The voters in SF voted to outlaw handguns in the city forcing handgun owners to turn over their weapons by April. I wonder if they realize that this will do very little to control the criminal element's access to weapons. If all they have to do is go over to Oakland or just outside the city limits to buy a gun the law will only be effective in keeping law abiding citizens from having handguns.
In addition they passed a resolution that encourages schools and colleges to deny recruiters access to students. Because the federal government has a compelling state interest in raising an army I figure they ought to do one of two things.
1. Pull federal funding from all programs in the city of SF, or
2. Figure the percentage of population of the US that SF represents and apply that population to the manpower of the military. Then institute a draft, specific to SF, to supply their percentage. No more recruiting in SF then!
Of course they cant actually restrict the recruiters because federal law prohibits it but this kind of thinking irritates me.
posted
I don't see the problem with not letting recruiters into the schools. It's not like students don't know that the opportunity to join the military is out there for them if that's what they want to do, and I'm sure that there are plenty of recruiting offices - which as long as they aren't on school premises can't be restricted - in the area. I'm sure the students who want to join the military know how to find them. If they can't manage to find a recruiting office, I'm not sure I'd want them in the military, anyway.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, it's more the message that it sends to the students. that the military are second class citizens who the teachers wouldn't even allow on campus. Really, it doesn't make the military seem appealing to students.
As far as I'm concerned, most of these people who are trying to kick the military off campus are just better spoken versions of Michael Crook.
And I'm referring to those who are actively trying to kick them off, not those who agree in theory or see no problem with it. Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll speak to Guns for Tots after I have watched it but as for agreeing with the restriction:
This country has an interest in maintaining a military force. If schools who receive federal funding wish to prevent recruiters from recruiting on their campuses it follows that the government should be able to protect its interest and pull funding from those schools.
Of course you can have your opinion because I have a whole bunch that most people wont agree with.
Among them, I think a limited draft should be instituted. This is not something that is needed to maintain the numbers but to more equally distribute the burden of the defense of our country across class lines. It would also supply the military with some highly qualified individuals that the military could not otherwise employ (Believe me, the military could use them). I'm sure many of don't agree with me, and perhaps it would be a disaster.
posted
Our country also has an interest in jailing and killing terrorists. I'm sure small jails and execution cells could be constructed on a school premesis. Should schools who don't allow this have their federal funding yanked?
I think you're creating a false dilemna here.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Our country also has an interest in jailing and killing terrorists. I'm sure small jails and execution cells could be constructed on a school premesis. Should schools who don't allow this have their federal funding yanked?
I think you're creating a false dilemna here.
Thats a pretty horrible comparison. Schools allow recruiters from a large variety of potential employers to come to the schools and talk to the students. Singling out the military for exclusion, while gleefully taking federal money, is not only hypocritical, but it sends the message that the military is second-class and not a worthy career choice. Part of a school's function is to allow its student access to a variety of career options and information. Banning military recruiters is an abandonment of this function.
No school was designed to imprison or torture anyone (contrary to what some students would probably say) and the imprisonment and interrogation of terrorists has no relation whatsoever to a school. If you are going to agree with the idea that military recruiters should be or can be banned, at least make a semi-logical argument, please.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't a logical argument - that's the point. I don't think the orginal argument was any more logical.
Schools don't typically allow *anyone* to come to a school and try to recruit students. They also don't like to have their students pressured - and military recruiters do put a lot of pressure on the students they get their hooks into. And sometimes they lie to them to get them to sign up.
I think it's perfectly within a school's right to say, "We don't like the message this recruiter sends to our students, so we don't want him on our school grounds." That doesn't keep the students from seeking out the recruiters on their own time in any way.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that the main problem is that these are not private schools we're talking about; they're at least partially federally-funded, so it's a bit ridiculous for them to try to keep recruiters out of the schools.
Of course, there's not really anything San Francisco can do to actually *prevent* the recruiters from going where they please, so this measure looks to meant more as a political statement than as any practical action. All it will accomplish is to get in the recruiter's way.
Although would I still strongly disagree, I could understand this sort of thing a bit more if we were talking about restricting draft officers or something similar, but we're not. There is no draft; the military is all-volunteer. It's foolish for the city to try to keep a potential employer from recruiting in their schools-especially an employer whose funds keep them running-just to send an honestly rather pointless political "message".
