruiters that is consistent with current law.

Q.Are private schools subject to the military recruiter requirements?

A.Private secondary schools that receive funds under the ESEA are subject to § to 10 U.S.C. § 503. However, private schools that maintain a religious objection to service in the Armed Forces that is verifiable through the corporate or other organizational documents or materials of that school are not required to comply with this law.

i have an appointment with school superintendent on thursday..i will post a thread on the outcome.

Certain proficiency tests that are "optional" are given to students throughout their term. These optional test results are sometimes sent to the military and it's subsidiaries. This is an insidious way around the opt-out option, furthering the risk of exposure of your child to the recruiters.

of grade schoolers during the Vietnam debacle my children were introduced by me to the realities of choosing a military career. This has stuck with them througout the years. They have always been of an independent nature as a result. The idea of being a GI (government issue) would only apply in times of 'true defense' of this country not political/power fodder. Sad that kids are lured by promises of perks (free education(yeah), sign-up money, an assured future,etc) that the military offers to find out that payment in return might be your life in defense of the political game of war and greed.

They come to my high school several times every year.... I think they do this with most schools.

high school career day is another story...my daughter is 11 years old for gods sake...NOT acceptable...just fucking evil

They come all the time at random.

They also came in middle school. Like I said - I think they come to all schools, or at least try to.

Even at 6th grade they might have been warped by the recruiter. But they still have at least 5 years to think about it. The effect is only temporary. Unless that recruiter was a god among recruiters it won't stick with them for half that time.

Most all of these kids will forget about it as soon as they get home and fire up the XBOX. I had a recruiter bug me mulitple times my junior and senior year. Told him after I graduated I would go see him in his office if he would leave me alone. Went there like I said I would, what the hell, and he asked me what I wanted to become/do, etc., Told him I would fly jets and that was about all that interested me. A couple weeks later he called me and said my grades where fine but I couldn't get into that program since I had a few, um, traffic tickets, just a couple :) .

I said thanks, went to school for telecomunications, and that was that. This was in 1993/1992 by the way, so it is nothing new.

It is my understanding that as long as the military has access to students that peace oriented groups are allowed equal time and presence on campus. Theoretically, anyone speaking on concientious objection should be allowed to pass out water bottles with peace signs to your students as well. Several groups have a reliable history of providing such speakers such as Veterans Against War and the Friends Service Committee. It is helpful to everyone if parents request this equal exposure. Were they notified of the presentation? A friend of mine recently found out his 16 yo son had been pressured and agreed to meet with a recruiter and was expected to drive around with this military man for a sales pitch. My friend was never notified that this was going to happen. I have to wonder how often parents are aware of this going on. Not to mention the re-staffing and funding of the selective service boards.
You have my full support. Keep up the great work in the classroom.
Teresa

that there is one member who acts as a stick in the spoke of DU on certain threads. I don't know why this asshole hasn't been banned yet, but here's hoping it will happen soon.

:puke:

:eyes:

Of course it is wrong to allow the military access to our children in earlier grades. There can be no good reason for it.

I can not believe the ones who think this is ok. You must not be very perceptive.

(and I'll be flamed for discrimination or something) I think they're young and don't know jack shyte about life.

I'm appalled that they do not understand how badly(military in grade school) this is wrong. :(

that filled Her Majesty's navy.

Press gangs kidnapped you. This is simply marketing. It's how everything in our society is advertised.

If you prefer the other solution, we can always draft. Either way, we need a military.

.

letting them into elementary schools, I can only assume you are a Navy Recruiter...

They come anywhere near my kids in grammar school and they had better bring a fricken tank.

And just because it is heavily one-sided here doesn't mean that is what most Americans think. Most Americans are much more pro-military than this thread.

why the fuck aren't they enlisting???? nwhy are they talking about reinstuting conscription then???

But I don't sign up to play football.

Lots of people support the military and, for one reason or another, don't sign up to join. One of the definite downsides of the volunteer military is that middle class and upper class kids are less likely to serve.

and speak for them.

You are confusing anti-military with anti-military-recruiting-of-grammar-school-kids.

of course, you obviously have your agenda.

There are several posts in this thread that are downright anti-military, NOT anti-military in the schools.

Most Americans support their military more than this thread. That's sort of an easy statement to make since most on this thread don't seem to support our military at all.

When I attended their national convention a member spoke out about this very thing and was livid about the active recruitment of children that have yet to devolvement cognitively. You should contact VFP maybe they could come out to the school.