Amy, this is a hoax per snopes. 17 is the earliest age military recruiters can bag our youngsters.

Thanks so much...apparently, this was an April Fools piece in Cityview, but I found it elsewhere on the Internet, and I didn't know. I've edited out the Cityview piece, to leave the information about No Child Left Behind which does appear to be factual!

Yeah, the recruiters came after me my last year of high school. Some 'wad in the front office talked the school into having us all take the ASVAB -- with the absolute assurance that the results would not be released to the military (yeah, I know). I ended up scoring in the 99th percentile and, sure enough, the phone would not stop ringing. Thankfully, shy boy anarchists tend to have bossy sisters and mine finally ripped the phone out of my hands on the umpteenth call and told them to fuck off in no uncertain terms. And that was that. But then years later when my ex-galpal joined the Navy and got stuck with recruiting duty I couldn't help but have some sympathy for her knowing what she probably had to put up with. Ho well.

Oops. Pardon my French.

You are so busted.

Ho ho, ha ha, hee hee. Amy is so gullible.

Amy at least is always the first to admit when she's been an asshole...well, upon notification or realization. At least give me that. And, I must say, had it not been a Cityview/Pointblank article, I probably wouldn't have posted it without investigating further. I know my alt weeklies. I just didn't know that the buttwad who posted this was too dim to read "April Fools" -- or that the person he got the link from was.

PS Where have you all been all day? I've been waiting for eons for your high-tech lynching!

The whole point here is for discussion, isn't it? I was flippin mad when I read the first part, and started to try to investigate before I got tangled up in the office.

And the real issue remains intact- the predatory marketing to young people that military life is somehow a road to great adventure and romantic travel. They never show the glamour of Veterans Hospitals or mental wards.

You provide a great and PATRIOTIC service here Amy- nobody bats a thousand.

PS- I was going to and still do recommend everyone should see the documentary War Photographer, which is available through Netflix. I saw it last night, and it shows (non-partisan) the real effects and aftermath of war, from Kosovo and Rwanda through guerilla campaigns in the Philipines and elsewhere. It also deals with the inevitable dislocations caused by war, from poverty to famine.

It sure doesn't have the romance or adventure that the Park Avenue commercials sell.

Work. Didn't read the item anyway. Still haven't.

Why shouldn't the armed services have a crack at kids?

Work. Didn't read the item anyway. Still haven't.

Why shouldn't the armed services have a crack at kids?

Also, isn't "high-tech lynching" Thomas' line from the Hill hearings?

Sorry about the double-pump there, just awoke from the nap of the middle aged.

> ...predatory marketing to young people...

We covered this last week. It's not a sin to try to persuade people of things. Are libruls just upset that others have feelings worth killing and dying for?

The issue here is access to information, and the need to forcibly opt out to not have your personal data sucked by people wishing to sell you something.

-It's not a sin to try to persuade people of things.-

-Why shouldn't the armed forces have a crack at the kids?-

Sheer idiocy. Scary idiocy. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Napolean inhumanity.

There are very good laws designed to prevent perverts from persuading children over the internet to meet them somewhere.

There are very good laws designed to prevent tobbaco and alcohol companies from persuading children to use their products.

There are very good laws to prevent children and teenagers from being persuaded to pose nude or perform in sexual acts.

While we are at it, there are very good international treaties to protect children from being recruited into armies. There are over 300,000 child soldiers now in the world, mostly in Africa and South America.

I thought you were all about the welfare of the kids Crid? It's ok theoretically to send them off to a war zone in a fight that they know nothing about but not for them to be adopted by gays?

Data sucking?

Well, nobody's getting shipped anywhere until they're old enough to serve. TV was full of Army recruitment commercials with fuzztone bass guitar when we were kids (and magazines and radio and God knows what), but we managed to withstand these awesome manipulations.

> Scary idiocy.

Don't do that. I busted my own mother for it earlier this week (she was concerned about Bush & Social Security).

> ...international treaties to protect
> children from being recruited...

Never heard of one. Conscription, maybe. But treaties against RECRUITMENT?

Eric, serving in the armed services is not the same thing as making porno movies. You're welcome to disagree, but you are just not going to be happy with the continuing flow of human events.