As to the handgun ban, I believe that although the merits of gun control are debatable, the debate is a moot point as long as the Second Amendment stands. The intent of the Founders on this point-whether you agree with it or not-is exceptionally clear. They intended the citizenry to be armed as a protection against potentially tyranical government. Proponents of gun control tend to wave this off as right-wing paranoia. Be that as it may, that particular bit of paranoia is also clearly written into the Constitution. I've heard arguments that it's outdated for various reasons, or that it refers only to some mythical "militia", but don't buy either argument. If it's outdated, too bad; amend it if you want but until then it's still there, outdated or no. As to the "militia" argument, it seems to me that while "A well-regulated militia" may "[Be] necessary to the security of a free state" it is the rights of "the people to bear arms" that "shall not be infringed". (italics added)
The only sort of arms control I would see as Constitutional would have to involve an actual Constitutional amendment, not judicial hair-splitting, legislative action, or executive order. Keep in mind that "arms" is the exact word the Constitution uses; they were talking about serious weapons of the sort they had just used to overthrow the British.
Keep in mind that this is my view of the *Constitutionality* of gun-control. I'm a little more ambivalent about whether or not it's actually a good idea, but as I said before, I think my opinion, and anyone elses, on the *merits* of it is a moot point as long as the Second Amendment stands.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would agree that the people of San Fransico have a right to pass the resolution they did, simply because it has absolutely no bearing on whether any public school will allow military recruiters access to students. Its nothing more than a symbolic measure used to show part of the city's disgust with the military and thats fine. They are wrong, but everyone has the right to be wrong.
I can't speak for every school in the country, but I know my high school allowed recruiters (from colleges, businesses, and the military) to come into the school and put on career days. And every college that I know of puts on career fairs/days and allows recruiters from all sorts of organizations access to their students. Generally speaking, I do think a public school does not need to allow organizations it disagrees with access to students. However, a PUBLIC school that receives PUBLIC money from the FEDERAL government should not then bar a FEDERAL agency or organization from having the same access to students it allows to other organizations.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Schools don't typically allow *anyone* to come to a school and try to recruit students. They also don't like to have their students pressured - and military recruiters do put a lot of pressure on the students they get their hooks into. And sometimes they lie to them to get them to sign up.
I don't know if that's necessarily true. My high school let a lot of organisations (mostly universities) come in and recruit. They also allowed the varios branches of the military to recruit, but in every case I ever witnessed the recruiters had exemplary behavior.
I agree that the original argument isn't as logical in schools that don't allow any recruiting. In schools that do allow recruitment, however, it does seem to offer a negative message regarding the military as a career. As far as I can see, it is strongly in the government's best interest to avoid this message.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that the original argument isn't as logical in schools that don't allow any recruiting. In schools that do allow recruitment, however, it does seem to offer a negative message regarding the military as a career. As far as I can see, it is strongly in the government's best interest to avoid this message.
I think that this is the issue exactly. The Federal government has a right to look out for it's own best interests, and I don't believe the public schools have a right to tell its students what is and is not a worthy career. *Especially* where such a politically-charged career is concerned. Schools should be as apolitical as possible. When they are otherwise it is *monstrously* unfair to the poorer students whose parents may disagree with the political messages being fed their children but lack the resources to send them elsewhere, while wealthy families can send their children elsewhere. Children are quite literally a captive audience up until the time that they can quit school. While individuals within the schools have the right to free speech, the school itself, as a government institution, should not have the right to force anyone to listen to politically charged messages of any kind.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Our country also has an interest in jailing and killing terrorists. I'm sure small jails and execution cells could be constructed on a school premesis. Should schools who don't allow this have their federal funding yanked?
I think you're creating a false dilemna here.
Not so. Jailing and killing terrorists has nothing to do with high schools or colleges. Recruiting, on the other hand, is largely directed to high school and college students for the simple fact that they are the most likely to qualify and be interested.
As for recruiters lying to get recruits to sign on the dotted line, I had friends in the military that said their recruiters either lied or had no idea what they were talking about but my personal experience with recruiters was positive both times I have enlisted in the military.
Of course, when recruiters talked to me in high school I turned them down because I wasn't interested and it was several years down the road when I walked into their office and signed up.
posted
No doubt they can. I challenge you to find any large organization involving human beings where someone hasn't gone *too far* at some point. Anecdotal evidence is wonderfully useful as a rhetorical tool because-
A) It's just one incident, so statistically you can find evidence to back nearly anything.
