I personally do not think that recruiters ought to be allowed on high school campuses if they are going to continue to give false information (and this DOES happen everyday). Every kid knows about the military, and there are recruiting centres all over the place. I think the aspiration students should be encouraged to work towards is a college education and a fulfilling career that DOESN'T involve violence, racism, homophobia, suspension of personal freedoms, and sexism among other common military practises. There will always be people who are eager to lead that kind of life, and more power to them... To them I say there's a recruiting centre near you. But keep the lying salesmen out of the schools.

I think the military needs to stop discriminating against gays.  I see the logic of the ACLU-type argument that argues the military violates the civil rights of gay people, so it shouldn't be allowed access to state-run schools.  Unfortunately, the logic isn't strong enough because the issue is too blurry.

If recruiters are lying to potential recruits, then they must be forced to stop lying.  Again, "misleading" is too blurry a distinction.  If the recruiters are fluffing the sales pitch a bit, that's one thing.  If recruiters are deceiving students about basic service requirements, benefits, and risks, that's quite another thing.

If you are allowed to enlist at seventeen and allowed in the theater of war at eighteen, I don't see a problem with recruiters coming to high school campuses and talking to students.  Nobody but the student himself or herself can ultimately decide.  It isn't like the days of old where they could get you signed up when you're drunk and you're off to the barracks the next day.  If recruitment ever reaches that level of desperation again, we're all **** out of luck!  Enlisting in volunteer armed forces is a process unto itself.  By the time you are committed, you know what you are getting into.  Of course, if they're lying, that's another story.

I do think the military is a legitimate career choice, and an excellent career choice for some.  I don't support wars of imperial aggression and Pentagon waste, but that's a different kettle o' fish.

I say yes because the military is a valid career choice.

What I don't like is the fact that high schools HAVE to send a list to the military under NCLB. I guess that means that no child will left behind on the boat/plane to Iraq.





Cat

The recruiters generally do make a practise of lying quite frewuently in fact. For instance, it is common for a recruiter to tell someone who has just enlisted that once you enlist, you cannot change your mind even before shipping. This is NOT true. With minimal paperwork (often called the "opt out form") you CAN change your mind any time before your ship date. Once you ship, however, it's too late. The state owns you for 8 years (two of which are reserve years).

I don't agree military recruiters should be allowed on high school campuses. There are many recruitment offices available throughout the country. If one seeks info, they can go to them.

What I don't like is the fact that high schools HAVE to send a list to the military under NCLB. I guess that means that no child will left behind on the boat/plane to Iraq.


I agree.  The NCLB is a rotten piece of legislation that should be scrapped completely. 

I was leaning toward "no" because I think we should encourage all kids to go to college.  But in real world, some kids just aren't going to be academically ready for college by the time they graduate, so someone like that would probably be better off in the military rather than trying to get by in life with a high school diploma they just barely earned by the generosity of the grading curve.  I wouldn't even want to be a GOOD student trying to to get by with just a high school education these days.

At job fairs and the like, yes, but not exclusively or with a captive audience, and not when they misrepresent the truth.

I think the aspiration students should be encouraged to work towards is a college education and a fulfilling career that DOESN'T involve violence, racism, homophobia, suspension of personal freedoms, and sexism among other common military practises.



Racism, homophobia and sexism is not what the military is about though.  They happen because certain individuals in the military do that, not because that's what the military is about.  There's NO profession that doesn't have racists and homophobes and sexists in it.

Racism, homophobia and sexism is not what the military is about though.  They happen because certain individuals in the military do that, not because that's what the military is about.  There's NO profession that doesn't have racists and homophobes and sexists in it.


But until "don't ask, don't tell, the military banned homosexuals as a policy, and still discriminates against women by denying them some "career fields" to use the jargon.  And don't ask... is discriminatory in that hetero's are allowed to openly express their sexuality.  These are institutional policies, not the acts/attitudes of a few individuals.

I was leaning toward "no" because I think we should encourage all kids to go to college.  But in real world, some kids just aren't going to be academically ready for college by the time they graduate, so someone like that would probably be better off in the military rather than trying to get by in life with a high school diploma they just barely earned by the generosity of the grading curve.  I wouldn't even want to be a GOOD student trying to to get by with just a high school education these days.