Hey, it takes balls to admit a mistake, especially a mistake read by lots of people. Fortunately, you don't have balls in the physical sense. Just metaphorical balls. But the balls are good, all the same.

I'm in the Navy, and I still hate my recruiter. They are all --all of 'em!-- liars. Though I wouldn't want their job, as they have a ridiculous quota.

Anyways, keep up the good work, and never lose your (metaphorical) balls.

Ty

I never said the military was comparable to making pornos. I have tremendous respect for most of our military- it is their boss I have problems with. So don't try that grouping shit with me.

I have no problem with any citizen making an informed choice. Part of being informed is not being so young you have no point of reference. Try holding a 17 year old to a legal contract.

Another part of being informed is being shown all the ramifications of your actions. Again, there aren't any VA hospitals in the recruiting ads.

And that you know nothing about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which was signed by 99 countries but seem happy to pontificate on the subject is not my problem. Make your distinctions between conscription and recruitment - but are morally reprehensible when children are involved.

>the predatory marketing to young people that military life is somehow a road to great adventure and romantic travel.

Look, we need an army. Our army is a voluntary one. That sometimes means that the army must sell itself. There's nothing wrong or insidious with that.

Sure war is hell, but I don't think that the army should be forced to recruit via pictures of limbless soldiers any more than Heroin Rush should be forced to start every radio program by telling the audience that he's high.

It's not as if youngsters don't know that bad things can happen in war. If they choose to disregard that because they like the TV commercials and don't think they will lose a limb, then that's their fault for being gullible.

I can't continue to take the US seriously if we outlaw gullibility.

And, you know, some people do join the armed forces because of a sense of duty or love of country.

First, chill. Second, the grouping was your own: no one else mentioned it. Thirdly, there's no cleverness to distinguishing salesmanship and conscription, it would have been better for you not to require the point be made. Fourth, to Hell with the United Nations. Been to Simon's lately? The UN is a spectacularly poor vehicle by which to express concern for youth. Every week or so I save a news story about UN corruption to disk. Nothing good will ever be done with all those articles, it's just comforting to know they're there. Here's sample of the one from yesterday:

"Mr Kofi Annan has contested reports that he considered himself cleared by a committee investigating fraud in the oil-for-food programme, insisting he saw it as just a limited exoneration."

Christ, that's not even a worthwhile Modified Limited Hangout. And he's the freaking Secretary!

Fifth, what Ted Sed about some kids loving the country enough to fight for it.

Ted- you fall prey to the Rowe-like argument that someone here said the US military is an unnecessary evil. Didn't happen. Read back and see the thought process?

Porno=military=>librul thinking.

It is insidious when youngsters with no geopolitical knowledge sign up to do something they may or may not agree with. It is insidious when an American national guardsman is sent to IRAQ to defend America. And kept there. Do you really think that our soldiers are fighting in Iraq for the common American citizens interests? Was Iraq a threat to our well being or national security?

I believe it is incumbent on our government to fully explain and detail the costs and consequences of war before a soldier signs up. And pony up fully when those consequences occur- you know, support the troops. No corporation can ever get away with such an act of duplicity, so why should a government that represents the person it employs?

Many of these young adults do not know the consequences of their own signing up. It is not common knowledge in America that our military economy wreaks havok around the globe. It must be experienced by most to be understood.

Then you say "that is their fault for being gullible"? These are kids we are talking about- of course they are gullible. Weren't you gullible as a teenager? Did your school teach you about Gulf of Tonkin, Cambodia, Chile, Iraq, El Salvador, Nicaragua, or other campaigns?

I agree that many serve in the military for love of country or sense of duty. That is why the government has an equal (and greater) duty to make sure they serve well informed and well represented for their interests as well.

The UN does need a damn good enema, no doubt.

No, a tumbler of hemlock.

Reading all this Army-bashing takes me back to the 60s.

Far out, man, fire up your lava lamps.

Who bashed the Army here?

Um, everbody but Crid. You don't read too good do you "eric"?

Um, just about everybody?

Eric's right. Most hilariously, when I was on technorati seeing who'd linked me recently, Richard Bennett's site came up. He took great pleasure in calling me "clueless" for posting the link to the original CityView/Pointblank piece. Richard, I know you can't win a logical argument with me, so please, take all the cheap shots you need to feel better!

