Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn the new issue of The Nation, Karen Houppert investigates how the US military has gone beyond trying to recruit tenth, eleventh and twelfth graders and is now actively chasing children as young as eleven years old. Growing desperate amid repeated failures to meet recruitment quotas and empowered by provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act, military recruiters are working the schools like never before.
Houppert shows how many parents are increasingly resisting these efforts. "A lot of people are concerned," she quotes one Los Angeles parent as saying, "but don't know what to do about it." But now there's a new coalition designed to aid parents--and all concerned citizens--alarmed by the military's increasingly predatory efforts to woo teenagers into the armed forces.
Spearheaded by Working Assets, Mainstream Moms and ACORN, the Leave My Child Alone coalition is trying to raise awareness of the military's often stealthy recruiting ploys and make sure that all parents know that the Pentagon has established a database with the names of 30 million 16 to 25 year olds as a recruitment tool and that their children can opt out of their school's military recruitment lists and the Pentagon's database.
The LMCA site offers a step-by-step account on how to opt-out as as well as a raft of educational and activist resources. Check it out and circulate word about this new coalition. (The Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities also offers good ideas on how to "demilitarize our schools.")
What You Wear Does Matter
These days, with the AFL-CIO weaker than at any time since the inception of the labor federation, would seem an unlikely period to witness the growth of a sophisticated, anti-sweatshop movement. But thanks to the steadfast work of numerous grassroots groups, the dedication of student activists with organizations like United Students Against Sweatshops, and perhaps a little protectionist China-bashing, there's a greater awareness of the actual "cost" of the clothes most Americans wear.
The Campaign for Labor Rights (CLR) is one of the most effective independent organizations working to inform and mobilize grassroots activists in solidarity with international anti-sweatshop struggles. Considered the "grassroots mobilizing department" of the anti-sweatshop movement, CLR has worked with more than 500 communities in the US in support of both local and overseas labor struggles. A current campaign calls on Dole to desist in actively engaging in anti-union activity aimed at Colombian flower workers who have successfully organized themselves into an independent union. Click here for more info on CLR and click here to support the group's efforts.
Creating Your Own Reality
Regular posters to the Comments section of our blogs will notice a new feature: "Ignore this person," a simple function that allows participants in online discussions to render invisible posts that they find offensive or off-topic.
How best to moderate a free-wheeling online discussion is a question which has bedeviled scores of webmasters. At The Nation, we're particularly disinclined to ever censor anyone based on political perspectives, especially those we abhor. But it can be disruptive when, as happened recently, someone decides to paste dozens of versions of the same Ann Coulter piece to all five of our weblogs in an obvious effort to disrupt the conversation. Or when someone simply unleashes an obscene tirade with no argument being made.
So what we've come up with is a way for readers to create their own realities by offering the option of "ignoring" a given poster.
We hope that everyone will employ this option sparingly and will use it only as a last-resort to rid themselves of those few posters explicitly trying to prevent the free and feisty exchange of ideas. We strongly discourage anyone using it to shield themselves from unwelcome points of view.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Good, simple questions but I have no easy answers. I agree that every country needs a military which could use force legitimately in cases of self-defense. But whether the recruiting has to take place within high schools is something I'm not yet ready to concede. To me, if the scope of military action was narrowed according to what's really required to keep us safe, we'd get by with a much smaller force than is required currently and recruiting wouldn't be a problem. But how recruiting should and could take place in a democracy with a volunteer army is a very interesting question, one which I'll mull over. I think the point of the current campaigns I highlighted is that, in this moment, with the US military stretched thin due to an unnecessary occupation in Iraq, the thing to do is withdraw from certain theaters, rather than trying to convince younger and younger Americans to join up to add to the troop totals in the Middle East.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/25/2005 @ 4:50pm
If I were in government, I know what I would do to address the problem here which is to pass a state law which imposes tough criminal penalties on military personel who make knowingly false statements to potential recruits.
Frankly, not sure whether this is constitutional. Perhaps someone else knows. If it is, someone should get their local state rep to bring it forward.
Has this been attempted anywhere?
Posted by john.halle at 08/25/2005 @ 5:04pm
To Rio Bravo:
How is an ignore function censorship?
Most discussion forums of any kind offer an ignore function so that individual users can choose to tune out those they find offensive and obnoxious. True, that leaves any one free unwisely to tune out all opposing points of view, but most of us aren't doing that.