I really believe we would be much better off if you could start making a living at eighteen.  College should be an actual choice, like joining the military is.  College isn't right for everybody and neither is the army.
Economic viability at eighteen would calm down a lot of this national insecurity, but the ramifications of making that happen require a revolution!

I was leaning toward "no" because I think we should encourage all kids to go to college.  But in real world, some kids just aren't going to be academically ready for college by the time they graduate, so someone like that would probably be better off in the military rather than trying to get by in life with a high school diploma they just barely earned by the generosity of the grading curve.  I wouldn't even want to be a GOOD student trying to to get by with just a high school education these days.


Not to mention that spending a few years in the military would give a lot of people the funding that they would not get otherwise.  The college fund in place now will give you enough to attend a good 4 year college after 4-6 years of service.  The person would not have to rely on grants and student loans, which then must be paid back (reguardless of finding a job afterwards or not).

And as far as discriminating, that is not true.  The "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" is a valid reason I believe.  After all, do you really need to go around announcing the fact you are gay/straight to co-workers?  I feel that is inappropriate, military or civilian life.

Even back in the 1980's, as long as you did not need a security clearance, "DADT" was already the unofficial rule.  As long as your alternanite orientation did not come up, nobody cared.  The only reason it makes a difference for a security clearance is because of the possability of it being used for blackmale.

I know of only 1 person who was thrown out for being gay in my 10 years in.  Of course, he was caught when they found gay magazines and female clothes in his wall locker during an inspection (they were trying to find a missing weapon, everybody in the unit was inspected).  If he had simply klept those things off-base, nobody would have known nor cared (there had been rumors about him for months beforehand).

In short, if you are gay, just keep it away from base.  If you go around talking about it all the time, then people will notice.  I do not go around telling people my orientation, so why should anybody else?  It is the military after all, not a singles bar.

I see no reason why not.. it's a career choice some people make.. I see just as many college information-distributers allowed on our campus as military recruiters.

In short, if you are gay, just keep it away from base.  If you go around talking about it all the time, then people will notice.  I do not go around telling people my orientation, so why should anybody else?  It is the military after all, not a singles bar.


It's not as simple as that. You can't even mention the fact that you are gay. No one is prohibited from mentioning they are straight, or talking about women with other straight men, or keeping Playboy or Hustler. And women in the military spend all day walking around in clothes that are traditionally associated with men... and I'm not saying that it was appropriate fo him to wear women's clothing around the base (although I doubt he was), but I don't see how simple possession of women's clothing and gay porn are grounds for expulsion from such a "valid career." No one gets fired from a civilian job for keeping weird things in their desk or for being openly gay (and being openly gay is not the same thing as being a flambuoyant drag queen, and therefore not inappropriate in a military setting).

Even if the military was a singles bar, evidentally, joining the military wouldn't have helped me get L@ID!
:-\\

No one gets fired from a civilian job for keeping weird things in their desk or for being openly gay (and being openly gay is not the same thing as being a flambuoyant drag queen, and therefore not inappropriate in a military setting).


Once again, orientation has no bearing on being in the military.  And if you think having things like that in your desk will not get you fired, I guess you have never worked in the corporate world.  I knew one guy that had to attend "Sexual Harassment" training, because he had a picture of his wife in a bikini on his desk.  One of his female co-workers said it fostered a "hostile workplace".

Most people I knew when I was in could hardly care less what somebodies orientation was.  I have known several people when I was in that had an "alternate lifestyle".  But they kept it well away from base.  I used to work part-time across the street from the local gay bar, and say a lot of military people going in and out (and this was before the "DADT" policy went into effect).

To me, your sexual orientation has no reason to even be mentioned at work, civilian or military.  I frankly do not care what it is.  And I do not want to hear about it, no matter what it is.  Gay or straight, does not matter to me.

And the guy that was kicked out, it was for several reasons.  For one, our job was guarding a Naval Weapons Base.  Part of what we guarded were nuclear weapons.  We all had Secret security clearances.  And this was 1984, when being gay was not allowed in any situation.

For one thing, it was a display incredibly poor judgement.  He should have kept all of that stuff off-base.  If he had done that, it never would have come to the "official attention" of the Command, and things would have gone on as before.