B) It has great emotional impact, especially if you use pictures. Humans respond viscerally to such things, and more easily empathize with an individual. "One death is a tragedy; a million murders are a statistic."
C) It doesn't require that you make an argument that is at all logical in the classical sense; implication and insinuation are its real allies in convincing the human mind. "If it happened here, it must happen ALL THE TIME." Not at all logical, but quite effective; as we personally experience a very limited number of incidents involving most subjects in our lives, our brains are designed to draw conclusions from even a single incident.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This country has an interest in maintaining a military force. If schools who receive federal funding wish to prevent recruiters from recruiting on their campuses it follows that the government should be able to protect its interest and pull funding from those schools.
No, it doesn't follow. The country has an interest in keeping and maintaing a population with an adequate level of education. That is the purpose of federally funded schools. It follows that a portion of said population may join the military, but that's not the purpose of the education.
Unlike college recruiters or recruiters for other employers, military recruiters are recruiting for a job that for an extended period is impossible to leave, may take them far from friends and family, and may possibly get them injured or killed- none of which points the military exactly highlights. If a school is meant to be a safe place, where students are prevented from making decisions that may place them in danger, giving military recruiters access to young people at their most impressionable can reasonably be seen as incompatible with that goal.
I say none of this to demean military service, or those who choose it. I just think those who choose it should have more of a chance to know what they're really getting into than many of them do.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: For me, it's more the message that it sends to the students. that the military are second class citizens who the teachers wouldn't even allow on campus.
I'm okay with that. It absolutely incenses me, as an employee at a private Catholic college, that we have to permit ROTC recruiters to use our facilities in order to receive federal matching funds for our scholarships and grants. We've actually gone back and forth several times on this issue, but the simple fact is that it would wind up killing the college if we said no; once you're on the teat, it's difficult to get off. And so I consider it to be almost as reprehensible as extortion.
After all, would you be happy if the federal government made available a substantial drug benefit to seniors that, in exchange, only asked in return that they watch one hour of Pfizer advertising a day?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: For me, it's more the message that it sends to the students. that the military are second class citizens who the teachers wouldn't even allow on campus.
I'm okay with that. It absolutely incenses me, as an employee at a private Catholic college, that we have to permit ROTC recruiters to use our facilities in order to receive federal matching funds for our scholarships and grants. We've actually gone back and forth several times on this issue, but the simple fact is that it would wind up killing the college if we said no; once you're on the teat, it's difficult to get off. And so I consider it to be almost as reprehensible as extortion.
After all, would you be happy if the federal government made available a substantial drug benefit to seniors that, in exchange, only asked in return that they watch one hour of Pfizer advertising a day?
Thats a bad comparison. If I am correct (and I may be wrong) your school probably does not force the students to talk to the ROTC recruiters, it only provides space for them to potentially meet with students. Furthermore, that slight sacrifice is minor compared to the funds you receive, whereas the one hour a day would be a significant sacrifice.
By the way, there are various schools/colleges that have refused federal funding so that they don't have to comply with their demands. (i.e. Grove City, Hillsdale College). So it can be done.
The simple fact is that the federal government can condition its spending on certain requirements and it does so often in a large variety of spending areas. Unless those conditions are outrageous and utterly unreasonable, and just because one disagrees with the condition does not make it so, I have no problem with the government enforcing these conditions.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was in highschool (public, suburban) we had military recruiters visit the school at least one day each year and I have no problem with that. However, they basically just setup booths in the lunchroom and you could talk to them before or after class, on lunch, or if you had study hall in the lunchroom during a different period. It was fairly unobtrusive.
I might feel differently if the school was required to interrupt an actual class to have recruiters talk to kids, because then it's taking away from the education time. It might fit into a Civics or American Government lesson to hear from them, though.
posted
I don't trust recruiters. They are used car salesmen in uniforms. It's not as bad as letting pedophiles into playgrounds, but only by a matter of degrees. They are pushers, and we make a special allowance for it because they are pushing the military, but I just know too many people who were bullied into joining by a dishonest recruiter. I think the military has a lot of offer young people in this nation, and I think that many of them would join the military without the scummy tactics. Hell, I wouldn't mind a congressional investigation on military recruiters, I think it would to the armed forces good in the long run.
quote:I challenge you to find any large organization involving human beings where someone hasn't gone *too far* at some point.