There was one poster here -- let's just call him Eta Canis Majoris [daviddarling.info] -- who seldom contributed anything constructive to the discussion, regardless of his point of view. As soon as the ignore function became available, I put him on my list and didn't even like doing that. It was the first time in four years of participating on political discussion forums that I ever used the ignore function. It looks like many other people did exactly the same thing because they felt exactly the same way about Eta Canis Majoris that I did. I liked neither reading that person's posts nor reading most of the responses to them.
Later that same day, I added a second name to the list after that person spammed an Ann Coulter column in its entirety multiple times and a complete Rush Limbaugh transcript as well. The purpose of removing that was simply to make the threads more readable.
Obviously, I'm still reading your posts.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/25/2005 @ 6:04pm
RIO--I already made this point in another comment section but please let me clue you into where we got the idea to implement this "progessive liberal brand of censership tactics." From the very conservative TownHall site! So please save your silly indignation and senseless arguments for your ideological brethen. As Jack Rabbit rightly writes, these ignore features are common on the web. If only all of our enemies were as ill-informed as you!
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/25/2005 @ 6:16pm
General comment on Mr. Rothberg's piece
Since my sons are in their twenties, I'm unaware of what is happening to eleven-year-olds these days. This is really alarming.
If the invasion of Iraq were really a necessary part of a legitimate war on terror, I'd say bring back the draft. That's better than a military recruiting campaign aimed at children. What is Bush afraid of? More falling poll numbers? Those two spoiled girls of his being put in uniform and told they have to earn their stripes?
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/25/2005 @ 6:23pm
Ok, As I can see there is a whole lot of disinformation here. I head a US Army recruiting company. Allow me to dispell some out-right fabrications or at least misleading statments.
1. We DO NOT recruit 11 or even 15 yr olds. Its illegal for us to do, so we dont, its a waste of our time. Now we cant help it if some young people come up to us and ask us questions, but once WE DO NOT recruit anyone younger than 17 and we get a parental consent for 17 yr olds.
2. Contrary to the popular myth that we lie, to applicants, we don't. If a recruiter lies to an applicant he/she is punished and their Army career likely stops. Now that being said, RECRUITERS will answer ANY question you ask him/her. There is a mountain of paper work we have to do to each applicant and we focus naturally on the positive aspects, BUT we do not shy away from the negative aspects.
3. False statements, if you know of any RECRUITERs who make false statements it is a crime against the UCMJ, report it to his company commander/1SGT. Now that being said, I get alot of applicants who "claim" they were lied to, but upon a cursory investigation I find out in 99% of cases that they were not lied but rather its a simple miscommunication. The other 1% are usually mad they didnt get the job they wanted, bc they scored to low or some other disqualifying factor came to the surface, which we do tell them beforehand is possible, either criminal offense, they didnt previously tell us or a medical condition. Sorry but we dont allow people with DUIs convictions to fly 10 million dollar heliocopters.
4. Now if we ONLY went to war with to defend ourselves, I would suspect Europe would look a whole lot different today. Korea would be under the control of Kim-Jong IL and most likely starving. We tried burying our heads in sand when it came to international affairs in the 1930s. It didnt work out so well.
To use a sports analogy, which I dont like to do, but for the Miami Heat to have a successful season, SHAQ has to play. Well in order for the world to be stable and safe, America has to play as well.
Posted by CPT at 08/25/2005 @ 6:34pm
To CPT (sir):
Mr. Rothberg gets his piece from Ms. Houppert's article [thenation.com]. To quote from the first page, second paragraph:
To make sure they are the first folks to contact students about their future plans, Army recruiters are ordered to approach tenth, eleventh and twelfth graders--repeatedly.
Is this inaccurate or misleading?
From the second page, middle of the first paragraph:
New Junior ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps) programs are being introduced in high schools across the country, and lately kids as young as 11 are being invited to join pre-JROTC at their elementary and middle schools.
Is this inaccurate or misleading?
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/25/2005 @ 6:59pm
Jack Yes, we do not RECRUIT 11 yr olds or 10th graders, we talk to, as we allowed to by law, to 11-12th graders who are of age. In order to do this we must ascertain the age of some young people, once we find out their age, we say, if they are too young, come talk to us when you are 17. Hence in order to find out who is eligible we need to talk to them. Again many younger people have questions and we do answer them.