For two, his orientation would have left him wide open for blackmail.  The last thing you want in somebody guarding nuclear (and non-nuclear) weapons is somebody with something to hide.  Combine that with the poor judgement shown in keeping that stuff on-base, it makes for a potentially dangerous situation.

And remember, I am far from being a homophobe.  But there are other issues involved.  I never cared if the person that I work with is gay or not.  But I really don't want to know either.


Even if the military was a singles bar, evidentally, joining the military wouldn't have helped me get L@ID!
:-\\


LOL.  Trust me, dating somebody else in the military can be much worse then you think.  I know of several "Military Couples" while I was in, and very few lasted more then a few years without ending in divorce.  1 Military spouse is stressfull enough, multiply that by 2, and you get serious problems.

Since you are forbidden in serving in the same unit, that often means that you get opposing deployment schedules.  That means that the 6-18 month deployments away from each other can turn into double that.  One gal I knew came back from 12 months in Korea, just to see her husband leave 3 weeks later for a 8 month deployment to the Mediteranian.  And one couple that got married in the same unit I was in, the wife was transfered to another unit 3 months later.  Her new base was 60 miles away, which made commuting for both of them hell.

However, if you want to just get laid, you do it away from base anyways.  Trust me, Marine Corps Dress Blues are a chick magnet, even if I was to shy to ever try and take advantage of anything like that.  But for a uniform to be effective, you need to get away from a military base.

I have to say that the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the US military is indeed intolerant and discriminatory. If someone went on a date the previous night, it's ok to mention it on base if you're straight, but not if you're gay? And what if you want to keep a picture of your significant other in your wallet or on your desk? It's ok if you're straight, but not if you're gay?

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does discriminate, but just as with other issues like civil rights and women's rights, as social and political change happens, people's views tend to evolve and they more accepting of things and people that were once marginalized or considered unacceptable.  I think as we approach a critical mass of highly visible, politically-active, socially-influencial gays, the social and political evolution will accelerate.  I'm not all that old, and I can still remember when it was something of a shock to even see a gay character on TV, and then it was always done for shock effect, as a comical stereotype.  Now you have shows where there are dramatic characters who just happen to be gay, and you hardly blink an eye.  There will always be people who are prejudiced, but that's just life.  But society as a whole is getting there.

When I was in, I knew a few gays. One just happened to be the best supervisor I had ever had-and her sexual oriantation had nothing to do that. She was excellent at her job. I also knew others who were useless-and I have also known hetersexuals who were also useless. It should be WHO you are, not WHAT you are that matters.




Cat

"Don't ask, don't tell" only discriminates against those who identify themselves as gay.  Everyone knows you don't have to be gay to be a pinch hitter for the home team now and again!

Public schools: yes.
Private schools: up to the respective school.

Public schools: yes.
Private schools: up to the respective school.


Why should it be any different between public and private schools?




Cat

Not to mention that spending a few years in the military would give a lot of people the funding that they would not get otherwise.  The college fund in place now will give you enough to attend a good 4 year college after 4-6 years of service.  The person would not have to rely on grants and student loans, which then must be paid back (reguardless of finding a job afterwards or not).

And as far as discriminating, that is not true.  The "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" is a valid reason I believe.  After all, do you really need to go around announcing the fact you are gay/straight to co-workers?  I feel that is inappropriate, military or civilian life.

Even back in the 1980's, as long as you did not need a security clearance, "DADT" was already the unofficial rule.  As long as your alternanite orientation did not come up, nobody cared.  The only reason it makes a difference for a security clearance is because of the possability of it being used for blackmale.

I know of only 1 person who was thrown out for being gay in my 10 years in.  Of course, he was caught when they found gay magazines and female clothes in his wall locker during an inspection (they were trying to find a missing weapon, everybody in the unit was inspected).  If he had simply klept those things off-base, nobody would have known nor cared (there had been rumors about him for months beforehand).

In short, if you are gay, just keep it away from base.  If you go around talking about it all the time, then people will notice.  I do not go around telling people my orientation, so why should anybody else?  It is the military after all, not a singles bar.

OK, just as long all the straight guys aren't stashing copies of Hustler in their footlockers and bragging about their hetero conquests to the other fellas.  Let's be fair here, c'mon!
::)

Why should it be any different between public and private schools?