Why do we keep infantilizing our youth? Pretty soon, we'll be looking at raising the legal age to 21 because of the large numbers of people who just can't cope. This despite a great number of 12-year-olds who are neither pampered nor stupid, helping the family business run.

Now, I'm sure that someone has missed the "advertising" on radio, including NPR, about the Selective Service Act - where your youngster has to register in order to participate in a number of things.

Now - having served in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club, I can say that the Navy is not for some people. The selfish, for instance. Those who depend on whining and excuses to get by, for another. It remains that literally a hundred million Americans have been trained, sometimes to do highly technical tasks, by Uncle Sam. I'd be happy with any other agency having that information; can you imagine Greenpeace trying to sell training and travel? Can they show your youngster - who very shortly will be saying "Would you like fries with that?" - how to maintain aircraft, nuclear plants and perform literally thousands of technical tasks?

As Orwell said, "You sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to do violence in your behalf." You may not like that, but they are there. You must have military - and police, by the way. Who would you have serve?

Anyone else, right?

Wow - I just re-read something and said, "that sucks!"

It was the implication that the armed services should have to tell someone already in high school about American history.

I bet it was canceled or edited because it was "politically incorrect", or that condom use and "diversity" training was more important.

The most obvious and agonizing failures of American military forces started in Washington, DC, not in the field where our people fought. Thus, "equal time" spent dissenting the Army recruiter's position would consist of pointing out, not the Army's faults, but that of the Administration and Congress for making military action necessary.

I didn't say *you* were clueless, Amy. Read the whole thing.

-I have tremendous respect for most of our military-

This is bashing, Richard Bennett? Were you educated with a banana and a tire swing?

This was mostly an academic exercise on the governments responsibility to present the job in a realistic manner as any employer in the private sector must. A discussion. Surely the goverment of the people has a higher burden of trust to the people who serve it than a private employer, correct?

The discussion began on a false pretense and grew from a statement of the goverments responsibility to accurately present the duties involved and the ramifications thereafter. Again, show me one example where the Army or the military is bashed.

Radwaste- the government is an entity designed to serve the people, not the other way around. Why would you have a problem with full disclosure? Do you think those serving extended terms and bitching about it are malingerers? Those maimed and questioning our faulty intelligence or outright lies are no longer heroes?

Why would you have a problem telling an 18 year old soldier that he may be haunted the rest of his life for something he was ordered to do? Please answer.

Todays US military is as professional an organization as IBM, Microsoft, Pfizer, Exxon or Toyota. Shouldn't they be held to even higher recruiting standards?

Yes, Radwaste, The most obvious and agonizing failures of American military forces started in Washington, DC. Do you think it is time to end that process by only entering into wars as a last resort, with a entrance and exit strategy that envelopes all the political ramifications upon the host country of our adventurous spirits?

I feel that is the least we owe to those who serve to protect our freedom. I say it is respect.

> Why would you have a problem telling an 18
> year old...

Because Eric, we can tell from your tone that you're not serious. OF COURSE men suffer and die in wars. We honor them with holidays every year. Should teenage boys give a list of possible bad outcomes to girls they're seducing? Should restaraunt menues recite on the facing page all the different illnesses that can result from food poisoning and bad diet? Is there any point in human development when you could expect people to be responsible for knowing anything?

No. You don't want merely want enlistees to be made aware of the bad things that could happen... You want them talked out of it. You want them persuaded against fighting. You're peddling a fantasy that if everyone is shown picture of a maimed soldier as they're enlisting, no one will want to serve... That the most base, infantile, and cowardly self-interest will protect us all from the ravages of conflict. It's an arrogant presumption that those who have a different take on military service just haven't been brought to your precious level of education, insight, and inner beauty.

> ...the government is an entity designed to
> serve the people...

To meet certain needs, not all of them for each of us.

> ...exit strategy...

An immobilizing and technocratic standard. Basically, a complete intolerance of risk and of faith. Don't be surprised if Americans, the most vital and productive people on the planet, continue to reject it. They know from experience in all realms of life that taking smart chances is how we earn rewards.

