About a week ago, the city council of Berkeley, CA, voted to call on the Marines recruiters to leave, calling them "unwelcome intruders." Since then, several congressmen threatened to introduce bills to cancel the $2 million in federal grant money the city is receiving. A couple of days ago, the Mayor issued a public apology, and the city council said their previous resolution was non-binding, and they never meant to show disrespect for American people in uniform. Thus they gave in quickly to pressure when it looked like they might actually have to pay something for their unpatriotic insults to the American military. Likely the storm of virtually universal condemnation from all over the country had something to do with it, too. One thing Americans will not stand for today is anyone showing disrepect to our men and women who serve in the military, laying their lives on the line, to fight the war on terror in distant lands, so we won't have to suffer it coming here again.
By way of background, there is a long, lengthy, and complicated series of procedures any group must go through in order to gain permission from the city of Berkeley to operate and engage in any kind of public advocacy. The U.S. Marine Corps. went through this lengthy procedure and obtained a legal permit to operate their recruitment center. The anti-war group was given a special dispensation that allowed them to bypass all these legal filings and procedures, so they could begin parading around with anti-American anti-military picket signs almost immediately. The Marine recruiters have declared they will not leave Berkeley.
During the first desert storm, when American forces were literally bulldozing the entire Iraqi line of dug-in troops, American troops were heard by the world's reporters who were there declaring to the cowering, terrified Iraqi troops, "It's OK, you're safe now." Safe to be in American hands. These young men and women in the U.S. military knew this instinctively. They knew this is the kind of country America is. And indeed, within a few months, all the captured prisoners were allowed to return home. The American military is different from any other military force that has ever existed.
America is the only nation that engages in wars, and takes no territory--even rebuilding the destroyed lands of its former enemies. Today the Iraqi people have turned against the terrorists and insurgents, because they have been closely acquainted with American troops for years now, and have learned they can trust Americans to keep their word and actually seek their good. They tell the Americans where the enemy's hideouts are, where their weapon caches are, and the Iraqi police and army are growing in numbers despite desperate efforts by terrorists to intimidate them, and work with American forces backing them up to destroy the last remaining strongholds of the enemy.
The terrorists themselves have said they have placed their main effort on confronting Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. While they have been spending their resources in this way in what has proven for them to be a losing effort, they have been unable to mount any more terrorist attacks in America. In Afghanistan, girls are allowed to go to school--which the Taliban had forbidden. Women are no longer treated like non-persons with no property rights. Women are allowed in government now.
In Iraq, people are able to go to restaurants again, to the newly re-opened Baghdad zoo, have open weddings in public places again, and Sunni and Shiite associate together peaceably. The dramatic transformation of Iraqi social life in recent months is clear testament to the successful war effort being made by the U.S. military working with the Iraqi police and army that Americans have trained and equipped. There is still need for more progress to be made in forming a true coalition government--but at least it is possible now, with the sectarian violence all but vanished.
When America finally succeeds in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will leave behind the only truly open democracies in the Middle East--besides Israel. They will leave behind friends who are grateful, like the Japanese were following World War II, when Americans helped them restore order, repair the damage of war, and establish a free democracy. America even gave back the island of Okinawa.
These are the things that are happening now. We can see them happening. And we can see that despite the costs to us, and to those who made themselves our enemies, it is worth it. The American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan know this, since they are there and they can see the good they are doing. At least half of the American soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve second and third tours of duty, because they see the good they are doing, and feel proud and honored to be a part of it. And when they do finally come home to their own families, everyhere all over America they are celebrated as true heroes--that is, everywhere but in Berkeley, California, where spoiled children of a privileged, fanatically liberal elite think they can make themselves seem righteous by denouncing those who are truly good--the American soldiers. But America holds these treasonous, ungrateful villains in contempt, and are turning their backs on them, and are honoring the returning soldiers all the more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*wipes tear from eye* That's as moving a piece of long-form historical fiction as any Russian novel.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The only cockroaches are the would-be tyrants.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
J-I-N-G-O, J-I-N-G-O, J-I-N-G-O, and Jingo was his name-o.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:And when they do finally come home to their own families, everyhere all over America they are celebrated as true heroes--that is, everywhere but in Berkeley, California, where spoiled children of a privileged, fanatically liberal elite think they can make themselves seem righteous by denouncing those who are truly good--the American soldiers.
I do like the "No Military Predators in Our Town" sign.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I like reading what Ron Lambert writes because he is under the impression that it is an accurate portrayal of really pretty much anything he thinks he understands.
You don't get that kind of innocent dissonance of complex political situations anymore. It's refreshingly appealing to think that for some people, politics is easy. You just put on your rose-colored glasses, and squint 'till you get everything looking just how you want it.
If only, you think, it could be as easy for me! You might stop bothering to question the competence of leaders and the legitimacy of their accounts. All that wasted time dissolved in a wide-brushed sociopolitical monochrome. You'd spend a little time and money buying plastic flags and yellow ribbons for your car, perhaps occasionally stopping to praise the president for standing firm against massive unpopularity, scandal and setback, but largely, life would be a lot less concerning, don't you think?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"You don't get that kind of innocent dissonance of complex political situations anymore."
From people as intelligent as Ron, not very often.
Ron's like a sincere, non-malicious, non-self-promoting version of Michael Savage. It is kind of refreshing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:life would be a lot less concerning, don't you think?
No. Because fully 50% of the population would be the enemy -- and maybe more, depending on whether you were fixating on more than one issue in any given week.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I thought it was well put Ron. I agree with you completely. When I read the Berkley story, I got very upset. Of course, the city and it's citizens are allowed to protest, but I'm also allowed to think they are Birkenstock wearing hippies that don't bathe.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: they have been unable to mount any more terrorist attacks in America.
Why is that surprising?
Posted by Zhil (Member # 10504) on :
If anyone's interested in some photos of the protests that were staged in front of the recruitment office:
Note: The site has a bit of a rightie bias, but the pictures speak for themselves, methinks.
What happened was pretty much what I expected. Pander to the liberal constituency, and then backpedal like crazy when actual money is on the line. Meh.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting that one of the reasons federal funds are provided to schools is for this purpose: to be both a carrot and a stick. There are many, many schools that originally got hooked on federal funding, only to discover that this came with strings that could be attached at any time, without their approval or even necessarily their knowledge.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've been thinking about this story for a couple days since I first saw it. And about Ron's post since I saw it. And for the moment, I'm going to do something uncharacteristic, and not launch into a lengthy diatribe about how incredibly wrong you are Ron, except to say that you ARE horribly wrong.
That and the soldier love in this country is over the top, in my opinion. Respect and appreciation is one thing, but we're into fanaticism.
As tacky and inappropriate as I felt the protestors were, I think the Congressional Republicans who felt attacking school children was the appropriate response are equally heinous. The best behaved group in this situation was the "recruiter" himself, who responded in a measured, appropriate way, and I thought he was pretty clever too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* I actually thought the recruiter's letter to the editor was considerably better thought out than the quote by John Stuart Mill he hung up earlier.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I also want to say I think that was relatively well put, Ron. And, though I disagree with you on some issues, I definitely agree that what Berkeley tried to do was ridiculous, insulting, and, of course, typical.
This is speaking as someone who grew up there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:No. Because fully 50% of the population would be the enemy -- and maybe more, depending on whether you were fixating on more than one issue in any given week.
But, that's like saying that half of the people on the field are the Washington Generals fighting the Harlem Globetrotters. They're like a prop in ron-o-vision, there to get inevitably vanquished by a resurgence in morals n' values. This vanquishing is always curiously right around the corner, whether it be the inevitable crushing of the Evolutionism (sp) lie, the immediately impeding awakening of the populace from the obvious global warming deception, or the assured consummation of Real America's victory against sleazy spoiled liberal brats.
See, if you're Ron, you could reimagine the world carefully enough to make it into a foreordained, perpetually assured victory against foes that you understand only as paper-thin caricatures with obvious motives and embarrassing delusions. And who cares if it never actually turns out like you think it should! It's always just about to.
It's like a never-ending teacup ride of smug anticipation, and you can hang around and reassuringly pat people on the back and assuage them with your neverending wisdom. Don't worry, scientists! Undeniable evidence of Christian creationism is right around the corner. Don't fret, Jews, you won't go to hell forever, you know. I know! I'm Ron Lambert!
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
I can understand Berkeley's stance, though. I mean, they're not protesting the Marines--they're protesting the Marine recruiters. And recruiters are known for using predatory tactics. If you look at this from one point of view, these are people preying on kids to send them to an environment where their lives are in constant danger. From that view, it's not an irrational protest at all: it's the only ethically sound response.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think the problem is that protesters exist.
Actually, I'm SURE that *I* don't have a problem with protesters existing.
I have a problem when laws are not applied equally to parties who are operating within legal limits. Which, from what I've been able to see, the Marine recruiters were certainly doing.
I have a problem with hero-worshipping soldiers. I think they deserve respect; I think that fawning over the military is very dangerous. It tends to create a wall between the soldier and the citizen, which is what makes military dictatorships eventually possible. Our country is established so that the citizen is ALWAYS the greatest political power (idealistically). Hero-worship removes that principal ideal.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I thought the "Impeach W" stickers were cute. I mean, they should get some use out of them before they become obsolete. It's good to be frugal.
It's also good to be able to protest things you disagree with, but I think it is the duty of the body politic to see that the rules are applied to everyone equally. I don't expect people to always live up to that ideal, but I think we should remain conscious of it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I like reading what Ron Lambert writes because he is under the impression that it is an accurate portrayal of really pretty much anything he thinks he understands.
You don't get that kind of innocent dissonance of complex political situations anymore. It's refreshingly appealing to think that for some people, politics is easy. You just put on your rose-colored glasses, and squint 'till you get everything looking just how you want it.
If only, you think, it could be as easy for me! You might stop bothering to question the competence of leaders and the legitimacy of their accounts. All that wasted time dissolved in a wide-brushed sociopolitical monochrome. You'd spend a little time and money buying plastic flags and yellow ribbons for your car, perhaps occasionally stopping to praise the president for standing firm against massive unpopularity, scandal and setback, but largely, life would be a lot less concerning, don't you think?
Let's ask OSC and see how it's been working for him.
Yeah, I agree. Ron Lambert, one issue in your writing in general is that you write the broadly applied, yet partisan statements that are at once supposed to be meaningful, but feel hollow and fabricated: "the story of virtually universal condemnation from all over the country." This sentence prevaricates right away, "from all over the country" is not the same thing as "throughout." You may not have payed mind to the distinction, but you clearly wanted to emphasize "virtually universal." Except, "virtually," I find that people who wish to ignore a salient point will employ this word in order to dismiss unwanted possibilities. And we see that these possible disagreements are going on "all over."