Cat


Because private schools aren't paid for by the same taxpayer dollars that fund the military.

Because private schools aren't paid for by the same taxpayer dollars that fund the military.


So it seems to me that once again, if you don't have the $$$ then the military is the answer.  ::)




Cat

I have to say that the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the US military is indeed intolerant and discriminatory. If someone went on a date the previous night, it's ok to mention it on base if you're straight, but not if you're gay? And what if you want to keep a picture of your significant other in your wallet or on your desk? It's ok if you're straight, but not if you're gay?


It's not okay to be openly gay in the military.  Don't like it?  Write a letter to Bill Clinton.

Last thing our soldiers need is someone looking them over in the shower.

So it seems to me that once again, if you don't have the $$$ then the military is the answer.  ::)




Cat


I would say yes, the military should be allowed in high schools.. although I agree with GW that in the case of a private school, it should be up to the school.  Maybe not for the same reasons, though.  I just think that the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate such a thing for a school that it isn't funding.

Public schools: yes.
Private schools: up to the respective school.

I agree with you for once!

However, the public schools must also allow a recruiter from the Pink Triangle Battalion.  It's only fair.

OK, just as long all the straight guys aren't stashing copies of Hustler in their footlockers and bragging about their hetero conquests to the other fellas.  Let's be fair here, c'mon!
::)


I do see one legitimate problem with gays in the military.  I think this problem could be solved without keeping gays from the military, but it is still a problem.  Men and women are kept separated (housing/sleeping/showerwise) for a reason.  So, if two gay men are permitted to share a room, shower together, etc... then the next cry of "discrimination" will be "Why can't we men share rooms with the ladies?  Isn't it the same thing as two gay men sharing rooms?"

I do see one legitimate problem with gays in the military.  I think this problem could be solved without keeping gays from the military, but it is still a problem.  Men and women are kept separated (housing/sleeping/showerwise) for a reason.   So, if two gay men are permitted to share a room, shower together, etc... then the next cry of "discrimination" will be "Why can't we men share rooms with the ladies?  Isn't it the same thing as two gay men sharing rooms?"


I am *so* glad you brought this point up.  I think I mentioned it before in here.  This has been one of my biggest reasons for keeping things how they are now.

I am sure that most people in here have never been in the military.  Because of this, most have no idea what it really is like "inside".

During the 2-4 month "Basic Training", you live in what is called an "open squadbay".  This is a single large room, roughly 30'x100'.  There are no partitions, no walls, no privacy.  The sexes are totally seperated, each being in their own building, if not their own base.  I know that when I went to San Diego for Marine Corps boot camp, there were no female recruits at all!  All females in the Marine Corps are trained in South Carolina.

This continues into advanced training for most people.  So for another 1-6 months, the living situation stays the same.  Open squad bays, segregation by sex, and no privacy.

Once you finish all of your schooling, then you are attached to a field unit.  Normally at this time, you will recieve a "semi-private" room.  These are aroughly like motel rooms, and 2-4 people will share it.  Depending on the building, it may have a bath, a bath shared with another room, or a communal bath shared with everybody on the floor.

In most cases, the barracks are segregated by sex.  In my 10 years, I was in "males only" barracks.  In fact, almost without exception, women were not allowed in the building at all.  If they were allowed, they were not allowed beyond the "common room".  They were not allowed in the barracks rooms themselves.  And from what I have been told, it is the same for the females in their barracks.

In the events where 2 military people want to date, they are not allowed to spend time in their rooms together.  Their only option is to cneak around the rules (and face strong punishment if they are discovered), or to keep it all off-base.  And of course since the barracks are segregated, there is no way they can share a room.

Now if same-sex couples could be open, then you open up another can of worms.  Same-sex dating couples of course will want to share a room.  And if things fall apart, then they are going to want to be in seperate rooms (if not seperate barracks).  And because of this, you are then going to have opposite sex couples complaining because they are being discriminated against.  After all, if Sally & Jessica can be roomies, and Joe & Rob can be roommates, why can't Amy & Kevin be roommates?

Once again, this goes right back to my belief that anything like that is OK, as long as it is kept off-base.  And in most cases, the Military is not prison.  There is nothing preventing a couple from getting an apartment in town and living there.  I have often had my own apartment when I was in the military, because I wanted more privacy then barracks life afforded.  Yea it cost me money, but to me it was worth it.  If a couple wants to do that (gay or straight), then they can go ahead and do that.  Just do not let it be known that they are anything other then roommates.