> Todays US military is as professional an
> organization as IBM...

Big Blue DREAMS of having the kind of clear-cut lines of authority and measured performance as the armed services. Your presumption that one big technocracy is as good as another, and that human excellence is had through proper administration, is telling.

>Should teenage boys give a list of possible bad outcomes to girls they're seducing? Should restaraunt menues recite on the facing page all the different illnesses that can result from food poisoning and bad diet? Is there any point in human development when you could expect people to be responsible for knowing anything?

Add to that: should you start every job interview by talking about that pot bust in high school if the prospective employer doesn't ask?

>Then you say "that is their fault for being gullible"? These are kids we are talking about- of course they are gullible. Weren't you gullible as a teenager? Did your school teach you about Gulf of Tonkin, Cambodia, Chile, Iraq, El Salvador, Nicaragua, or other campaigns?

This has nothing to do with the consequences of recruitment. The two bad things that can happen to recruits are that they can lose a limb or their life. You are listing engagements of arguable justness, and aside from Vietnam and Iraq, almost no Americans were killed or de-limbed. I don't even think we had US troops die in Chile or Nicaragua, unless you count those nuns that were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There are two issues here that you are smashing together. Questionable recruiting tactics and questionable wars. The two are not related. I do not find Army recruiting tactics so horrible. I knew didn't want to join the army at 18, so I avoided the recruiter's calls. He didn't beat me and make me sign up.

I imagine you would support abortion as a matter of personal choice. I do too. I believe that even the most stupid woman is competent enough to make a choice about her own body without my oversight. By the same token I have to believe that even the dumbest meathead high schooler is in a better position to choose whether or not he wants to risk joining the army than I would be to pick for him.

I don't expect a seventeen year old to be able to name every military engagement of the last two centuries by their eighteenth birthday, but I do expect them to know that they are mortal, even if they don't believe it. So I leave it up to them.

In other news, my Dad showed me something Kaiser Ratzinger wrote about those who try to compel Christianity via political process and his vitriol for such people rivaled some of the things he said about gays. Wish I had a link.

Hopefully this guy ends up being a mixed bag pope, because I expected him to suck.

> It is not common knowledge in America that
> our military economy wreaks havok around the
> globe. It must be experienced by most to be
> understood.

Fellow Seekers, honestly... What kind of shit is that? How has Eric 'experienced' this and come to 'understand?'

Where's the 'methaphorical balls' guy? Can we credit that sailor with 'understanding'?

Re, "Why would you have a problem telling an 18 year old soldier that he may be haunted the rest of his life for something he was ordered to do? Please answer."

Gee, Eric, read both of my posts. Now, think about an ordinary VA hospital.

They aren't closed to the public, nor are the veterans within silent.

Give a kid the choice between the endless line at McDonald's and making sure Auschwitz doesn't re-open for business, and you'll see that personal safety is simply not a concern for many, who value what they do above same. We owe most of our successes to such people.

The entire point of an army is NOT to "get home", or to "be safe". Have you asked many people what they were doing in the service? I think not.

I have no problem with any kid who joins the service understanding what he's getting into.

Are these kids getting an objective picture from recruiters? I would tend to doubt that. Perhaps there's more of a sense of the risks involved now that we're in Iraq.

And how about those who signed up for The National Guard. Weren't they signing up for duty on US soil, not foreign?

National guard misuse is a different issue than armed forces recruiting tactics. You might have something with that one.

Eric: From the CRC - "For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier."

If the law of the US says that a 17 year old with parental permission, I don't see how this is a violation. For those purposes, that would probably qualify as "majority". Then again, the US hasn't even ratified the CRC. (Which also doesn't appear to even mention military service in my search and browse over it. An optional protocol declares only that under-18 soldiers should not participate in combat. Given that you can't enlist before 17, and you can't get from enlistment to combat in less than a year, there's no problem here, even if the US was a party to the CRC and that optional protocol.)

You complain that the recruiters never show kids mental wards? Well, geez. Recruiters for McDonalds never show kids the burn ward for a fryer accident either. So? The "mental ward" is not a common place for soldiers to end up, and, crazily, I suspect that most 17 year olds have some idea that combat is dangerous.

Shocking, I know, but true.