You see in Berkley and San Francisco, there is not strong support for the war, the president, or in fact, at a times, the federal government. Lest you should forget what you know about the constitution, remember that it is a right and a duty for us as cities states and people to rise up against injustice when we are oppressed. There is not someone from another state or time zone to tell us when that time comes, and many people in Berkley surely feel the time has already passed for action.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm not sure if it's totally that simple. For one thing, the idea of fighting terrorism overseas to keep the war from here is DEEPLY DISTURBING. So it's perfectly OK to take people whose lives have already been unstable and make it MORE unstable just to keep it out of our backyard? The perspective might be different for people who are actually living there, for many of the folks who are fighting there. It's not a simple matter of black and white, us vs them, red vs blue. It's complicated. No president's speech, OSC article, liberal diatribe about war for oil can truly capture the complexity of this issue. So the use of simple language really has to stop on every side.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, I'm all for simple language as long as it just doesn't fly in the face of reason. Like, say, you could put it that whether or not someone agrees with the principle of the war on terror, it's generally agreeable that perhaps the people in charge of it "didn't know what they were doing" or could even be said to have "cocked it up a tad"
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: I can understand Berkeley's stance, though. I mean, they're not protesting the Marines--they're protesting the Marine recruiters. And recruiters are known for using predatory tactics. If you look at this from one point of view, these are people preying on kids to send them to an environment where their lives are in constant danger. From that view, it's not an irrational protest at all: it's the only ethically sound response.
Odds are the recruiters have been in combat at least once before landing the much-sought-after Berkeley posting, and that they'll be in combat again after their tour there ends. You think that these guys would trick people into joining when they know that they are going to have to depend on them in combat later? The recruiters are going to go back to Iraq as team leaders and platoon sergeants for the same kids they signed up, and you think they'd jeopardize that relationship for anything?
They offer a unique way of life that has a lot to offer. These aren't slimy Army recruiters or absent Air Force recruiters.
Think Marine.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You think that these guys would trick people into joining when they know that they are going to have to depend on them in combat later?
Do not seriously assume that you don't find in Marine recruiters what you'll also find in recruiters for other branches. That's some blatant home-team bias there, bucko :)
Posted by Zhil (Member # 10504) on :
I like how those recruiters in that story basically kidnapped the poor kid. Haha, take that, witless, unassertive teen with no life experience! That'll teach you to be young.
I wonder if it's because his father was a Marine that his family got harrassed, because I, nor anyone I know, got that level of crap from recruiters. Hell, LaRouche assholes are more conniving and persistent than the Marine recruiters on the Berkeley campus. Then again, it's the Berkeley campus. More idiots are liable to join the LaRouche suckfest than the Marines.
The way I see it, the opportunity to join should be open (so I'm okay with the idea of recruiters in the city) but that sort of behavior is unacceptable. If a specific recruiter at the Berkeley branch acted like that, I'd be mad at him, and him only. Not all recruiters do that stuff, right??
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That story sounds farfetched to me.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zhil: I like how those recruiters in that story basically kidnapped the poor kid. Haha, take that, witless, unassertive teen with no life experience! That'll teach you to be young.
I wonder if it's because his father was a Marine that his family got harrassed, because I, nor anyone I know, got that level of crap from recruiters. Hell, LaRouche assholes are more conniving and persistent than the Marine recruiters on the Berkeley campus. Then again, it's the Berkeley campus. More idiots are liable to join the LaRouche suckfest than the Marines.
The way I see it, the opportunity to join should be open (so I'm okay with the idea of recruiters in the city) but that sort of behavior is unacceptable. If a specific recruiter at the Berkeley branch acted like that, I'd be mad at him, and him only. Not all recruiters do that stuff, right??
LaRouche? URG, those folks keep calling me all the time. I will not join their group. I won't. LaRouche according to Wikipedia had some illogical views. But I am not sure if I would want one of my future children to join the armed forces. I am a bit afraid of the culture. If they wanted too, they would be free to. It would be their decision, but if something like the Iraq war is going on...
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
My son was harassed by the Marines until he told them he wasn't a 0 on the Kinsey scale. He says the thinks he's about a 1.5.
They didn't really understand what he was talking about, but they stopped calling.
Posted by Zhil (Member # 10504) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by Zhil: I like how those recruiters in that story basically kidnapped the poor kid. Haha, take that, witless, unassertive teen with no life experience! That'll teach you to be young.
I wonder if it's because his father was a Marine that his family got harrassed, because I, nor anyone I know, got that level of crap from recruiters. Hell, LaRouche assholes are more conniving and persistent than the Marine recruiters on the Berkeley campus. Then again, it's the Berkeley campus. More idiots are liable to join the LaRouche suckfest than the Marines.
The way I see it, the opportunity to join should be open (so I'm okay with the idea of recruiters in the city) but that sort of behavior is unacceptable. If a specific recruiter at the Berkeley branch acted like that, I'd be mad at him, and him only. Not all recruiters do that stuff, right??
LaRouche? URG, those folks keep calling me all the time. I will not join their group. I won't. LaRouche according to Wikipedia had some illogical views. But I am not sure if I would want one of my future children to join the armed forces. I am a bit afraid of the culture. If they wanted too, they would be free to. It would be their decision, but if something like the Iraq war is going on...
It's just... The first time I was approached by a LaRouche supporter, it was 9 at night, it was freezing cold, it was raining like crazy, and this girl with a heavy chinese accent was handing out fliers. She didn't have a freaking umbrella, and was soaked.
She told me that she was an illegal immigrant, and that LaRouche supporters had funded her escape from China. WTF?? Even if she wasn't lying (which I think it was) why tell that to people?? I felt so sorry for her, I stuck around and listened to her hogwash. She wouldn't let me go until I took one of her fliers and promised to go to a LaRouche meeting. (I lied.)
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
quote:they could begin parading around with anti-American anti-military picket signs almost immediately
I'm sorry...anti-American signs?
I didn't see any anti-American signs. Maybe he means a bunch of people expressing their constitututional rights of free speech and assembly? Maybe he's thinking of the America where the government is never wrong, and so it's OK to ban free speech an dassembly.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
If they want to be against recruiters, it's their business. There is this thing called freedom to consider, which means we don't have to agree about EVERYTHING. How else can we learn the whole picture if we're just sticking blindly to our own side? Plus they did use saran wrap for their bloody handprints and chalk instead. They have every right to disagree with what is happening in Iraq. Without disagreement there is the potential for abuse.
I was on my way to an interview, after a Children's international guy with nice eyes begged me to support a child (and I did, even though I don't have a job, that's not logical) when this girl in front of Borders accosted me asking me what I thought of China and American working together. I said China has human rights violations. She launched into a diatribe. I made the mistake of giving these people my number. Now i[ve had some guy call up and gripe about Facebook and Myspace and beg me to go to a meeting. Unfortunetly I'm too polite. But I am NOT going to one of their meetings since I read about LaRouche and some of his strange theories.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If they want to be against recruiters, it's their business.
Sure it's their business. It's also their business to decide whether or not they want federal money without federal responsibilities.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't like that argument. It sounds too much like "Sure they can exercise their freedoms if they want, but only if they are willing to accept the consequences."
Freedom isn't supposed to have consequences like that, otherwise it's not, you know, FREE.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: My son was harassed by the Marines until he told them he wasn't a 0 on the Kinsey scale. He says the thinks he's about a 1.5.
They didn't really understand what he was talking about, but they stopped calling.
When my brother came back on leave from the Marines to do a recruiting stint, he gave the recruiting office my name (without my knowledge or permission) and the head recruiter must have called me three dozen times. Finally, after politely telling him most of the time that I wasn't interested, I flatly told him to leave me alone, and that it was never going to happen, which led to an hour long argument with my brother later over how "rude" I was. And this was before I was even 18. While I appreciate the job they were doing, it was like dealing with an armed telemarketer.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I have a problem with hero-worshipping soldiers. I think they deserve respect; I think that fawning over the military is very dangerous. It tends to create a wall between the soldier and the citizen, which is what makes military dictatorships eventually possible. Our country is established so that the citizen is ALWAYS the greatest political power (idealistically). Hero-worship removes that principal ideal.
I agree entirely. I think the level of fanatacism for soldiers in this country is getting to a really over the top level. It's a mass overcompensation from Vietnam. Hopefully it'll balance out some day.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Freedom isn't supposed to have consequences like that, otherwise it's not, you know, FREE.
Um, no. Free speech doesn't mean there are no consequences to my words -- just that I have the right to say them.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't like that argument. It sounds too much like "Sure they can exercise their freedoms if they want, but only if they are willing to accept the consequences."
That's exactly right.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Um, no. Free speech doesn't mean there are no consequences to my words -- just that I have the right to say them.
That's controversial.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There is a 2006 GAO document on the need for better oversight regarding "Recruiter Irregularities." Although the GAO noted that there is likely significant underreporting, the overall numbers do not suggest (to me) that most recruiters are involved in problematic recruiting tactics. However, the following was still concerning to me:
quote:... between fiscal years 2004 and 2005, allegations and service-identified incidents of recruiter wrongdoing increased, collectively, from 4,400 cases to 6,600 cases; substantiated cases increased from just over 400 to almost 630 cases; and criminal violations more than doubled from just over 30 to almost 70 cases.
70 cases of criminal violations by military recruiters in one year troubles me. [I do not know what these "criminal violations" were, but that number was the opposite of reassuring. To me. Doesn't mean that most recruiters are doing this -- of course! -- but, nonetheless, there is a significant number who have been found to violate criminal code. That isn't good.]
---
Edited again to add: for clarity, from page 19,
quote:Our work covers recruiting irregularities that affect all services’ active and reserve component enlisted personnel. For the purposes of this report, we define recruiter irregularities as those willful and unwillful acts of omission and improprieties that are perpetrated by a recruiter or alleged to be perpetrated by a recruiter to facilitate the recruiting process for an applicant. These recruiter irregularities range from administrative paperwork errors, to actions such as failing to disclose disqualifying eligibility criteria or instructing applicants not to reveal medical conditions or prior civil litigation, to criminal violations committed by a recruiter who is subsequently prosecuted under articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Criminal violations may include such actions as sexual harassment and falsifying documents. [italics added]
Table 2 breaks down substantiated and unsubstantiated recruiter irregularities by service branch. Table 3 does the same for criminal violations.
Of note, these sorts of comparisons have to be taken in context. For example, a hospital that has aggressive oversight and intervention for medical errors will look worse on paper than a hospital down the street that turns a blind eye and/or punishes whistleblowers -- yet it actually may be safer. [Or not. It's complicated to determine.]