Gay, straight, I don't care.  Just do not go around talking about it and you have nothing to worry about.  And in either case, I really do not want to know.  Military is a job, and there is no reason to be talking about your (or anybody elses) sex life at work.

...a fulfilling career that DOESN'T involve violence, racism, homophobia, suspension of personal freedoms, and sexism among other common military practises.



Of course I suspect yoy realize that all of these attributes are part of the typical high school campus.

Military service members are racist, sexist homophobes?  Tell that to the next veteran you see who lost a limb fighting for his country in WW2, Korea, 'Nam. or The Gulf.  I bet he (or she) would beat anybody senseless who made a statement like that.

I think the aspiration students should be encouraged to work towards is a college education and a fulfilling career that DOESN'T involve violence, racism, homophobia, suspension of personal freedoms, and sexism among other common military practises.


Interesting.

Can you say "Discriminating bastich"?  What if I made a few changes to your quote?  What if I placed "African-American" in place of "Military"?  What if I put in "Islamic"?  Then I am sure that a lot in here would be screaming "Racist!".  But because it is "Military", I guess it is OK.

Now tell me again how people "on the left" do not discriminate against the military?  And have you ever been in the Mlitary yourself?  I have been, and I saw no more of what you talk about then I saw in the general population.

I am *so* glad you brought this point up.  I think I mentioned it before in here.  This has been one of my biggest reasons for keeping things how they are now.



I might also add that while I don't really support government discrimination or employment discrimination, I do feel that people have the personal right to discriminate.  By this, I mean, a person has a right to discriminate when it comes to things so personal to them such as who they live with, who they have as friends, etc.

I might also add that while I don't really support government discrimination or employment discrimination, I do feel that people have the personal right to discriminate.  By this, I mean, a person has a right to discriminate when it comes to things so personal to them such as who they live with, who they have as friends, etc.


At one time, "Discrimination" was considered to be a good thing!

I do not mean as in Racial Discrimination either.  At one time, telling somebody he had "Discriminating Taste" was good.  Having "Good Discrimination in clothing" meant they were a sharp dresser.  The change in meaning is simply part of the evolution of our language though.  In much the same way that "Gay" no longer is used to mean they are happy, but that they are a homosexual.

And everybody has the right to have whoever they want as friends.  In the military however, that is not always an option.  Several times, I have been stuck with somebody I could barely stand as a roommate.  But for the most part, you are not given a choice.  You simply say "Yes Sir", and learn to live with the other person.

This is a part of military life that most people on the outside never think about.  If you want to see somebody make a change in their life, place a racist in the same room as a minority.  I have seen this a few times, and it almost always results in the person making some changes in the way they think and see the world.  I have seen several racists enter the military, but I have seen very few leave the military.  Most realize while they are in that most of what they believed was BS.

Interesting.

Can you say "Discriminating bastich"?  What if I made a few changes to your quote?  What if I placed "African-American" in place of "Military"?  What if I put in "Islamic"?  Then I am sure that a lot in here would be screaming "Racist!".  But because it is "Military", I guess it is OK.

Now tell me again how people "on the left" do not discriminate against the military?  And have you ever been in the Mlitary yourself?  I have been, and I saw no more of what you talk about then I saw in the general population.




Yeah, I'm sure you could have barrels of fun changing the words and meaning of my sentence... so knock yourself out. You're still only working with hypothetics at the end of the day.

As for people on the left, don't confuse me with "people on the left." I happen to be an autonomous entity from "the people on the left" whoever they are. I have a definite problem with the military lifestyle personally, and even moreso with the powers who control it and abuse it. I want kids to realise completely what they're getting themselves into before some fast-talking recruiter hoodwinks them into signing away eight years of their life, which could end up in their violent death in some Iraqi desert. They sure aren't going to learn about the downsides of military life from the recruiter or from the brochures, which are pomped up to no end with patriotic epithets rather than cold hard facts. I am in no position to "discriminate" against anything, seeing as how I am just a regular joe in no position of authority, so perhaps you ought to rethink your statement. As for "the left" which is a very broad area, I'm sure there is enough room there for anyone who wants to be there.