We HIGHLY encourage parents to come with them to sit down and talk to us. We would love that. Thats really all we want is to sit down and have a chance at telling the Army story, Parents are welcome to come with them. As I said we like that.
JROTC? Is a subject in school, an elective taken by students who want to, if anyone is forced to take this class, like math or english I would be surprised.
Posted by CPT at 08/25/2005 @ 7:12pm
FRANK,
We tell them where they COULD go. Not in that verbiage though. But they all ask anyway, We tell them, yes you could be sent to Iraq/Afghan. We, ALSO, tell them that over 1 million service men and women have served in the CENTCOM Area of operations, myself included, the casualities are 15000 for both countries combined. Which is also a fact.
Posted by CPT at 08/25/2005 @ 7:18pm
From Frankgrits: "I challenge anyone , right or left or middle to show me anything in our Constitution that allows the use of out military for anything but self-defense."
Well, that's not much of a challenge. Anything in our Constitution? Ok, let's start with Section 8 (I think it's clause 10 or 11), which gives Congress the power "to wage War." It doesn't say anything at all about it having to be for "self-defense". (Whether it should be self-defense or not is a separate question from the statement that you've made.)
In fact, you don't even really have to go past the preamble of the Constitution to answer your question, since it states that the purpose of the Constitution is to not only provide for the "common defense," (which doesn't necessarily mean self-defense), but also to establish justice, secure the blessings of liberty to us and our children, promote general welfare, and so on.
The Constitution limits none of those things to merely "self-defense" -- and you only need to consider the fact that they're listed separately to understand that they are distinct and apart from the question of "common defense."
You may in your own interpretation decide that those things are or should be limited to "self-defense," but the Constition doesn't say it, and that's what the content of your post was asserting.
And, of course, there is always the notion that, setting your question aside, military action to promote democracy abroad actually does provide for self-defense. It's a virtually unassailable principle that democracy promotes peace. Or, put another way, ask yourself if you can remember: when the last time that two democracies went to war with each other? (Answer: Falklands War, 1982.)
That's more than 20 years ago. Like it or not, promoting democracy abroad safeguards peace at home, and like it or not, that is, without question, in the service of common defense.
Regards,
Drew Harris
Posted by DrewHarris at 08/25/2005 @ 7:53pm
To FrankGrits:
The Constitution gives Congress the right to declare war. It does not specify any reasons why it should or should not declare war.
Otherwise, I will agree with you that this was a colonial misadventure that had nothing to do with spreading democracy, fighting terrorists or any other reason related to national security.
To DrewHarris:
Ask yourself if you can remember: when the last time that two democracies went to war with each other? (Answer: Falklands War, 1982.)
General Galtieri was freely elected popular leader in Argentina? I didn't know that. I'm glad you told me. Otherwise, I would have been under the impression that he was a brutal right wing dictator who "disappeared" dissidents and took their children to be raised by people he considered to be more politically correct. I guess all this stuff I heard about a Dirty War in Argentina between 1976 and 1983 never happened.
Thank you for straightening out my misconceptions about modern history.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/25/2005 @ 8:45pm
Recruiters should be left alone to do their job in high schools and college (especially any school that is receiving federal aid). It is the job of the people to vote and select our leaders. It is the job of the leaders to decide when the use of the military is appropriate. If we the people disagree, then vote the leaders/representatives out of office. We can not have the military getting caught up in the political crossfire everytime there is a decision to use them. What if the republicans had wanted to stop recruitment everytime they disagreed with Clinton's decisions to use the military---Let them do their job--recruit. Let the people do their job by voting for who they trust to make such momentous decisions. If your side loses--in two years there is another election--but let the military do their job in the meantime.--Len
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/25/2005 @ 9:05pm
I'm surprised the Houppert didn't mention this [news4colorado.com].
Given the lengths to which the military seems willing to go, a law calling for criminal sanctions against military personel making false statement seems appropriate. Particularly if the military is not willing to police its own. I'm dubious that they have any intention of doing so about despite the assurances to the contrary.
In addition, a law requiring parental consent for military personel to contact minors also seems reasonable. The right seems to have no problem requiring it for abortion, after all.