A closer read of the discussion of these tables shows that the Air Force instituted (if I am reading correctly) an oversight push during this time period. Also, one recruiter may be responsible for multiple violations; e.g., 4 Navy incidents were intensively invesigated to turn up 9 criminal violations amongst them, if I am reading correctly.
[ February 10, 2008, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
rivka -
Yeah, I'd see your point if they were shouting obscenities or something. But it was nothing close to that, not the original City Council declaration that started this whole thing. The actual protests themselves were pretty tasteless, but that's not what got the ball rolling.
I guess my first statement was too broad, you're right, sometimes speech does have consequences, and really what you're protected against is imprisonment for saying things the government doesn't like. But I guess I'll be more specific. I don't like this particular form of threat from the government. If you read their specific complaints, they have some really valid points in there.
I don't like Federal dollars being used as a way to tell political dissidents to sit down and shut up, to say nothing of the fact that the people being told to comply contribute to that fund too. If they want to cut off all federal aid, I think they should get a refund of some sort of some of the money they put into that fund. I'm not really worried about this particular measure going through. Congress will never pass a bill that removes funding from Berkeley. I don't even particularly agree with the way Berkeley is going about this, but I think it's a horrible door to keep open do try and punish them for expressing valid concerns.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: Lest you should forget what you know about the constitution, remember that it is a right and a duty for us as cities states and people to rise up against injustice when we are oppressed.
They believe themselves to be oppressed? Wow. They should leave their little world sometime and see the world. Maybe if they unchain themselves from their Ipods, cell phones, and "gucci" clothing they might even notice opression is in a lot of places but here.
quote: That and the soldier love in this country is over the top, in my opinion. Respect and appreciation is one thing, but we're into fanaticism.
And really, a lot of us in the service don't want the fanatic "love." But we do get tired of being spat on. Heck, most the guys I ever served with just wanted to be left alone.
quote: And recruiters are known for using predatory tactics
That is the most generalistic heap of bullcrap I have ever seen. Yes, some recruiters cross the line. But most recruiters that do their job, do it right. It's a sales pitch to get someone in. Not one of my recruiters lied to me. There may have been things they didn't tell me, but that was my fault for not asking. They may gloss over or enshrine some things, but no one is holding a gun to the kid's head when he signs the paper. None of the recruiters I had or know ever told any of their recruits that the service was easy. Never told them that they would 100% succeed. No, because most of us agreed on a simple truth. You get out what you put in. If you aren't putting anything in, don't expect a handout.
quote: From that view, it's not an irrational protest at all: it's the only ethically sound response
I'm not saying anything against the protest. It is their right. However, ethically????? Did you hit your head? Since when was it ethical to curb laws, and get special favors to fight what you believe to be an injustice? The LEAST they could have done was do all the proper paperwork and whatever else was needed to do it LEGALLY. Apparently, Berkley could have been able to speed that on up as long as they did it legal. It's like putting a campfire out with a blowtorch. It makes no sense at all.
quote: I have a problem when laws are not applied equally to parties who are operating within legal limits. Which, from what I've been able to see, the Marine recruiters were certainly doing.
Yeah, what Scott R said.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:I don't like Federal dollars being used as a way to tell political dissidents to sit down and shut up, to say nothing of the fact that the people being told to comply contribute to that fund too
An' I don't like tax dollars going to welfare, but it still happens.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Freedom isn't supposed to have consequences like that, otherwise it's not, you know, FREE.
You and I start from really different places in this discussion, I think. To me, freedom of speech almost means anything but speech free of consequences, because in the modern age at least.
As for their complaints...well, honestly Berkeley has such a (well-earned) reputation for far-left radicalism that I automatically mistrust claims coming from them made against basically anyone who isn't themselves far-left, much less the military.
Berkeley is the Fred Phelps of municipalities.
As for their complaints? A lot less reasonable than you're making them out to be. Hell, the very first sentence is a tirade against US foreign policy...but don't stop the money-flow!
Yup, recruiters do sometimes lie. The word of a military recruiter without verifying signed documents is really not something you want to trust implicitly, if you're a potential recruit.
But how many people don't know this going in, really? And if they don't, why is the solution throw the recruiters out instead of compelling them to change their practices? The answer is pretty simple: the beef is not with recruiting practices so much as with the military itself.
The only concern that really has merit in my opinion is its stance against don't-ask-don't-tell.
Really, 'Peace and Justice Commission'. Ugh, right away that is so deliberately provocative Berkeley hardly gets to play the victim card.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Freedom isn't supposed to have consequences like that, otherwise it's not, you know, FREE.
We do not have absolute freedom. We have specific freedoms. These freedoms are not guaranteed to us without sacrifice because we do not live in a magical rainbow fairy gumdrop land where it is never at risk.
quote:Maybe if they unchain themselves from their Ipods, cell phones, and "gucci" clothing they might even notice opression is in a lot of places but here.
They're berkely college leftists. Gucci, really?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:And really, a lot of us in the service don't want the fanatic "love." But we do get tired of being spat on. Heck, most the guys I ever served with just wanted to be left alone.
I'm against either extreme. Soldiers do a difficult job that few are willing to step up and do, and often it's vital, so they deserve my respect, or at least they should individually start from a position of respect (it can still be forfeited if they are crappy individuals), and my appreciation, but not my undying devotion. Being in the armed forces isn't the be all end all. I think far too often they are used as political pawns, and I'm a little surprised they haven't intervened, but not entirely, if I were them I'd probably rather the adoration than risk the aforementioned spitting.
Rakeesh (and to a lesser extent Samp) -
I toned it back a bit in my second response because I know that obviously there isn't universal freedom of anything really in this country, though there's certainly an ideal to appreciate and uphold. I guess I spoke before I really took a chance to think my response through critically.
And I specifically said that I don't really even agree with Berkeley on this one. I think they're a bit out there, and I think they could have made their point FAR less, flamboyantly, for lack of a better word, but it's their point of view, and regardless of how horribly they present it, it has a sliver of merit.
quote:You and I start from really different places in this discussion, I think. To me, freedom of speech almost means anything but speech free of consequences, because in the modern age at least.
To be perfectly honest, I probably fall between what I originally said (yeah, I'm contradicting myself) and where you are. I don't think free speech is an absolute, though I do think that, unless it is inciteful (incitement to riot or other damaging ways) speech, hate speech, or in other less specific ways, damaging in a physical sense to people's safety, that it should be as unhindered as possible. That sets a lot of restrictions on speech that I'd probably be fairly okay with, but this situation doesn't fall under that umbrella.
And to be a frank, part of my umbrage is probably rooted in my extreme annoyance at the "We fight for your right to free speech...so shut up!" argument that seems to be trotted out whenever someone has the temerity to say anything negative about the military. I've seen a lot of hints of that already in the reponse to this, and blatently in the statements the Congressional Republicans made. That automatically pushes me closer to defending Berkeley, whether I like or agree with them or not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And to be a frank, part of my umbrage is probably rooted in my extreme annoyance at the "We fight for your right to free speech...so shut up!"
Yeah, that's up there with "love it or leave it" in terms of terrible jingomania :/
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating: do we really want to suggest that the only reason schools are federally funded is so they can produce soldiers?
Theoretically, the point of education is to produce informed citizens who can be a part of participatory democracy and do productive work that allows them to be economically self sufficient, yes?
And perhaps, then, some of those informed, educated citizens, armed with the best available information, will choose to serve their country in the military- but frankly, that's strictly secondary. At least, it ought to be.
Punishing kids for the actions of their elders is also holding one group responsible for another's free speech. By any reasonable definition, that's shameful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating: do we really want to suggest that the only reason schools are federally funded is so they can produce soldiers?
One of the reasons schools are federally funded is so that the federal government can force them to do things.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I guess the problem is that we hold soldiering up to a higher bar, not so much because they necessarily deserve it, but because the idea that soldiers are just average Americans is profoundly disturbing. To find out that Marine recruiters use the same tactics as car and real estate salesmen is deeply disturbing. My favorite is this: "Now, there are two reasons you haven't joined yet, it's either because you are scared, or you are lazy, so boys, which one is it." I can't make this kind of stuff up. I'm not that good of a writer or a salesman. I can laugh when that sort of pressure is applied by a football coach, but it's UBfortunate to hear those words come out of one of our "heroes." And it wouldn't even be so bad if there weren't so many apologists within the Armed Forces. But as it stands, I'm all for military recruitment in public spaces, and I'm all for the protesting of military recruitment in public spaces.
[ February 10, 2008, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating: do we really want to suggest that the only reason schools are federally funded is so they can produce soldiers?
Considering the tiny percentage of students in public schools who go on to join the military, if that is the intent it's not being served very well.
quote:One of the reasons schools are federally funded is so that the federal government can force them to do things.
And it's not always stuff we hate.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It is the ROTC programs that usually come in for chief criticism by the paranoid, anti-military Left. After all, they are right there in high schools and colleges training kids. But one big fact that puts the kibosh on the paranoid Left view is that less than 2% of ROTC graduates actually go on to careers in the military. Most of the people who view ROTC with favor look at it as more closely akin to Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts, with some extra military discipline added in.
Don't Democrats recruit to get people to join Young Democrats organizations on campus? They probably engage in more actual brainwashing tactics than do the Marines.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wow, I really disagree with that last part, Ron.
Unless you're comparing Young Democrat recruitment techniques and USMC recruitment techniques, in which case I'm not really knowledgeable enough to criticize.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating: do we really want to suggest that the only reason schools are federally funded is so they can produce soldiers?
Seeing as the average is about 5% of the population that can even meet all the wickets to join the military, are you really worried about that? Even a lot of that 5% needs to get waivers to join. I have 2 myself.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
It's about time that he admitted that the Calculus works.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: It's about time that he admitted that the Calculus works.
Can we call it the science of fluxions again?
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You think that these guys would trick people into joining when they know that they are going to have to depend on them in combat later?
Do not seriously assume that you don't find in Marine recruiters what you'll also find in recruiters for other branches. That's some blatant home-team bias there, bucko
Bucko? Are you serious? Of course there's a bias. And a little anger too. Honor and integrity are a huge part of the lifestyle, and all some people can do is throw stones from the sidelines. Gah!
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: My son was harassed by the Marines until he told them he wasn't a 0 on the Kinsey scale. He says the thinks he's about a 1.5.
They didn't really understand what he was talking about, but they stopped calling.
Did he seriously tell them that? That's funny.
I wish there was a way to keep the recruiters out of the high schools. I'm always worried they'll show up at my gun/military infatuated 9-year old's school. He'd follow them any where they'd want him to go.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yep, he really did. I was in the living room listening to this increasingly weird conversation trying to figure out who on earth he could be talking to.