There are no sacred cows, military included, and I have the right to point out the things about the military or anything else which I find disturbing... and does that make me unpatriotic? Perhaps, but I'm not really affected by that label. Patriotism never really made any sense to me. No one gets to decide where they're born. The main objective for any conscientious ctizen is to point out injustices and problems with their country, and try to improve it... not kiss its a$$ every five seconds and ignore these problems. Ignoring social problems has been WASP society's response to every social problem since the beginning... from segregation to poverty to old-guard prejudices in the military.

Back to your original question, I don't know exactly how many people are recruited through high schools, but I could definitely see some negative consequences to preventing recruiters in high schools.

A shortage in recruits could, under the right circumstances, cause a draft to be in effect.

A shortage in recruits could also cause a lack of federal response to natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.

In either of these cases, the withdrawing of recruiters from high schools would probably be the first place where the critics point their finger.

Ignoring social problems has been WASP society's response to every social problem since the beginning... from segregation to poverty to old-guard prejudices in the military.


Why don't you tell me about your favorite non-WASP society and how great things are going.

Why don't you tell me about your favorite non-WASP society and how great things are going.


To answer your question, there are plenty of non-WASP societies that are doing well, albeit every society has problems. Why don't I point them out... France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Japan... well I could go on and on. As you can probably imagine, while most of these countries are predominanty white, none of them are Anglo-Saxon or Protestant by and large. And even amongst Anglo countries, we're the ones who have a majortiy of the population more willing to ignore social concerns in favour of maintaining this false image of near-perfection. The only social problem WASPs do get worked up about, and boy do they get worked up, is crime - and I'll be damned if this one isn't caused by the myriad of others we're so ready not to acknowledge. The French may have a problem with unemployment, but at least they admit it. The Germans still have a few Nazis hanging around, but at least they admit it. We Americans have a rapidly-shrinking middle class and a rapidly-growing population living well below the poverty line... "huh? What? That's prespammersite! We have no problem with poverty, how ridiculous! Get those numbers out of my face!"

The Germans still have a few Nazis hanging around, but at least they admit it.


Yes, but the things they do against their Neo-Nazis are illegal here.  It is against the law to possess a Swastica, or any other material from the 3rd Reich.  Giving the "Heil Hitler" salute can get you thrown in jail for a nice long time.

Here, we have a little thing called "The Bill Of Rights", that protects you from that.  You can think, say, or believe anything you want to, no matter how stupid.  It would be similar to making the "Confederate" flags and the like illegal here.

And the last time I checked, nobody denied that there is a problem in this country with kooks, klukkers, and outright racists.  But thankfully, nobody of importance takes them seriously.  They remain where they will always be, in the fringes.


We Americans have a rapidly-shrinking middle class and a rapidly-growing population living well below the poverty line... "huh? What? That's prespammersite! We have no problem with poverty, how ridiculous! Get those numbers out of my face!"


Have you ever seen real poverty?  I have seen the permanent shack cities in other nations.  We have an underclassed, yes.  But even here, they drive around in cars, have apartments, and eat fairly well.  Compare this to a lot of other nations, where hundreds (if not thousands) die every day from malnutrition.  I have seen children so thin that their bodies are eating themselves in Asia and Central America (that is what causes the "fat" look of the very undernurished).  I can't remember ever seeing it here in the US during my lifetime (other then the cases where a child was being abused by their parents).

What gets me is when insulated, pampered, "do-gooder know-it-alls" think they can solve all the ills of the world, simply by trying to make it all into their image of perfection.  That often scares me more then even the Klukkers, because they manage to make others agree with them.  After all, we all know which road is paved with good intentions.

And remember, the military is a beauracracy.  It goes on, and will always go on, no matter whick party is in power.  It is very much a non-political organization.  And if you think it is all some "Right-Wing Elite", then how do you explain all of the Generals that are Democrats?  I seem to remember a lot of them in opposition to President Bush (and at least1 that ran against him).  Are those all figments of my imagination?

It goes back to what I said before.  The people in the military are just like anybody else in Civilian life.  They come in all colors, religions, political beliefs, and even sexual orientation.  About the only place where it skews is when it comes to Gender.  Basically, there are far fewer women to apply then men, and not as many jobs for them to do.  But if you think that the Military is some racist organization, then you must think that most people in this nation are Racist.