Posted by john.halle at 08/25/2005 @ 9:24pm
Recruiters should not lie or shade the truth while doing their job. I believe that poster CPT has addressed this issue with obvious expertise. In the second part of your post you present a what I believe is a false premise and expect me to make a choice--sorry --been around a little to long for that one. If you disagree with the republicans and democrats who made the decision to go to war, then an election is coming up in little over a year--work to vote them out of office, or even work to influence the current Congress to change their minds and bring the troops home--you are encouraged in our system to do both, but don't stop recruitment because you happen to have lost a political skirmish.---Len
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/25/2005 @ 9:28pm
Frank--You asked me what I am so afraid of--I could come back with some snappy,mean, and discourteous one liner like--- "you"--- and go on, but I won't do that.--- Now isn't that a terrible thing I just did. You know two can play at these little word games if you want but I was hoping for more of an intellectual approach. I am afraid of hamstringing the military in recruitment everytime we as a nation have a disagreement over the use of our military. We can not pick and choose when they can recruit for one conflict and not another. What we can do is pick who our President is and our Congresspersons--that is what elections are for. So get to work, send your checks to candidates, start knocking door to door--Hurry up because I started a long time ago.--Len
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/25/2005 @ 9:53pm
If the report on Sgt. Kelt is accurate he should be disciplined. But whether he is guilty or not does not change my arguement.---Len
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/25/2005 @ 9:56pm
For many centuries the front lines of war zones have been used to rid societies of young males who are social misfits. I have heard some argue that the US has gone too long between wars.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/25/2005 @ 10:07pm
I think that this issue demonstrates one of the fatal political flaws of Liberalism. We already have an all volunteer army, but now many want to further reduce their strength by restricting recruitment. This is what many conseratives mean when they say that many liberals are "soft on defense". It seems like many liberals want to destroy the U.S. military. With no malice intended,if you want a small, weak, and ineffectual military, economic socialism, and an isolationist world view, move to Sweden.---Len
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/25/2005 @ 10:14pm
The language has become unrealistic. We act like soldiering is practically like sainthood. If US soldiers are heroes for defending the US homeland, then North Korean soldiers are heroes for defending their people, and Cuban soldiers are heroes for ... All soldiering and wars are noble to some group or country. Let us just train as many people in the world too fight as possible and go all out.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/25/2005 @ 10:17pm
LEN: You might need to distinguish between offense and defense? But you raise a good point. If we reduce emphasis on military power how are we supposed to maintain our masculine self-esteem. Used to be everyone I knew followed pro sports and that was the essential way of deriving and expressing masculine self-esteem.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/25/2005 @ 10:22pm
Our teenage sons do not follow sports. That seems like an unrealistic avenue to them. But they do like the idea of fighting for Special Operations in a war. They see it as away to be strong, powerful, and heroes. And their friends feel the same.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/25/2005 @ 10:27pm
"hamstringing the military"---if you prevent them from recruiting everytime there is a controversial use of American military might you will be hindering or "hamstringing the military". I did not see a rebuttal to any of my arguements for not restricting recruitment. You went into the standard anti-war montra. Refresh my memory Frank--was it you that said that the Korean War was an unjust and illegal war--it might have been someone else. I found that arguement on the extreme of the political spectrum, but if it wasn't you Frank, do you think that the person who expoused that view should have been able to complain and stop the recruitment (and in those days also the draft) of 17/18 year old Americans? P.S. if I have not already said so I want to thank your son for his service and you for your sacrifice. My prayers are with all American military and their families. ---Len
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/25/2005 @ 10:28pm
FRANKGRITS: We notice that our teenage sons and their friends are very sensitive to criticism of Bush and the leaders of the Iraq war effort. They tell us that criticizing Bush and company is essentially a criticism of the judgement and masculinity of white male leaders in the US. This is very painful in southern communities like ours where the black kids dominate in football/basketball/track and the white kids take great pride in "military leaders", mostly white males and Bush. Do not over-intellectualize the war issues. The underlying psychology is the driving force. Criticism of Bush causes some deep wounds. Might even be counter-productive.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/25/2005 @ 10:36pm
It might be helpful to use some island in the Pacifics for continuous soldiering and war. Young people can join the A team or the B team. They can fight to death and our magazines and TVs can cover it and report on all the heroics and expressions of power. The older males who are worried about appearing "weak or soft" can follow the war with great enthusiasm. They will improve their masculine self-esteem. Best of all the civilians are kept out of the killing, maiming, and destruction. Bush could make frequent visits to the island to praise and honor the bravery and heroics.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/25/2005 @ 10:41pm
My wife and I have three teenage sons. As you can imagine, we try to keep our ears open to understand their fears, insecurities, and hopes, and those of their friends.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/25/2005 @ 10:49pm
Fear and anxiety probably drives everything. Yes, it is wonderful to think in terms of hopes rather than fears. But it is hard for people to be hopeful when their fears can't be calmed. I suspect Bush, Cheney, and Rove understand the mindset of the parents in our neighborhood more than most politicians. Bush grew up in a racially divided small town and dreamed during his youth, maybe even as an adult, of being a baseball star. We live in a southern town that is similar in some respects. Lots of people here dream of being sports superstars. Only a small number actually succeed in that, mostly black kids. But the white kids seem to dream most of being war heroes. Bush is tightly linked to their own self-esteem.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/25/2005 @ 10:59pm
If you can think of a way to make that island war (A team versus B team) in the Pacific work, let me know. Seems like it would be a win-win situation for liberals and conservatives.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/25/2005 @ 11:03pm
Simple question....