Boy I don't remember recruiters in high school at all went I was in school. I just remember television commercials.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:
quote:Do not seriously assume that you don't find in Marine recruiters what you'll also find in recruiters for other branches. That's some blatant home-team bias there, bucko
Bucko? Are you serious? Of course there's a bias. And a little anger too.
I know. It's what is making arguments like yours so shallow: they are visceral, emotional reactions that draw you away from a fair judgment. "what, marines never do that, they aren't the slimy army, go marines think marine hoo-rah" is fun and all but it's easily picked apart.
See, let's talk about me for a minute: I was given some of the most astounding, openly predatory garbage you will ever hear by some USMC recruiters. It makes for a fun story (except for the phone drama) but its use in judging the marines is limited. I generally think the marines are an okay organization, and if I were unable to look beyond the emotional reaction I had to the disgusting recruiting techniques I just happened to have as an anecdotal experience, I wouldn't be able to say that. Today, I dismiss my personal experience and as much as is possible I don't let it color my view of the marines unnecessarily.
So, now look at yourself. You're so full of wounded pride over the subject of the marines just whenever they come up that you automatically take a reactionary standpoint and assume that they have done no wrong, and the same logic leaves you painting your opposition wholeheartedly as people who 'do nothing' but 'throw stones from the sidelines.'
Bzzzt, wrong. The marines are as open to criticism as any other group. Marine recruiters aren't a perfect dove-white honor-bound collective any more than you could say that about Navy or Army recruiters; there's some skullduggery in it all. At the least you could concede the right of americans to protest against military recruitment for a multitude of reasons, perhaps for instance a firm condemnation over the fact that they are discriminatory against homosexuals. This is a legitimate complaint!
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Tangential Question: if I were a single young man, and the draft had just been reinstated, could I just say I was gay (or show some pictures of me hugging a male friend, or whatever), and thus dodge the draft?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In the face of a draft, the government would probably drop the whole 'no gays' thing (it's on the rocks as it is) but as it stands now I think it's supposed to be as illegal to draft gays as it is to allow gays to enlist.
Residual homophobic governmental practices for the win!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Residual homophobic governmental practices for the win!"
Sam made a funny.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Ah. Well, luckily for me with respect to the draft, I "have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days." Gingrich for the win!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I guess you could also take advice from the most hypocritical draft dodger in the world, Ted Nugent:
quote:He claims that 30 days before his draft board physical, he stopped all forms of personal hygiene. The last 10 days, he ingested nothing but Vienna sausages and Pepsi; and a week before his physical, he stopped using bathrooms altogether, virtually living inside pants caked with his own excrement, stained by his urine. That spectacle won Nugent a deferment, he says. "... but if I would have gone over there, I'd have been killed, or I'd have killed, or I'd killed all the hippies in the foxholes...I would have killed everybody." - Detroit Free Press Magazine , July 15, 1990
Yeah that'll do it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have to imagine that if the draft were ever actually reinstated, they'd draft women too, as they should. I think they should have to register for selective service, but, that probably won't happen for a long time.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
<whine> But Lyrhawn..... I have biological problems with military service. I could catch an infection, or something. Like what happens all those Israeli woman soldiers, I'm sure. </whine>
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Shucks. I guess you won't be out hunting giraffes like the big boys, then.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Wait - there are giraffe-hunting benefits in the military? How come my high school recruiter never said anything about this?
... I could use a new rug in the hallway.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wouldn't a giraffe rug be better suited to, I dunno, chimney doiley or something?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
LOL Rakeesh. I was thinking chimney cozy. Doileys are too frilley.
Jhai - My brother was in the Marines for two years. In basic training he contracted a nasty case of cellulitis, MRSA and was diagnosed with fibromyalsia. The cellulitis literally ate a hole in his leg. This was about two thirds of the way through basic training, and it was just before the swim test, where he had to do however many laps in the pool with 40+ pounds of gear (full gear) on him. They told him he could do it with one leg, or he could start basic training all over again. He did it with one leg.
My point? I have a biological problem with military service too.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think most people have a biological problem with weapons being aimed at them. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Stupid hardwired instinctive desire to live.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Why does everyone have Marine recruiter stories but me? How do you get the Marines to call you up? Nobody ever even tried to recruit me.
I feel unwanted.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Why are the Marines even bothering trying to recruit in Berkeley to begin with? That seems like the waste of tax dollars...
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
We should protest such a flagrant waste.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe because despite the fact that Berkeley might be full of wackos, UC Berkeley is still a good school, and people come from all over the state and the country to go there?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I admit I don't think any other school has an element named after them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Tangential Question: if I were a single young man, and the draft had just been reinstated, could I just say I was gay (or show some pictures of me hugging a male friend, or whatever), and thus dodge the draft?
You could try Malcolm X's strategy of telling the recruiters that you hope you are drafted so that you can have the opportunity to "shoot some white crackers."
Worked for him.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Actual phone conversation:
Marine Recruiter: "Hello, may I speak with Jim Davis."
My Mother: "Who's calling please."
Marine: "My name is XXXXXX. I'm with the United States Marine Corp. Jim had shown an interest in what we have to offer so I....
My Mother: "I am sorry. Jim won't be able to sign up, what with the cast and all."
Marine: "What cast?"
My Mother: "Well, the moment he even tries to sign up for the Marines, I'll break every bone in his body. So you can see, he won't be signing up anytime soon."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I admit I don't think any other school has an element named after them.
What do you think einstium was named after, if not the Albert Einstein Institute of Mathematics? And then there's rutherfordium, clearly named after Rutherford College in New Zealand. There are more, but I trust I've made my point.
But Berkley has the distinction of having two elements name after it: berkelium and californium.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Oh Dan_raven, I like your mother!
May I quote her in the future if I get any phone calls like that one?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Tam, please do. She would be proud.
Note: My father served in the marines, and holds his time there as very special and is proud of it. I have one Nephew who plans on enlisting within two years. Still, I believe that a mother has the right to protect her children from their own valor.
Besides, how good of a marine are you going to be if you let your mother put you in traction.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But Berkley has the distinction of having two elements name after it: berkelium and californium.
BZZZZ!
Californium is named after the UC system (and the state of California) in general, not just UC Berkley. Seaborg was grateful to UCLA as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Still, I believe that a mother has the right to protect her children from their own valor.
Would you feel the same way about, for example, a mother or father using some form of coercion to get their child to enlist?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But Berkley has the distinction of having two elements name after it: berkelium and californium.
BZZZZ!
Californium is named after the UC system (and the state of California) in general, not just UC Berkley. Seaborg was grateful to UCLA as well.
Rivka, if you're going to correct my post for inaccuracies, why do you choose to correct the one statement that actually has some truth in it, instead of the rest of my post, which is completely false?
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I'm all for protecting my children from their own valor!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Rivka, if you're going to correct my post for inaccuracies, why do you choose to correct the one statement that actually has some truth in it, instead of the rest of my post, which is completely false?
1) The rest of it is so obviously false that it needs no correction. 2) I corrected the part I care about.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm all for protecting my children from their own valor!
This isn't the part I'm questioning. The part I'm questioning is the implied belief that you and Dan_Raven are suggesting (or at least mentioning), that using coercion on an older child (like, at the 16-18 age) for their own good is a good thing or not.
My suspicion is that you find that appropriate only insofar as you agree with the cause being advocated through coercion; if a parent were to say, "If you don't enlist in the Marines, you'll be in big trouble!" I suspect you'd be horrified.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*pouts*
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I thought it was funny mph.
I was just thinking the other day that when you first came here, you seemed to have no sense of humor whatsoever. Sarcasm was a mystery to you, and you'd routinely mistake jokes for literal claims, and challenge the poster.
Now it seems like half your posts are jokes, and usually are pretty funny ones at that.
Was it just the medium that took some getting used to?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I thought it was funny mph.
Oh, don't mistake my pedanticism for lack of amusement.
It was funny.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I'm all for protecting my children from their own valor!
This isn't the part I'm questioning. The part I'm questioning is the implied belief that you and Dan_Raven are suggesting (or at least mentioning), that using coercion on an older child (like, at the 16-18 age) for their own good is a good thing or not.
My suspicion is that you find that appropriate only insofar as you agree with the cause being advocated through coercion; if a parent were to say, "If you don't enlist in the Marines, you'll be in big trouble!" I suspect you'd be horrified.
I'll agree with this. But then, my parent's have been letting me make my own mistakes and owning up to them for quite a while before 18.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
If my 20 year old told me he was off to join the Marines, I don’t know what I would do. I'd probably try to bravely hug him and wish him the best, if that would make him happy, as I always want my children to be happy. First though, I’d want major reassurance from him that this was what he truly wanted to do and that he’d thought about the decision deeply and for quite awhile. I’d also want to know why he felt like this was his calling. Sure, there would be tears, plenty of them and plenty of long conversations. I wouldn’t threaten to break his legs.
If my just turned 17 or 9 year old boys, or even my 14 year old daughter, voiced the same opinion, I’d threaten to break their legs. I’d also quote Dan’s mother to anyone that called me/them trying to recruit them. They have very important things that they need to learn and experience before they consider joining the Marines. That’s just me, being a mom, keeping them on an organized path into adulthood.
My boys are at completely different stages in their lives. They are two completely different human beings and are at different levels of maturity.
In answer to the above question, yes, I would be horrified if someone harassed their children into joining the Marines! I think that’s a very personal decision that each adult must make for themselves.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I just picked up the mail, and there's a magazine from the National Guard, "Hooah, Your life, No Limits" addressed to my 17 year old.
They even threw in an article about Taylor Swift to make it more appealing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In answer to the above question, yes, I would be horrified if someone harassed their children into joining the Marines! I think that’s a very personal decision that each adult must make for themselves.
I respect your decision and your thought-process, even though you do contradict yourself, at least from earlier posts. Clearly it is not the harassment you mind, it's the harassment into making what you deem the wrong decision.
In other words, it's problematic if a parent harrasses a child into that decision, but not if they harrass their child out of that decision.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I'm all about contradicting myself Rakeesh! If you ever meet me in person, you'll wonder how I function on a daily basis without major medication!
I don't like harassment of any kind, especially harassment targeting young minds, or old minds for that matter and especially harassment into making what I deem wrong decisions.
Thank you for understanding me. You do understand me..don't you? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:They even threw in an article about Taylor Swift to make it more appealing.
Well there's a classic case of knowing your audience. They should advertise E-Warfare, UAV operator jobs, and other geeky stuff in gaming magazines. It's an untapped, powerful resource.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I thought it was funny mph.