Well, I take kooks, klukkers and racists seriously, and thankfully, most of the people I know do too.

I think it's sad that when people point out problems in American society, there are so many others who get angry and wave the flag in their faces protesting that we are so much better than anywhere else in the world.  To me, that is a sad and immature reaction to a problem.  Recognizing problems has nothing to do with dismissing virtues.  An individual who is incapable of identifying and working on their own faults is emotionally damaged in some way.  I think maybe a society works the same way. 

It's one thing to resent having ANOTHER culture criticize us, if they're not even as developed or progressed as we are, but if we can't even manage to recognize our OWN shortcomings, that seems like a recipe for going backwards, or at least, being complacent.  Imagine where we would be if we had been complacent for the last 100 years.  Of course, when I think about those kooks, klukkers and racists, I am reminded of how many people would love it if we HAD been complacent.

Part of the reason I take "kooks, klukkers and racists" seriously is I know they're not the crew-cutted, para-military wack-jobs some people like to think they all are.  I know they're normal, everyday people -- the teacher, the dentist, the corporate VP.  I love and cherish my own grandparents, but I also know what those sweet, dear loving people used to think about Jews, "Negroes", and Japanese Americans.  To a lesser extent, even my parents in a way, when they were younger.  Yet, everyday I am reminded how in denial people are about the situation in this country, and it's sad.  People complain about people making a big deal about gay rights, and hardly a week goes by that I don't hear somebody making a homophobic remark.

Yes, but the things they do against their Neo-Nazis are illegal here.  It is against the law to possess a Swastica, or any other material from the 3rd Reich.  Giving the "Heil Hitler" salute can get you thrown in jail for a nice long time.

Here, we have a little thing called "The Bill Of Rights", that protects you from that.  You can think, say, or believe anything you want to, no matter how stupid.  It would be similar to making the "Confederate" flags and the like illegal here.

Neo-Nazi propaganda and symbols are highly restricted, but they do have a legal political party (the NPD) which has won seats in the Bundestag (the national assembly). This country hasn't been immune to this sort of thing either... Remember the 50s? Communist witch hunts? Peoples lives destroyed for no reason?... They'll get over it sooner or later, but at the moment they have a real fear of having the Zazis gaining any sort of majority in the Bundestag and having things erupt like they did before. The vast majority of the country believes it's in the world's best interest to restrict their propaganda techniques and the places where they can hold ralies (like there's a law which says they can't march near any Holocaust memorials or temples or things of that nature). In the US, we have white supremacists and ubernationlists, but in Germany there is real fear of these people actually getting somewhere. That's the difference.


Have you ever seen real poverty?  I have seen the permanent shack cities in other nations.  We have an underclassed, yes.  But even here, they drive around in cars, have apartments, and eat fairly well.  Compare this to a lot of other nations, where hundreds (if not thousands) die every day from malnutrition.  I have seen children so thin that their bodies are eating themselves in Asia and Central America (that is what causes the "fat" look of the very undernurished).  I can't remember ever seeing it here in the US during my lifetime (other then the cases where a child was being abused by their parents).


What you have described is extreme poverty, not "real poverty" in the sense that all other degrees of poverty are somehow "fake" because they aren't as bad. The fact that there are people elsewhere living in more extreme poverty doesn't automatically erase the fact that the US has it's own relative poverty and life's a
b!tch for those who have to live it. And I'd wager that if you think every poor person in this country has some kind of bitchen apartment and an economy car, and they're eating barbeque everyday you must be deluding yourself. What is eating "fairly well?" Is that macaroni and cheese in a box? Chef Boyardee? Sure that's fairly well when you consider that some people in the world die of starvation, but that doesn't make these "meals" any more nutritious for the AMERICANS who have no other choice but to eat them. That doesn't stop poeple from developing illnesses because they aren't getting enough nutrition. I know I'm not the only one whose heard stories of people eating popcorn for dinner.


What gets me is when insulated, pampered, "do-gooder know-it-alls" think they can solve all the ills of the world, simply by trying to make it all into their image of perfection.