Why is a 15 year old too fragile, to hear from an Army recruiter, and too immature to understand and comprehend what is likely to happen to them if they join the military....
but perfectly capable and mature to seek and receive an ABORTION, without their parents' consent or knowledge?
Posted by Mask at 08/26/2005 @ 06:45am
.
The current cover of the magazine has the face of a ten year old black boy imposed on an armed soldier in combat uniform and helmet.
An example of creating your own reality. A graphic demonstration of how naturally and instinctively The Nation fights the good fight, it resorts to cheap tricks. Nevermind the complex and stubborn facts; The Nation can fashion its own reality. At the same time this blog rails at military recruiters luring the naive with seductive enticement.
There is sleaze, hyperbole and dishonesty across the political spectrum. So what is the big deal?
The big deal is that the Left markets itself as honesty and truthfulness incarnate. Its posture and platform is an endless sermon in uprightness. It fights lies, exposes hypocrisy, champions fairness; it lives for the truth. My eye. It is a world class four flusher.
It is blind to its own perversity, and thinks it deserves the reins of real power.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/26/2005 @ 08:38am
Hey NACL--You're just ranting. The cover-image illustrates the cover-story. Fairly standard practice for magazines. The "complex and stubborn" facts are taken up in the article itself. If you told us what is so misleading and sleazy we'd be able to address the charges but not much one can do with a fact-less screed.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/26/2005 @ 09:05am
Ok I do not stay on here, i check back from time to time.
Frank To answer some of your original response, We are not going to tell someone signing up that they are certain to DIE or be horribly maimed..Why because that is simply NOT the truth for many.
Remember OVER 1 MILLION servicemen and women have served in both theaters. 15000 have been casualites. If you do the math will see the likely hood of being a casuality is relatively low.
I know, I know no one wants to hear that fact. And we are well of aware of those Soldiers who are casualties.
We do not insult young people by assuming they do not know what they are doing. Especially in this day and age and country.
They already know what enlisting MIGHT bring, they do anyway.
We do not encourage hysterical rhetoric, some parents try and talk them out of it by doing that, those who have little knowledge of the military's inner dynamics. So we chose not to re-affirm false images of ourselves, the media and outlets such as sites similiar to this one, do that enough.
Our job is hard enough.
FYI, that kid who changed his mind that you refer to in an earlier post and his recruiter threaten jail time.
You should understand, the man hours and money it cost, you as a taxpayer, when they do that. The recruiter probably invested over 20 hrs on that ONE kid alone and spent on average about $400 on EACH applicant, for testing, meals, gas money in driving the kid to and from the station and Processing station, plus hotel rooms, which they must be in before they take the physical.
So yes we get upset, but he was not the reason we stood down a few months ago. It was another incident where a recruiter was falsifying a diploma.
We get upset when they SIGN their contract and then change their minds. That is something that applicants who run to the media claiming the recruiter man was mean to them always omit
Posted by CPT at 08/26/2005 @ 09:29am
CPT--Thanks for taking the time to offer your perspective. I'll certainly consider your points.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/26/2005 @ 10:09am
Mask, abortion is a completely different issue than military recruiting. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Posted by RG at 08/26/2005 @ 10:26am
I guess a 12-year-old should be able to decide whether to have an abortion (without parental permission as codified by law), but that same 12-year-old's parents should be able to opt her out of military recruitment- which, of course, she can't join until she's 18 - but let's pretend this is a real crises! Of course, the fiercest resistence to military recruitment comes from the whitest of white school systems - you know, the kids least likely to actually fight for their country, and the ones most likely to piss all over it - which is why, I think, poor whites feel more comfortable voting for blue-blooded republicans than blue-blooded democrats: at least the republicans appear to believe in SOMETHING - regardless of how absurd...