Oh, don't mistake my pedanticism for lack of amusement.
It was funny.
*validated*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't like harassment of any kind, especially harassment targeting young minds, or old minds for that matter and especially harassment into making what I deem wrong decisions.
Naw, everyone has contradictions, I don't mind. I entirely understand your motivations on this issue, I think: you don't want your chilluns to get hurt. I can hardly fault you for that! Every parent should be zealous about that.
The only thing I'm trying to understand is that while you say you disapprove of harrassment, it seems you endorse and even cheer on your own (potential) harrassment if one of your 17 year old kids got it into his head to join up.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
"The only thing I'm trying to understand is that while you say you disapprove of harrassment, it seems you endorse and even cheer on your own (potential) harrassment if one of your 17 year old kids got it into his head to join up."
Yes, that's correct. My 17 year old is a junior in high school. He's got other things to concentrate on right now. It's an age thing, get it?
At least I tell myself it's an age thing. To be quite honest, that's the last thing I'd ever want my kids to be a part of. I'd volunteer to go, if someone in the family had to go. I'd much rather handle fighting for my family and country myself, than send one of my children.
However, I don't call it harrassment. I call it love.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:However, I don't call it harrassment. I call it love.
Of course you do, I understand that. But technically, threatening to break all of your kid's legs, which obviously isn't literal but probably means attempts at persuasion through long discussions, or even punishments or restriction of privileges (correct me if I'm wrong) is hardly a 'hands-off' approach to the issue, is it?
'Harrassing out of love' might be a better term, even though the word has negative connotations.
I'm not disagreeing with your choice to make sure your kid focuses on other things. I'm pointing out that, in fact, it's not the harrassment that bothers you (from recruiters, for example), it's harrassment in a bad direction that bothers you (because you would, from what I understand, harrass to avoid that outcome).
The only reason I'm talking about this at all is that initially, it was sort of suggested that you were against recruiters harrassing because they were trying to trick a kid into joining, unduly influencing them, etc. etc., in some way violating the kid's otherwise independant thinking.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
When someone made fun of my brother as a kid, I would get angry and scream at them. Ten minutes later, I would say something ten times worse to him. A mom gets to harrass kids, a stranger doesn't.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I thought what Dan's mother told the recruiters was funny. I liked the way she handled the conversation.
I'm sure she would never have seriously broken his legs, as I would most likely never break my boys legs, with the exception of the 9-yr old, they're much bigger and stronger than I am, so what would be the point of even trying. Of course, I'm kidding. I'd still be able to break their legs if I really wanted to because I'm sneaky and crafty in that way.
Rakeesh, the recruiters are there for a reason. They've learned certain tricks and tactics that seem to work quite well for them. I for one don't care for them to work their magic on my boys.
I don't know how else to contradict myself. I don't think trying to talk a child that I gave birth to and love dearly out of going to war, is the same as trying to talk him into going to war or allowing him to be gently, smoothly persuaded by some charming recruiter into following a certain path. I'm not trying to discourage independent thinking. I also am apparently biased in this particular situation.
I'm obviously not the queen of words. I have a hard time expressing myself. I think you know what I mean.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think I am, too. I'll try to put it simply.
Let's say you were just as good at using conversational tricks and tactics as an experienced recruiter is, except you were able to do so in a way that persuaded against rather than for joining the military.
Would you object to you or another parent using those same methods (which would then correctly be called 'harrassment', even out of love) on their children as the recruiter did, for a good cause? I don't think you would, is my point, and thus the problem you have isn't the harrassment, but the end for which the recruiter harrassment is a means.
That's all. You don't get as protective as you do because it's a stranger butting in, you get as protective as you do because it's a stranger butting in trying to persuade your kid to do something you object to strongly.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
It doesn't matter how simply you try to put it, I think I just don't agree with what you're saying.
I don't think it's the same thing.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There is a difference in that a 17 year old prevented by a parent from joining the military can still join when he or she turns 18 and when the parental persuasion wears off. Wheras someone persuaded to join the military would not be able to reverse that decision when the recruiting glow wore off.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I don't think trying to talk a child that I gave birth to and love dearly out of going to war, is the same as trying to talk him into going to war
I thought you expressed yourself perfectly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There is a difference in that a 17 year old prevented by a parent from joining the military can still join when he or she turns 18 and when the parental persuasion wears off. Wheras someone persuaded to join the military would not be able to reverse that decision when the recruiting glow wore off.
I'm well aware of this difference. My point is not, and has never been, that talking someone into joining the military and talking someone out of it is the same thing. I'm really not sure why people are getting hung up on that.
It comes back to this, and to Dan's anecdote:
quote:In answer to the above question, yes, I would be horrified if someone harassed their children into joining the Marines! I think that’s a very personal decision that each adult must make for themselves.
Harrassing into: seriously wrong. Harrassing out of: good parenting. So it's not that the recruiters are sneaky and bothersome that's the problem, it's that they're those things to a perceived bad end. I'm addressing outrage or anger at recruiter sneakiness or conversational gambits here, and pointing out the appearance that this is not really what some people object to.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Well, staying out of the line of fire has a far lower mortality rate, so it's not that they're harassing kids into a particularly safe environment with promises of--what, glory and being all you can be? I don't know what recruiters say, but I doubt there's many that make the risks of military service clear.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Well, staying out of the line of fire has a far lower mortality rate, so it's not that they're harassing kids into a particularly safe environment with promises of--what, glory and being all you can be? I don't know what recruiters say, but I doubt there's many that make the risks of military service clear.
It could be argued that the risks of military service are obvious to anyone.
In fact, I'll go ahead and argue it: the risks of military service are obvious to anyone.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with that. Who doesn't know that being a soldier carries a risk of being hurt or killed?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think trying to talk a child that I gave birth to and love dearly out of going to war, is the same as trying to talk him into going to war
I think that's pretty much Rakeesh's point here: the means are being evaluated based on the ends.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It could be argued that the risks of military service are obvious to anyone.
In fact, I'll go ahead and argue it: the risks of military service are obvious to anyone.
I'd argue that most of the teenagers who sign up for military service neither know the full risks involved in military service nor appreciate the true impact of the risks they do know about.
We've had mulitple threads about how teenage brains don't process risk well. This doesn't change when you approve of the risk that they are taking.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'd argue that most of the teenagers who sign up for military service neither know the full risks involved in military service nor appreciate the true impact of the risks they do know about.
You'll notice I didn't say anything about 'appreciating the true impact'. And as for not knowing the full risks involved, I suppose I agree, but the risk that's under discussion here-death or serious injury-I say is clearly known even by teenagers.
Just because they don't respect the gravity of the situation doesn't mean they don't know the situation is there at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:but the risk that's under discussion here-death or serious injury-I say is clearly known even by teenagers.
I don't see anything in this discussion that makes this the only risk being discussed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm pretty sure most teenagers don't appreciate the risk of having every bone in their body broken as a result of trying to sign up for the Marines.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I suspect the mothers in question take some pains to be sure they do appreciate that risk.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't see anything in this discussion that makes this the only risk being discussed.
That I can remember, it's at least one of the only risks that's been singled out.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
One place I worked a few years ago, the mother/owner of the company was having trouble with her teenage kids. The oldest was not only looking forward to enlisting, but to spending time in Iraq. He once said, "When I get over there, and meet one of them Al Queda idiots, you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna walk right up to him, pull out a grenade, pull the pin, hand it to him and tell him its a new cel phone. He should just wait right there for it to ring. Those camel jockeys over there don't know anything, so the idiot will just hold onto it until, boom, one less Al Queda."
I pictured the confused Al-Queda idiot waiting until the American soldier stepped away from the live grenade, and then would throw it at him. Boom, one less immortal teen. No matter what I said to the kid, he didn't seem to understand the situations that our troops go through on a daily basis.
That pretty much refutes your argument that "the risks of military service are obvious to anyone." No they are not. Stupid people (and way too many teenagers qualify for that moniker) don't see the obvious until some Sergeant smacks them with it in basic training.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That I can remember, it's at least one of the only risks that's been singled out.
I'm not sure why that is relevant. Do you think that people here were only talking about those risks? It seems clear to me that they were not.
I'm pretty sure that when most parents try to stop their kids from signing up that they are thinking of many more risks than jsut that. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that a vanishingly small number of recruiters talk about them at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
When talking abuot risky behavior, I don't think you can draw an equivilence between people (especially strangers doing it for their own ends) trying to manipulate kids into doing it and people who are trying to manipulate them into at the very least not doing it then.
If someone is going to assume risks, it seems important to me that they are making this decision with as clear a head and as complete an understanding as possible.
While I'd obviously prefer this for choosing to avoid risk (and for pretty much any other decision), the potential harm is much, much less.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When talking abuot risky behavior, I don't think you can draw an equivilence between people (especially strangers doing it for their own ends) trying to manipulate kids into doing it and people who are trying to manipulate them into at the very least not doing it then.
But when you talk about manipulation you can - and should - draw an equivalence between both those things.
It seems to me that this is the aspect Rakeesh has been talking about from the beginning. In fact, he has explicitly stated that he understands why a parent would approve of one and not the other. Moreover, he explicitly clarified why he brought this up - to bring out the fact that it's not interference with the independent thinking of young potential recruits that people find troubling in and of itself, but rather what the goal of that interference is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But when you talk about manipulation you can - and should - draw an equivalence between both those things.
It seems to me that this is the aspect Rakeesh has been talking about from the beginning. In fact, he has explicitly stated that he understands why a parent would approve of one and not the other. Moreover, he explicitly clarified why he brought this up - to bring out the fact that it's not interference with the independent thinking of young potential recruits that people find troubling in and of itself, but rather what the goal of that interference is.
It appears to me that Rakeesh created this focus on manipulation in and of itself. It doesn't come out of what people other than he said.
[edit]Here's the statment, he was responding to:
quote:Still, I believe that a mother has the right to protect her children from their own valor.
That seems to line up very well with what I'm saying, at least to me.[/edit]
As I was pointing out, there is a huge difference between manipulations towards danger and manipulations towards safety. I don't think you're going to find many parents who are above manipulating their children towards safety.
[ February 13, 2008, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It appears to me that Rakeesh created this focus on manipulation in and of itself.
Well, yeah. That's the aspect of the conversation that interested him.
It's not like he's tried to hide that:
quote:I'm not disagreeing with your choice to make sure your kid focuses on other things. I'm pointing out that, in fact, it's not the harrassment that bothers you (from recruiters, for example), it's harrassment in a bad direction that bothers you (because you would, from what I understand, harrass to avoid that outcome).