But we make a special allowance for recruiters, somehow, it's morally permissable for recruiters to bully or lie to someone since the end is creating a soldier.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gun control: I think it is stupid to ban handguns in this situation. Is the point ot prevent crime? The criminals don't care about the law or they wouldn't be criminals. Are they trying to prevent law abiding citizens from participating in crimes of passion? OOOoohhh this will work then; they won't just grab their rifle instead or anything. Good job!
Military recruiters: This is pretty stupid too. If the public colleges were to ban a particular private company, they would sue. Even if they lost there would be a big stink about it and the real losers would be the college who had to fund the fight against the company. So why is it ok to ban the military recruiters? Because they don't like the war? Well, we have discussed Walmart recently and some people think that company's practices are irresponsible. Shouldn't they be allowed to have a booth in the college career center?
quote:Unlike college recruiters or recruiters for other employers, military recruiters are recruiting for a job that for an extended period is impossible to leave, may take them far from friends and family, and may possibly get them injured or killed- none of which points the military exactly highlights.
All this malarky about the recruiters glossing over the bad parts of the job is ridiculous. No one in this day and age is blind to the fact that military recruits would be away from their families in a potentially life threatening situation. Besides, all recruiters skip the bad aspects of the job. Do you really think that big law firms go to career centers and tell graduates that they will be giving the crap jobs like fetching coffee and working 90 hour weeks? Gimme a break!
I am not a college student but I am young enough to remember what it's like (and the know-it-all syndrome many college students have about life). If I were really trying to figure out my career, I would think I knew all about what the military has to offer, so much so that there little chance that I would go out of my way to visit a recruiter off campus. However, if one were conveniently located on campus, I might talk to them and learn something I didn't already know. Kicking them off campus will prevent some students from getting information because some people just won't take the time and effort to seek out off-campus recruiters. Sad but true.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Crimes of passion" is just a way to enforce a belief in women&children as chattel property, and to allow those who can afford a good legal defense to get away with cold-blooded murder.
When none of those who passed this legislation are in Iraq -- nor any of their children as far as I am aware -- it's pretty safe bet that they think the proposition is "outrageous and utterly unreasonable". Since folks under 22years of age didn't have an opportunity to vote for the people who send soldiers off to war, they should not be eligible for military recruitment. Wanna enlist 18year olds, drop the voting age to 14. Wanna enlist 16year olds, drop the voting age to 12. Wanna talk to children, get permission from their parents. Don't impose recruitment in school settings.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like what former Air Force Colonel Raymond Swenson had to say about kicking recruiters off the campus:
quote:Don't believe this controversy is really about "don't ask, don't tell." Instead, it's about a longstanding animosity. Since the Vietnam War, this animosity by professors toward the military has continued unabated. It killed ROTC programs on many campuses. It is felt by military officers, such as myself, who have applied to attend law school under military scholarships. And it can be seen in the response to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Even if the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy were ended, plaintiffs would claim other reasons for banning the JAG. This isn't a First Amendment case about reforming the military. It's an anti-First Amendment case based on hatred for the military. As such, it should fail.
People like to yammer on about how military recruiters "decieve" people. Well, my recruiter definitely didn't give me a clear picture of what the Corps would be like - but it wasn't through any fault of his own, not did he do so intentionally. You just can't fully describe the Corps, you have to experience it. Really, when y'all interviewed for your jobs, was the picture clear as to what you would be getting into? Did your job exactly match your expectations prior to starting? Probably not.
quote:Since folks under 22years of age didn't have an opportunity to vote for the people who send soldiers off to war, they should not be eligible for military recruitment. Wanna enlist 18year olds, drop the voting age to 14. Wanna talk to children, get permission from their parents.
'Ate to break it to you, but the only thing that the being in the military has to do with the right to vote is that we protect it. Of course, the way I looked at it, joining when I was 17, is that I did vote - I voted with my feet. Furthermore, if the military enlists anyone under 18, they have to get permission from their parents.
The people in the military aren't as stupid as some folks would like to believe. Very few of us joined thinking that it was going to be Club Med and that there was no chance of us going to combat. Most of those who yelled foul when they got sent off to Iraq are cowards and liars. Personally, I'm glad they didn't go. I wouldn't want scum such as them in my foxhole anyway.