I honestly think you may be referring to me here, so let me clear you up on a few things. I'm a college student who's lucky enough to have a poor enough mother to get a lousy grant from the government (a mere pittance) which barely covers tuition and books, let alone a place to live and something to eat everyday... So I am underemployed as a waiter a whole TWO DAYS A WEEK at a restaurant in a resort owned by a ruthless "F-U" corporation out of Dallas with no benefits or anything. Those wages are what I have to feed myself with. I drive a car that's 15 years old with over 140,000 miles on it that has broken down three times since I bought it, oh, 10 months ago with every penny I had been saving for a whole year (during that year, I had to bum rides from anyone I could). While I'm in TX going to school, I'm allowed to stay with my aunt who is a teacher and is also broke (but at least she has benfits). That doesn't stop me from paying for all my own meals. I'm not insulated or pampered. I have to work like a dog for every scrap, and guess what? When I graduate from this pathetic junior college to a university, I will be lucky to exit university without being in over my head with debt from the student loans I'll have to take out. It's not my wish to furnish you with a sob story... but to be assumed to be some spoiled brat with a big mouth really pisses me off. Really.

I talk about the things that affect me directly. If I were a little more desperate, some military salesman may have ended up hooking me into signing my life away... Glad that didn't happen, and I don't want to see anyone else go in just because they think they have no place else to go. That's a terrible reason to join the military. Kids feel like they're backed up against the wall. Then some salesman comes around promising them all kinds of money and education, and many times tose promises aren't made good on.

I have class, I gotta go.

Conservatives expect us not to fight for social betterment in America because Americans aren't starving to death like victims of an African famine.  Poverty and deprivation run rampant in the U.S. as a result of man-made economic schemes, not some natural inevitibility such as the law of gravity.  Conservatives are still selling the idea of poverty as a result of individual moral failing.  In the 19th century Herbert Spencer said "you're poor because God doesn't love you."  Today, Pat Robertson says, "you're poor because you don't love God."  On a secular level, the right-wing hard-azzes sell the idea that we are the sum of our choices in life, and if you're poor it's only because you made dumb choices; you screwed up. 
Popular ideology dictates that if you blame any person, any system, any force but yourself for your situation, you negate "personal responsibility."  This is the knee-jerk answer one always hears from the Right. 
There is no substitute for "personal responsibility," but to use the phrase as a catch-all is specious.  I heard one dipsy-doodle from the conservative punditry say, "If you graduate from high school, don't have kids until you are married, get a job--any job, get married, and stay married, you have less than a one percent chance of being poor.  If don't do one or all of these things, your chances of being poor go up dramatically."  What a lot of silly rubbish!

The only people who say you cannot take personal responsibility and demand systemic reform are the people who like the system just fine the way it is.  We know who THEY are!

OK, this is off-topic, but I just wanted to clear up what I saw in the posts between McDonald and Mushroom.

Well, I take kooks, klukkers and racists seriously, and thankfully, most of the people I know do too.

I think it's sad that when people point out problems in American society, there are so many others who get angry and wave the flag in their faces protesting that we are so much better than anywhere else in the world.  To me, that is a sad and immature reaction to a problem.  Recognizing problems has nothing to do with dismissing virtues.  An individual who is incapable of identifying and working on their own faults is emotionally damaged in some way.  I think maybe a society works the same way. 

It's one thing to resent having ANOTHER culture criticize us, if they're not even as developed or progressed as we are, but if we can't even manage to recognize our OWN shortcomings, that seems like a recipe for going backwards, or at least, being complacent.  Imagine where we would be if we had been complacent for the last 100 years.  Of course, when I think about those kooks, klukkers and racists, I am reminded of how many people would love it if we HAD been complacent.

Part of the reason I take "kooks, klukkers and racists" seriously is I know they're not the crew-cutted, para-military wack-jobs some people like to think they all are.  I know they're normal, everyday people -- the teacher, the dentist, the corporate VP.  I love and cherish my own grandparents, but I also know what those sweet, dear loving people used to think about Jews, "Negroes", and Japanese Americans.  To a lesser extent, even my parents in a way, when they were younger.  Yet, everyday I am reminded how in denial people are about the situation in this country, and it's sad.  People complain about people making a big deal about gay rights, and hardly a week goes by that I don't hear somebody making a homophobic remark.


Quel réponse!

Excellently put, and I agree with you entirely.