The only reason I'm talking about this at all is that initially, it was sort of suggested that you were against recruiters harrassing because they were trying to trick a kid into joining, unduly influencing them, etc. etc., in some way violating the kid's otherwise independant thinking.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, and I'm pointing out that this:
quote:The only reason I'm talking about this at all is that initially, it was sort of suggested that you were against recruiters harrassing because they were trying to trick a kid into joining, unduly influencing them, etc. etc., in some way violating the kid's otherwise independant thinking.
appears to me to be a much worse characterization that my interpretation.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And I'm not sure what your point is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
My point seems, to me, to be pretty simple and I thought I stated it clearly.
People aren't talking about manipulation for it's own sake. There is a huge difference between manipulation towards danger and that towards safety (or, as Tammy said, protecting them from their own valor). People are naturally generally going to look at manipulations towards risk and danger as being a bad thing, while manipulations towards safety (or protecting them) is considered, to a certain extent, a parent's perrogative.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:People aren't talking about manipulation for it's own sake.
It seems that was Rakeesh's point as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My point seems, to me, to be pretty simple and I thought I stated it clearly.
People aren't talking about manipulation for it's own sake.
Then let me rephrase: I'm not sure why you presented your point in such a way as to make it seem it was in opposition to Rakeesh's point.
You're making a point he explicitly made himself a page ago: that people were not actually opposed to the manipulation for its own sake.
Seems you agree with him.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: It is the ROTC programs that usually come in for chief criticism by the paranoid, anti-military Left.
Wow, I didn't realize the left was paranoid and anti-military. Maybe we should round them up and put them in camps since they are such a threat to our country.
Incidentally, I am very republican and I oppose the war. Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate this election and he is against the war because he saw it as ineffective and immoral.
Granted he has no chance of winning, but he has many republican supporters. In fact he got more donations the fourth quarter from active military then all the other candidates on both sides combined.
Maybe the military appreciates the wise and judicious use of force for America's defense.
quote:I don't think trying to talk a child that I gave birth to and love dearly out of going to war, is the same as trying to talk him into going to war
I thought you expressed yourself perfectly.
Thank you, for that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:My point seems, to me, to be pretty simple and I thought I stated it clearly.
People aren't talking about manipulation for it's own sake.
Then let me rephrase: I'm not sure why you presented your point in such a way as to make it seem it was in opposition to Rakeesh's point.
You're making a point he explicitly made himself a page ago: that people were not actually opposed to the manipulation for its own sake.
Seems you agree with him.
Of course what we were saying is similar in that very superficial manner. I don't understand why you think that is important or relevant, considering the large substantive differences in what we are saying.
For one thing, Rakeesh is saying "People aren't talking about manipulation for it's own sake, like they previously claimed to have a problem with." while I am saying "No one said that. You just made it up that they said that."
Yes, we both are saying that people aren't talking about manipulation for it's own sake, but I think that this similarity is a pretty minor part of our statements.
Also, the reason Rakeesh gave for what people were really talking about differs very much from the reason I gave, or Tammy came out and said:
quote:If my just turned 17 or 9 year old boys, or even my 14 year old daughter, voiced the same opinion, I’d threaten to break their legs. I’d also quote Dan’s mother to anyone that called me/them trying to recruit them. They have very important things that they need to learn and experience before they consider joining the Marines. That’s just me, being a mom, keeping them on an organized path into adulthood.
He claimed that they are fine with manipulation as long as it is manipulation for something they agree with.
I, and I believe Tammy, were pretty clear that the difference is about protection and the legitimate role of a parent.
---
I think there's a large disconnect in how American culture says you are supposed to see people in the military and the reality of the situation.
It's politically correct to profess to believe that the American armed forces are by and large populated with serious, dedicated people who are standing up for their country with very high morals and behavior, that our leaders really care about their sacrifices and honor their service, and that returning veterans should be treated with the highest of respect.
To be sure, there are such individuals in the military and a few of our political leaders actually do really care and sometimes being a veteran can be advantageous, but a lot of it is no where near so pure. A lot of the people in the military are there for much less pure reasons than what we're supposed to believe. A lot of people really don't care much about them, when they're fighting or when they come back.
We need to coerce, trick, and manipulate less than pure (and at times less than suitable) candidates in order to sustain our military at the level we've become accustomed to. And while many pick up or refine skills that are going to help them in civilian life, many others would be a liability employed outside the military sector.
This has been the reality of having very large armies since the time of having very large armies. It's gotten much better, but it is still far from the fantasy picture that we're supposed to believe in.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For one thing, Rakeesh is saying "People aren't talking about manipulation for it's own sake, like they previously claimed to have a problem with." while I am saying "No one said that. You just made it up that they said that."
You're not paraphrasing me very well at all.
And, as a matter of fact, Tammy did say she would have a problem with a parent harrassing their child into the military, so strike that 'very well'.
quote:He claimed that they are fine with manipulation as long as it is manipulation for something they agree with.
I, and I believe Tammy, were pretty clear that the difference is about protection and the legitimate role of a parent.
The difference being that it's about protection and legitimate parenting is why the manipulation out of as opposed to into is alright. 'Manipulation' does not have to be an evil word, in fact it is an important component of parenting.
--------
On a slightly different topic, I think the reference to 9 or 14 year olds is pretty silly. I believe recruiters shouldn't actively court them, and to my knowledge it doesn't happen very often. Unless we want to talk about JROTC programs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, the reason Rakeesh gave for what people were really talking about differs very much from the reason I gave, or Tammy came out and said:
You mean the reason that Rakeesh actually accepted and understood after Tammy said it?
Did you not notice the words "sort of suggested"? Or the part where he says - after having a conversation with Tammy to clarify what was sort of suggested to him by the posts on the subject - that he doesn't disagree with her choice?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Are you taking about this conversation?
quote:I respect your decision and your thought-process, even though you do contradict yourself, at least from earlier posts. Clearly it is not the harassment you mind, it's the harassment into making what you deem the wrong decision.
The one where he tells Tammy that 1) she's contradicting herself and 2) that previously she was saying that it was harassment in and of it self that she minded and 3) that the thing that she minds is that they are making the wrong decision, as opposed to it being a matter of manipulating towards risk versus manipulating towards safety and protection?
Or at least, that how it seems to me. Rakeesh, if I'm reading you so wrongly, could you explain what exactly you think was the contrdiction that you saw in Tammy's statements?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why are you arguing this, Squicky? It looks like everyone around basically agrees - what are you trying to make happen with your argument?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, Probably because I don't think everyone agrees. I really don't think I'm being unclear here and it seems to me that people are carefully picking small pieces of what I'm saying to respond to in a way that ignores most of what I have said.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How about you let Tammy speak for herself if she feels she has been misunderstood?
As it is, it looks like you're trying to pick a fight for murky reasons in a generally happy thread.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
katharina, hey, don't get in the way of someone defending me. I'm falling for MrSquicky, so back off.
You and Dagonee are quick to support Rakeesh, who by the way I've had much fun talking with. So why deny MrSquicky his side of the argument?
MrSquicky, are you for hire? I don't have any current legal cases that need defending, but in case I do in the future?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I really don't think I'm being unclear here and it seems to me that people are carefully picking small pieces of what I'm saying to respond to in a way that ignores most of what I have said.
That's pretty much what it looks like you're doing to Rakeesh.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And the continual game of instead of looking for understanding and giving the benefit of the doubt, instead picking apart and thinking the worst and ignoring everyting but what supports the worst possible interpretation is a pretty ugly activity.
Wouldn't it be better to ask for clarification instead of accuse?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That's pretty much what it looks like you're doing to Rakeesh.
How so?
I've been trying to be pretty clear here. If you are going to say "This is what it looks like you are doing.", could you show why you think that?
Also, if I say, here are the big things I think we disagree on, I think it is not really productive to say, "Well, it looks like everyone is in agreement." without addressing what I clearly think are significant disagreements.
edit: I think that differences in a parent manipulating their child to protect them versus a recruiter manipulating them to put them at risk constitute an important issue and very much inform the larger discussion. It doesn't look to me as if these issues were properly addressed and were instead dismissed as "Well, you think that because you are against your kids serving in the military."
I'm the only one of my siblings not in or contracting for the military. I considered signing up several times. If my child wanted to sign up and I was convinced that they really understood what it was they were committing themselves to, I'd support their decision fully. But I don't support what seems to me to be common recruiting tactics. And, if I felt that my child didn't understand or wasn't in a good place to make that commitment, I would feel it was my duty as a parent to do as much as I could to prevent them and make them rethink their decision.
---
Tammy, You bet. I've always liked you, you know. Also, this touches on the proper versus improper use of manipulation and "support the troops" issues, both of which I'm very interested in.
[ February 14, 2008, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I've been trying to be pretty clear here. If you are going to say "This is what it looks like you are doing.", could you show why you think that?
I have, repeatedly. You are focusing only on Rakeesh's statements about manipulation in and of itself and ignoring the repeated statements acknowledging the other factors - beyond manipulation - that go into evaluating each instance of manipulation.
quote:Also, this touches on the proper versus improper use of manipulation
Which is what Rakeesh has been discussing - the fact that what appeared to be a general blanket statement against manipulation was actually one about improper manipulation, with improper being evaluated by the relationship between the manipulator and the manipulatee as well as the desired end result.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Perhaps Squicky thinks that manipulation for war is being approved of? Is that the problem?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I have, repeatedly.
Where? edit in response to your edit:
quote:You are focusing only on Rakeesh's statements about manipulation in and of itself and ignoring the repeated statements acknowledging the other factors - beyond manipulation - that go into evaluating each instance of manipulation.
No, I'm not. In nearly every post I am remaking the case that the differences between manipulation towards safety or danger is different from manipulation towards something you agree or disagree with.
quote:the fact that what appeared to be a general blanket statement against manipulation was actually one about improper manipulation, with improper being evaluated by the relationship between the manipulator and the manipulatee as well as the desired end result.
When you say someone is contradicting themselves, you are claiming that they made a statement that they now disagree with. If Rakeesh was saying that it appeared that there was a general condemnation of manipulation, but that on examination, it turned out that the statement was actually meant to be about improper manipulation, there would be no grounds to say that Tammy contradicted herself.
Also, as I've said multiple times, Rakeesh was not (or so it appeared to me) talking about what either Tammy or I talked about, i.e. manipulation towards safety versus manipulation towards danger. Rather, he was saying that people don't have a problem with manipulation when they agree with the goal of manipulation. Those are two very different things.
[ February 14, 2008, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When you say someone is contradicting themselves, you are claiming that they made a statement that they now disagree with. If Rakeesh was saying that it appeared that there was a general condemnation of manipulation, but that on examination, it turned out that the statement was actually meant to be about improper manipulation, there would be no grounds to say that Tammy contradicted herself.