The claim that a war is somehow legitimized if the leaders who voted for it have sent their children off to it is ridiculous. A war is legitimate or not regardless of whether the President's children are in it.
quote:But we make a special allowance for recruiters, somehow, it's morally permissable for recruiters to bully or lie to someone since the end is creating a soldier.
I've never seen a recruiter bully someone into the military, and if it has ever happened, it is an isolated occurance.
quote:I don't trust recruiters. They are used car salesmen in uniforms. It's not as bad as letting pedophiles into playgrounds, but only by a matter of degrees.
How...sweet. Words fail me to express the disgust that I feel at this precious sentiment. You should be ashamed of yourself.
quote:Unlike college recruiters or recruiters for other employers, military recruiters are recruiting for a job that for an extended period is impossible to leave, may take them far from friends and family, and may possibly get them injured or killed- none of which points the military exactly highlights.
Trust me, I know from experience that this is made clear while there is still a chance to back out.
quote:If a school is meant to be a safe place, where students are prevented from making decisions that may place them in danger
If only duplicitous recruiters were the worst danger students face at school.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:All this malarky about the recruiters glossing over the bad parts of the job is ridiculous. No one in this day and age is blind to the fact that military recruits would be away from their families in a potentially life threatening situation. Besides, all recruiters skip the bad aspects of the job. Do you really think that big law firms go to career centers and tell graduates that they will be giving the crap jobs like fetching coffee and working 90 hour weeks? Gimme a break!
Somehow, I just don't get the sense that fetching coffee and working paid overtime is quite as bad as being sent to a foreign country and shot at.
One of my best friends started the process of enlisting in the Marines, got talked out of it by a friend, got screamed at by the recruiters a lot, and barely managed to avoid having to get legal counsel. This despite not signing a single piece of paper.
My brother-in-law, all of 22, was told that he could get reactivated and sent to Iraq, or he could voluntarily re-enlist, get trained in a new specialty, and have some choice of where he'd go. After a brief stint in Germany, he's going to get shipped to Iraq anyway in Spring. Notably, they're considering Germany to still be his "home" destination, which is a nice way of saying while they're uprooting him, they're not willing to pay for his wife and posessions to go back to the United States. She's 20.
These are bright people. I don't think they realized what they were in for. Given the recent relocations of National Guard units and "stop-loss" policies, I think it's fair to say that a hell of a lot of people are realizing they didn't know what they were in for.
Patriotism, a desire to develop self-discipline, a need to challenge oneself- these can all be perfectly decent reasons to join the military. Unfortunately, recruiters don't distinguish between people with these characteristics and those who are looking glumly at McJob prospects, or those whose notions of the military come mostly from action movies and video games.
There are people who love the military, and people who have come to love the military, or at least their branch or unit. That doesn't speak of all experiences, or all recruiters.
quote:If only duplicitous recruiters were the worst danger students face at school.
Given that (despite media reports that love to sensationalize things like the Columbine shootings) inter-youth violence is at something like a twenty-year low, I'm curious as to what you mean.
If the potential recruits are as well-informed about what being in the military would mean as some of you seem to think, why do the recruiters need to be there?
If they're not as well-informed as they should be, is it entirely appropriate that the recruiters be there?
This _isn't_ just one more job. It can be a great experience for some people, it can be a terrible experience for some people, it can be a life-ending experience for some people... But comparisons to other jobs, other recruiters, just seem to fall short.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If people want to joint the military bad enough, they'll have the motivation to go to a local office. I don't see how not allowing them on campus is preventing anyone from joining the military.
Besides, government funding actually goes to many other areas ... textbooks, dorms, actually paying professors so students can learn. I believe this is the purpose of college education, which far outweighs the necessity of the government to get more students into the military. I believe the government would be heartless to take away students' ability to learn just because recruiters aren't allowed on campus.
Besides, people in SF voted for it. If you don't live there, it doesn't really affect you and it's none of your business. For example, I hate that Texans outlawed homosexual marriage, but that's what voters there want.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While anecdote is not the singular of data, I will point out that I had a substantial group of friends in high school who were harassed and bullied by military recruiters, despite their repeated insistence that they weren't interested. This included repeated phone calls to their houses, among other things.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Wanna talk to children, get permission from their parents. Don't impose recruitment in school settings."
Two things: First, nobody is imposing recruitment. schools are merely required to allow access. Nobody forces the kids to talk to the recruiters and nobody forces them to sign up. Second, does this mean that you support parental notification before a minor girl can get an abortion? If not, you might want to check the hypocrite meter.