Tammy said this:
quote:I don't like harassment of any kind, especially harassment targeting young minds, or old minds for that matter and especially harassment into making what I deem wrong decisions. (emphasis added)
Oh, and she also said this:
quote:I'm all about contradicting myself Rakeesh!
Moreover, Rakeesh said this, specifically limiting it to what she posted earlier:
quote:even though you do contradict yourself, at least from earlier posts.
It's the picking and choosing which parts of Rakeesh's statements to attack without taking the entire context into discussion - something I've pointed out repeatedly you are doing - that amounts to "carefully picking small pieces of what [Rakeesh is] saying to respond to in a way that ignores most of what [he has] said."
quote:Also, as I've said multiple times, Rakeesh was not (or so it appeared to me) talking about what either Tammy or I talked about, i.e. manipulation towards safety versus manipulation towards danger. Rather, he was saying that people don't have a problem with manipulation when they agree with the goal of manipulation. Those are two very different things.
Yes: you and Tammy agree with the goal of moving towards safety. It's a subset of what Rakeesh was talking about.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Tammy said this:
quote:I don't like harassment of any kind, especially harassment targeting young minds, or old minds for that matter and especially harassment into making what I deem wrong decisions.
And? I don't like manipulation of any kind. That doesn't mean that my reasons for being against recruiters manipulating come down to or rest primarily on this dislike of manipulation. Nor does it mean that I don't manipulate myself or support manipulation, when other needs outweigh it.
quote: you and Tammy agree with the goal of moving towards safety.
No, I don't. What I'm talking about is not a subset of what Rakeesh is talking about. As I said above, I would support my children signing up for the military. In other cases, I may think that parents are not correct when they are manipulating their kids towards safety. That doesn't change the fact that it is soemthing I feel is the perogative of those parents and something that is qualitatively different from manipulating someone towards danger.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And? I don't like manipulation of any kind. That doesn't mean that my reasons for being against recruiters manipulating come down to or rest primarily on this dislike of manipulation. Nor does it mean that I don't manipulate myself, when other needs outweigh it.
Again, Rakeesh's point.
quote:No, I don't. What I'm talking about is not a subset of what Rakeesh is talking about. As I said above, I would support my children signing up for the military. In other cases, I may think that parents are not correct when they are manipulating their kids towards safety.
In your case, the goal that would cause you to approve of manipulation (as part of "as much as I could [do] to prevent them and make them rethink their decision") would be moving away from uninformed danger.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think that differences in a parent manipulating their child to protect them versus a recruiter manipulating them to put them at risk constitute an important issue and very much inform the larger discussion.
If my child wanted to sign up and I was convinced that they really understood what it was they were committing themselves to, I'd support their decision fully. But I don't support what seems to me to be common recruiting tactics. And, if I felt that my child didn't understand or wasn't in a good place to make that commitment, I would feel it was my duty as a parent to do as much as I could to prevent them and make them rethink their decision.
Yes, exactly.
To be honest, I didn't really understand how I was contradicting myself, so, I joked about it, as I usually do.
I don't think that harassment is the word to use when I parent, advise, manage or guide my children. Harassment, to me, is more negative.
I've always liked you as well MrSquicky, but I think you already knew that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We live in an area, and among a culture, that is highly aware of the military lifestyle. It would be hard to snow a kid in Northern Virginia about what to expect from the military; either they know through personal experience or through a friend.
I'd have to understand what exactly what we're calling manipulative techniques. Also, I think it's important to find out whether or not the military lives up to what is being promised by the recruiters.
As an example, it appears that Berkely set up an expectation to the Marines that if they did X, they would be able to conduct their business in Berkely. When the Marines fulfilled Berkeley's expectations, Berkeley DID NOT respond in kind.
Additionally, it appears that for the same sort of business, Berkeley discriminated in favor of other organizations, lowering their standards to allow those organizations easier access.
Does the military do the same?
I have a hard time buying the idea that a normal 17 year old does not know at least the basics (Boot Camp, possible combat, strict discipline, etc) of what enlistment means.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In your case, the goal that would cause you to approve of manipulation (as part of "as much as I could [do] to prevent them and make them rethink their decision") would be moving away from uninformed danger.
I also support parents' perogative to manipulate their kids away from informed danger and in many cases approve of it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Are you going to address the contradiction thing? It looks like you dropped it and it is a pretty important part of the discussion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I also support parents' perogative to manipulate their kids away from informed danger and in many cases approve of it.
As does Rakeesh.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As does Rakeesh.
I don't see the relevance of this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, Are you going to address the contradiction thing? It looks like you dropped it and it is a pretty important part of the discussion.
I've addressed it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:As does Rakeesh.
I don't see the relevance of this.
I'm sorry.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
I have a hard time buying the idea that a normal 17 year old does not know at least the basics (Boot Camp, possible combat, strict discipline, etc) of what enlistment means.
Are you kidding me?
They may have heard stories, but if they've led a normal, maybe slightly sheltered life at all, they've got no idea what they'd be in for. I'd assume a more street smart kid, that wasn't as protected growing up would be more inclined to handle it or understand the reality of it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Where? You showed that Tammy said that she was against manipulation. I responded showing how that I shared this but that my reaction here couldn't be said to defined by that and suggesting that the same was true for Tammy, which she then confirmed. Then you dropped it, only responding to my statement in the context ofa different part of the discussion.
Do you think Rakeesh was correct to say that Tammy contradited herself? Because neither she nor I do.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:As does Rakeesh.
I don't see the relevance of this.
I'm sorry.
Could you explain why you think this is relevant? Sorry. I thought that request for explanation was implied in my statement.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Does this mean you don't actually disagree with Rakeesh but are instead trying to argue semantics of what might have been said earlier?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, It doesn't appear to me that you've understood what I've written.
To answer your question, no.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Conversation among friends deserves the benefit of the doubt and little give and trust. You'd do better to come up with either.
It looks like you're picking a fight for the sake of itself. What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish? It isn't peace or understanding or a better or substantial conversation. What is it that you want?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tammy:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
I have a hard time buying the idea that a normal 17 year old does not know at least the basics (Boot Camp, possible combat, strict discipline, etc) of what enlistment means.
Are you kidding me?
They may have heard stories, but if they've led a normal, maybe slightly sheltered life at all, they've got no idea what they'd be in for. I'd assume a more street smart kid, that wasn't as protected growing up would be more inclined to handle it or understand the reality of it.
That's why I said "basics." I don't think anyone really knows what it's like to be a soldier without actually being one.
I think Squicky's qualifier is important-- that when the parent feels that the child's desire is sincere, and that the child has made an informed choice, THEN the parent can (at least intellectually) accept the child's decision.
What's important to me is that there is an honest attempt at communicating the realities of military life, and that the military lives up to their promises.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Again, I really don't think you are reading me correctly. If you wish to participate in the discussion, I'd appreciate if you addressed what I've said with more than shots from the sidelines.
If that is going to be your only contribution, I'm pretty sure that you will have no productive effect on the conversation, nor will you come any closer to understanding what I am trying to say.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:As does Rakeesh.
I don't see the relevance of this.
I'm sorry.
Could you explain why you think this is relevant?
It was relevant precisely because you made the preceding statement. I'm not sure why that statement was relevant, of course. After all, I was demonstrating how your beliefs about when manipulation is acceptable depend in part on the goal of the manipulation. Your response didn't address that aspect at all.
However, to the extent that you considered your statement about when manipulation is acceptable relevant, a statement about what Rakeesh has said on that subject is just as relevant.
quote:Do you think Rakeesh was correct to say that Tammy contradited herself
He was correct to say it at the time he said it, given the state of the conversation at that point. Had subsequent clarifications been made at the time, he might not have been correct.
But those clarifications hadn't been made, so he was correct to say it.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I'd have a hard time communicating the realities of military life and an especially hard time assuring my child that the military lives up to their promises.
I've not seen proof of either one first hand.
I can only go with what I know and what I've researched.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That's why I said "basics."
I think this really depends on how deep your defition of know is. The kids may havea superficial intellectual awareness of these things, but I think that a large percentage of them have little comprehension of what these things actually mean. I know from many anecdotes that many people feel remarkably unprepared even for boot camp, let alone actual combat.
I want to get back to a point I made earlier, which is that while we're supposed to believe and it would be great if it were true that most recruits are more or less ready for and informed about the things that they are going to go through, this often isn't the case.
However, the world being what it is, America maintaining its military forces relies on recruiting being far less than ideal.
Honestly, I'm not sure where to go with that. All the simple answers seem incredibly stupid to me. I think it is an important point, though.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:He was correct to say it at the time he said it, given the state of the conversation at that point. Had subsequent clarifications been made at the time, he might not have been correct.
What subsequent clarifications? I don't see ones that would clarify this from Tammy made after Rakeesh's statement.
edit: For that matter, all the statements that you used to defend Rakeesh's use of contradiction in the first place came after his statement saying that Tammy contradicted herself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tammy,
quote:I don't think that harassment is the word to use when I parent, advise, manage or guide my children. Harassment, to me, is more negative.
Perhaps this is where our conversation strayed into the fog bank, heh.
I don't think harassment (ugh, I've been spelling it wrong all this time!) is necessarily a bad thing, despite its obvious connotation.
To use a topical example, protestors harassing the government or a company into, say, doing better by the environment or making hiring practices more fair. Such a thing would certainly meet the definition of the word'harass', and I don't think it would be a negative thing.
It's sort of like the idea some people express that some parents 'brainwash' their children. Obviously people who say such a thing usually mean it badly, but in my mind, 'brainwashing' is a component of good parenting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What subsequent clarifications? I don't see ones that would clarify this from Tammy made after Rakeesh's statement.
Then we simply disagree about what has been said in this conversation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Which is fine. Could you point to me Tammy's clarifying statements so I can see what you think cleared it up?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: the world being what it is, America maintaining its military forces relies on recruiting being far less than ideal.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
quote:I'd have a hard time communicating the realities of military life and an especially hard time assuring my child that the military lives up to their promises.
I've not seen proof of either one first hand.
I can only go with what I know and what I've researched.
What I'm interested in is your assertion that the military doesn't live up to the promises it makes to its recruits. Can you show evidence (non-anectdotal) of a systematic tendency to not live up to its promises?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, There's an earlier post where I went into some detail.
Basically, in a perfect world, I don't believe anyone should join the military who doesn't know what they are getting into. It's an enormous decision that carries with it some very significant risks. They should also be people who are going to go out and perform their jobs with competance and high moral behavior.
However, this is not and will never be the case, unless we want to drastically slash the number of people in the military.