Obviously, I can't comment on the anecdotal evidence listed above, I don't know the people. I do know, however, that if people are going to make the accusations of widespread bullying and harrassment, they have an obligation to prove that those things are going on. I have not seen any evidence to convince me that it is. Until such evidence is presented, I think it is patently unfair to think that the vast majority of military recruiters are behaving in an unapproipriate fashion.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: Well, we have discussed Walmart recently and some people think that company's practices are irresponsible. Shouldn't they be allowed to have a booth in the college career center?
No. Not if the college doesn't want them there. Why should they?
Posts: 3801 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well now, if an abortion business comes in to tell kids to get pregnant so they can have abortions, I'll definitely support keeping them out of schools also. But then I don't even like ChannelOne advertising being forced upon school children. Or CocaCola and Doritos advertisements on school vending machines.
quote:This country has an interest in maintaining a military force. If schools who receive federal funding wish to prevent recruiters from recruiting on their campuses it follows that the government should be able to protect its interest and pull funding from those schools.
No, it doesn't follow. The country has an interest in keeping and maintaing a population with an adequate level of education. That is the purpose of federally funded schools. It follows that a portion of said population may join the military, but that's not the purpose of the education.
I disagree with you on this point. The federal government has a constitutional right/power/duty to maintain a military force as per section 8 of the constitution. I didn't go through and read the entire constitution but I don't remember any language making education the job of the federal government, which would make it the job of the states. I do agree that a well educated populace is necessary for democracy to exist but a well trained military is necessary for any country to continue to exist.
posted
I don't have a problem with recruiters getting class time. I do have a problem with specific tactics that are permitted in recruitment. If the military or congress went after those tactics, then I think that recruitment could happen that would not only be morally defensible, but even morally laudable.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I don't have a problem with recruiters getting class time. I do have a problem with specific tactics that are permitted in recruitment. If the military or congress went after those tactics, then I think that recruitment could happen without moral culpability.
Specifically, what tactics are those? Who is permitting these tactics? Show me where those tactics are approved?
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The bullying and intimidating. Any evidence I can submit can be dismissed as anecdotal.
quote:Who is permitting these tactics?
Good Lord, we live in a bureaucracy, rule of noone, not to mention that the hard sell comes when there aren't any witnesses.
quote:Show me where those tactics are approved?
I can't even show you me.
What bullying and intimidating? Am I just supposed to take your word that bullying and harrasing are going on? What exactly is being done to bully and harrass? Are the recruiters punching kids who don't listen? Are they following them home and sitting in their cars watching the houses? Specifically means the tactics used, not just some general accusation of bullying.
If you want to accuse the military, or anybody, of doing immoral and illegal things, you need to come up with the proof that they are doing these things. Otherwise you are asking use to presume that they are, which does not fly in a courtroom and should not fly in real life.
And if we live in a bureaucracy with the rule of noone, then how can you blame anyone for whats going on? How can you expect the military to go after these tactics if there is no leadership?
I don't expect you to show me you, but I can expect you to show evidence of the accusations that you make. Other people in other threads have shown evidence supporting their arguments. At least a couple of people on this thread have related some anecdotal evidence, which is better than nothing. Point me to some news reports of bullying and harrassing. Just do something besides making unsupported accusations.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I talked with a good dozen recruiters when considering a career in Army Intelligence (linguistics). I found them considerably more pleasant to work with than your average car salesman or telemarketer. Occassionally annoying, but then I just don't like sales tactics of any kind. Now, if they were physically striking students, or stalking them (phone calls don't really count; again, annoying but not harassment, and you *did* express interest initially and you *can* ask not to be called again) then this would be a serious problem. Most of the tactics I've seen complained about, however, seem to fit mostly in the "annoying" category. Oh, and lying, if it's really a direct contradiction of objective fact (again, "The Army is a Great Career" is opinion; "We'll give you $5,000 up front to sign" is an assertion of fact.) I'm sure there *are* out-of-line recruiters, but as I said before there are always out-of-line people. Especially, sadly, in sales enviroments.
Now, I personally wish they'd present "just the facts" and then sit back to let you decide, but that's not going to happen any more than it will with your local car dealership.
I *strongly* object to the common insinuation that military personnel are often duped into joining. This insults them more than anyone else, painting them as "dumb kids". I've met hundreds of men and women in the military and very few were anywhere near "dumb". The modern military is too demanding for that, and really doesn't have any use for cannon fodder. Cannon fodder in modern military tactics translates to "dead weight". We're not fighting in lines anymore, and when we fight in massed groups it's mechanized. No one's going to put "cannon fodder" in a multi-million dollar tank.
Actually, the only "dumb" guy I recall meeting who was military was actually a mailman in the Army Reserves. Yes, a mailman. Not a communications officer on the front lines, but a domestic military mailman. I probably have a better chance of getting killed in my current job than this guy does, and his benefits and pay are a lot better.
Respect our troops. Political and philosphical disagreements aside, these guys are willing to die for you. And that's exactly the way they think of it; that ought to engender some respect from anyone who lives in America.
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -Often attributed to George Orwell; actually borrowed from a Rudyard Kipling poem.
posted
One thing you should remember when you are bagging on recruiters to people who are in the military is this:
The recruiters are us.
We don't have some special Recruiter Corps, where the gubmint goes around looking for the most corrupt car salesman to hire as a recruiter.
Recruiting is a "B" billet, just like being a drill instructor. Any NCO or above is eligible, and if they have good evaluations is a candidate for becoming a recruiter. So some of these recruiters are guys we served with, and some of them are our friends. You're not attacking someone separate from us when you attack recruiters, you're attacking us.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sergeant: I disagree with you on this point. The federal government has a constitutional right/power/duty to maintain a military force as per section 8 of the constitution. I didn't go through and read the entire constitution but I don't remember any language making education the job of the federal government, which would make it the job of the states. I do agree that a well educated populace is necessary for democracy to exist but a well trained military is necessary for any country to continue to exist.
Sergeant
Certainly. The Constitution does not explicitly make education a priority of the federal government. One could argue it does express an interest in education with regard to the manner in which it describes copyright ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."), or that education falls under the general headings of Clause 1 of Section 8 ("...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States") or the Preamble ("...domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...)... But that is, admittedly, supposition, from a Constitutional standpoint.
However, the federal government _does_ take an interest in education, does allocate monies and set standards for same, and the existence of a clear Constitutional mandate to form a military for the common defense does not mean that the need to form a military trumps or excludes the need to educate the citizenry.
Or to put it another way, one shouldn't punish students with diminished education, simply because their parents don't wish them to be actively recruited. There's no stipulation that some of same won't become part of the military anyway, and whether they do or not, there's still plenty of interest and reason to fund them in the name of them becoming educated and participating American citizens.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose I should conceed that the students shouldn't be punished for the actions of the voters of the city because they can't vote.
To be perfectly honest, I doubt either of my recommendations would ever be put into place.
I would like to see a better representation of the population in the military but they can't compete with some of the better paying jobs (though my wife and I made pretty good money as DINKs in the Army).
quote:I've met hundreds of men and women in the military and very few were anywhere near "dumb".
This is true in most respects though it depends on your definition of "dumb". I was in the Military Intelligence (which is purported to be an oxymoron) and we had plenty of really intelligent people. But as many of you probably know, there is often and trade off between intelligence and either common sense or social skills.
At least in the field I was in you saw that many of the best soldiers got out of the military while some of the inept ones got promoted and put in charge (causing new soldiers who were great soldiers to get out because of incompetent leadership). This is not to say that there are no good leaders in the military, but a 1 year tour under a lousy leader can undo all of the built-up goodwill you stockpiled in the 4 years of good leadership.
For another inflamatory (sp) statement: No matter how one feels about the war in Iraq it does give the military an opportunity to "train as you fight". When the war is over we will have a better trained military with better leaders, forged in combat, than we did before unless we follow precedent and RIF the force after we are done. As one man put it:
quote:[T]he study of war by soldiers who have never seen combat [can be compared to] to the study of sex by virgins using only pornography.
posted
Recruiters should be allowed on campus in order to allow students an opportunity to sign up, if they want to. I suspect they would not really know where to go otherwise. However, they should be under close watch, to prevent them from attempting to trick students. I know that when I was a senior in high school, recruiters would call up and blatantly attempt to trick me into meeting with them. If recruiters are shown to repeatedly trick or mislead students, then schools should be allowed to kick them out without having to forgo federal funding. To link those two unrelated things really is extortion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