It's a disturbing thought, for me at least. We don't want dumb kids going in, not really understanding what they are signing up for, we don't want recruiters tricking people into joining up, but we need for those things to happen or we won't have the military power that we do. edit: And heck, for some of the kids who did it for the wrong reasons, it's a really beneficial experience.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:What I'm interested in is your assertion that the military doesn't live up to the promises it makes to its recruits.
I don't think that you understood what Tammy said. If I read her correctly, she didn't make this assertion, only said that she doesn't have first hand knowledge of it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:What I'm interested in is your assertion that the military doesn't live up to the promises it makes to its recruits.
I don't think that you understood what Tammy said. If I read her correctly, she didn't make this assertion, only said that she doesn't have first hand knowledge of it.
Obviously we're reading it differently.
Tammy?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:We don't want dumb kids going in, not really understanding what they are signing up for, we don't want recruiters tricking people into joining up, but we need for those things to happen or we won't have the military power that we do.
I don't know that this is true. Can you show why you feel it is?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Maybe 15% of the people I grew up with went into the military. I've got 8 relatives (including my siblings) in the military or recently retired from it. I'm drawing from their anecdotal experiences. And I very much care about people in the military.
It's obviously not an objective study, but look at the recruiting stories and talk it over with people you nkow in the military. I think you'll get a similar picture.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You're saying that our military power is dependent upon "dumb kids going in," and "recruiters tricking people into joining up," right?
I want to make sure I understand you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You're saying that our military power is dependent upon "dumb kids going in," and "recruiters tricking people into joining up," right?
Among a host of other things, yes.
Without these things, enlistment numbers would drop a significant amount.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How significant are you estimating recruit stupidity and recruiter subterfuge are in enlistment numbers?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, Honestly, I don't have any desire to discuss this with you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It seems like a good question. I wonder how much it is required to lie to recruits in order to meet quota? Is it a signifigant percentage? Enough that it's a general practice? Hardly ever happens?
How prevelant does it need to be before all recruits are characterized as liars?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, I have no desire to discuss it with you, either.
I would be very interested though definitely surprised if you and/or Scott pursued this on your own though.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I don't have much first hand knowledge, correct.
I do know quite a few people who have either served, or are currently serving in some military capacity. I've heard both wonderful and gut-wrenching stories.
One of our good friends is a wonderful gentleman that I respect very much. He's a General in the National Guard. I get regular "unclassified" e-mails from him, updating us on some really cool things that have been happening lately. He generally only sends us the good stuff. For example,
"Caveats: NONE
Tomorrow evening, the show "American Chopper" will open its season with the Patriot Chopper build. As you are aware, the Patriot Chopper was built for the ARNG by Orange Country Chopper (OCC). We have three bikes, one of which is on display at the Readiness Center and the other two are on constant tour throughout the United States. Time and channel information are below. Please take the time to watch and pass this information to soldiers throughout your command. Thanks. "
At one point, I may ask him to have a frank discussion about the realities of war with my kids. I'd respect anything he'd have to say on the subject.
My brother joined the Marines and went through boot camp in California when he was in his early 20's. He had several horrific experiences. In his words, he needed to toughen up, so he joined the Marines. He had no clue, absolutely no clue what he was getting into. It was a rash, spur of the moment, decision on his part. He's not dumb by any means, just impulsive. He did not talk to anyone before he signed up. Maybe his experience would have been a little different if he would have joined for more mature reasons.
Rakeesh - I looked at the definitions in your link. I don't deal with my children in those ways. I understand what you're saying, I do. I just can't use the terms, harass and brainwash, the way you're using them when it comes to the communications I have with my kids.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'd love to hear about your personal experiences with the dastardly military. You don't have to commit yourself to anything provable - any stories of lying to recruits?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
First thing, I know some people for whom joining the military was the best decision they ever made. And I think in a large amount of cases that is true. But, I have a friend who went through boot camp. After hearing his stories, I would strongly oppose my child going into the military. I know his experiences aren't typical, but the fact that no one was punished for what happened to him means they don't get my child. (I don't have his permission to share details).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Goodness. Reading this thread got me interested. A brief "google" of "military recruitment tactics" came up with a lot of stuff to sort through!
Tammy, I don't think that it is a contradiction to be against strangers manipulating teenagers into harm's way and parents manipulating or even coercing minor children to keep them from harm.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Scott, Honestly, I don't have any desire to discuss this with you.
Okay.
quote:I would be very interested though definitely surprised if you and/or Scott pursued this on your own though.
Why "definitely surprised?"
In light of our interactions in the past, I'm trying to keep things civil. I didn't mean to offend you; I don't think I said anything or implied anything about your character. I thought I was addressing the topic and your statements about the topic, not your personality.
Did you feel that my question:
quote:How significant are you estimating recruit stupidity and recruiter subterfuge are in enlistment numbers?
was insulting?
I think it was a fairly phrased question, given your assertions in the post to which I was responding.
Yes, I'm skeptical of your reasoning. I work with former military types; I ride to and from work with military and law enforcement personnel; I'm friends with active, ex-, and reserve military folks.
None of them have expressed the cynicism about recruits, the recruitment process, or military strength that you have.
NOW, numerically, you may have a point about the army needing 'dumb kids.' On paper, recruitment numbers rose by about 7000 people after the military lowered testing standards. (This from a comparison of the Pentagon's recruitment report from 2005-2006) Of course, there's no evidence to show causation; but I think there's a definite correlation.
I really don't know how you'd go about proving that recruiter subterfuge was responsible for X% of recruits though.
If you are interested in discussing this after all, I'd ask you (in addition to the questions I asked before) how you define "dumb" in "dumb kid."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Goodness. Reading this thread got me interested. A brief "google" of "military recruitment tactics" came up with a lot of stuff to sort through!
Tammy, I don't think that it is a contradiction to be against strangers manipulating teenagers into harm's way and parents manipulating or even coercing minor children to keep them from harm.
Agreed on the literal points.
However, I disagree with the portrayal of the military as a stranger whose purpose is to connive impressionable children into getting into their car in exchange for delicious tuition money.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Goodness. Reading this thread got me interested. A brief "google" of "military recruitment tactics" came up with a lot of stuff to sort through!
Kate, you might be interested in the link I put of the first page to a GAO report on "Recruiter Irregularities," including a recent increase in criminal violations.
---
Edited to add: caveat caveat caveat (also spread all through that original post)
These incidents do not describe most recruiters. Of course. Of course!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
CT:
Thanks for pointing up that link.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Sure. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, CT.
Scott, my use of "stranger" was not intended to invoke "stranger danger" connections. In fact that had not occured to me. My use of stranger was to contrast someone that did not have a prior relationship to the teenager with a parent who is responsible for the teenager.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Okay.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I checked the thesaurus for another word that might convey that distinction. They were all worse. "Alien", "foreigner", "outsider."
Hey, at least I didn't use "lure".
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You could have used the word "recruiter."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I was rereading the GAO report this morning, and I realized I'd missed the introductory letter from the GAO to the Committee on Armed Services. It may shed some light on why there is a (rising) concern about harrassment, misstatements, and other troublesome irregularities in recruitment practices.
excerpt (the rest of it is a good read, though, and provides context):
quote:Determined to find ways to succeed in a challenging recruiting environment, some recruiters, reportedly, have resorted to overly aggressive tactics, such as coercion and harassment. Such tactics are violations of recruiting policies and diminish the public’s perception of, and confidence in, the recruiting process. Furthermore, recruiter irregularities can negatively impact the services’ recruiting ability by damaging relationships with potential applicants, and causing those who have influence over potential applicants to question military service. ... Given the large numbers of servicemembers DOD must recruit every year, there is ample opportunity for recruiter irregularities to occur. A 2005 internal DOD survey reports about 20 percent of active duty recruiters believe that irregularities occur frequently. (2)
[italics added for emphasis]
(2) citation: Department of Defense, Defense Human Resources Activity, Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies, 2005 Recruiter Quality of Life Survey, Topline Report, JAMRS Report No. 2006-002 (Arlington, Va.: February 2006).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You could have used the word "recruiter."
Except that would have missed the distinction I was was trying to make, that of a parent and someone who doesn't know the kid.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
I signed up for Selective Services today. Had to. Made me a bit angry.
The website has a bunch of pictures of hip, happy-looking teenagers playing guitars and holding frisbees. It feels so dishonest, and I don't like it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It IS dishonest. And no one likes it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Tammy, I don't think that it is a contradiction to be against strangers manipulating teenagers into harm's way and parents manipulating or even coercing minor children to keep them from harm.
I'd point out that I don't think this statement is a contradiction either, but at this point I wonder if anyone would listen when I say I was questioning the idea that people are against harrasment, as opposed to recruitment and recruitment tricks.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think that the difference is how they define harassment. There is a t level of connection within a family that allows for more leeway for some behaviors that it does for non-family members. I know my family can say things to me that would be incredibly rude if a non-family member said it, but I am less offended when my family says it.
Usually.
However, there is a point when such things can still be considered harassment.....which is why people don't live at home their whole lives. They move on to take decisions for themselves.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You could have used the word "recruiter."
Except that would have missed the distinction I was was trying to make, that of a parent and someone who doesn't know the kid.
I would think that distinction is already implied.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: I signed up for Selective Services today. Had to. Made me a bit angry.
The website has a bunch of pictures of hip, happy-looking teenagers playing guitars and holding frisbees. It feels so dishonest, and I don't like it.
Meh. It's not dishonest. The point of the images is to show that all males have to register, no matter where they come from or what their styles are.
I wouldn't exactly say that all the images are of happy-looking teens, either. The dude on the far right, and the baseball player don't look thrilled.
(It's because they're pinko commie draft dodging cowards, I'm sure.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think that the difference is how they define harassment. There is a t level of connection within a family that allows for more leeway for some behaviors that it does for non-family members. I know my family can say things to me that would be incredibly rude if a non-family member said it, but I am less offended when my family says it.
I understand that. That's why I pointed out I was referring not to the connotation of the word 'harasment', but its actual definition.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I think that the difference is how they define harassment. There is a t level of connection within a family that allows for more leeway for some behaviors that it does for non-family members. I know my family can say things to me that would be incredibly rude if a non-family member said it, but I am less offended when my family says it.
I understand that. That's why I pointed out I was referring not to the connotation of the word 'harasment', but its actual definition.
I know....I just wanted to rephrase it.
Also, it proves that someone WAS listening to you.
There area lot of behaviors that could constitute harassment, but don't always. Sexual harassment cases are full of examples.....the same behavior from two different people can be viewed so differently, and that is only one example. That is part of why those cases are always so touchy, and at times hard to prosecute.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)