Posted by jabelson at 08/26/2005 @ 11:35am
.
Of course the illustration on a cover should reflect the cover story. But does it? Is the story about a US military made up of 10 and 12 year old boy soldiers?
The story is littered with quotation marks that do not identify the person making the statements. It is full of outright lies, and misleading allegations such as "recruiters trying to sign up their 16 year old daughter." Sixteen year olds are not signed up and cannot sign up. Even 17 year olds can't. The parents of 17 year olds must sign for their child. And incidentally, 17 year olds are not sent into combat. The story is unfair and misleading in most paragraphs. It is not journalism it is a cross eyed polemic.
But that the story is garbage was not my gravamen. The cover does not fit the story, that is the point. The cover is emotive, it is Goebbelian but not illustrative. The story is not about children of the age depicted on the cover. The cover seeks to evoke African armies composed of stolen children. That is the heart string being plucked. The US military is being slandered with that resonance.
Who the hell do you think you are fooling?
The editor of any legitimate news organization who allows such a cover is fired. He/she belong in an advertising firm, or in al Jazeera, not in US journalism.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/26/2005 @ 11:37am
oops - if I'd seen the same abortion comment I'd withheld mine...
Posted by jabelson at 08/26/2005 @ 11:46am
What's the big deal about recruiting in high schools? The military just sets up a booth at career day just like any other company or college. If you want to hear what the recruiter has to say do so. If not, just ignore him.
Besides not every job in the military is combat related. If you want to work in ground breaking research in computers or engineering, and you don't have the grades, connections, or $30,000 a year to spend on a top university, there's no better way to learn than in the military.
Posted by Zeddmen at 08/26/2005 @ 12:37pm
"The cover seeks to evoke African armies composed of stolen children."
Not sure how this sprang to your mind but I certainly never thought of it, nor has anyone else here at the magazine, including the editor responsible for the magazine cover. But it seems a telling association. Feeling a little guilty yourself perhaps??
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/26/2005 @ 12:53pm
ZEDDMEN:
I suggest you read the article. They are doing more than setting up a booth.
As for being a great place to learn about computers and engineering. What's the point of going to the military for that - you won't find much on the job front in the private sector - those jobs are vanishing. read Paul Craig Roberts. [counterpunch.org]
Posted by Hman23 at 08/26/2005 @ 12:57pm
NACL
He writes in as ornate language as he can possibly muster in order to make his message sound more important than everyone else's.
NACL has blood lust, pure and simple. He's ashamed that he wants to kill his enemies, but doesn't have the guts to do it. He could join the U.S. military, but he might actually die. If there's no chance he'd die, I'm sure he'd be there in a New York minute. This is his forum to take out some of his angst. Liberals are substituting for what he perceives as actual enemies.
Fight in the war NACL. Or is this the only "battleground" you're man enough to partake in? Anonymous blogging chickenhawks are even worse than those who reveal their identities in real life.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/26/2005 @ 1:45pm
FRANK, We are well aware of the responsibility we have as leaders at all levels in the Army.
That is SPECIFICALLY why boot camps are tough, thats why training is tough, thats why Drill SGTs yell at every little detail. Thats why we train them on battle drills, over and over and over until they know it in there sleep. We do not shelter someone who scores low by giving them unrealistic expectations, ie they score a 40 QT and expect to fly Apaches (helio).
HMAN23
I take issue with the counterpunch.org article which suggests military skills are not transferable or desired. As being FLAT wrong
HR Chally Group, a sales benchmark firm from Dayton, Ohio, administered a sales-aptitude test to veterans and to civilians interested in sales.
In cordial communication style, the vets scored 66 percent compared to civilians' 50 percent.
In competitive approach, they scored 60 percent to civilians' 43 percent.
In accountability for core business results, they scored 70 percent to the civilians' 55 percent.
"Vets are able to determine problems and solve them quickly," said Angel Alvarez, a veterans program specialist with the U.S. Department of Labor said.
Robert Scharringhausen, human resources manager, said his company hopes to expand the program to all military branches.
"The blood and guts of our operation is management, so we're looking for key leadership skills," Scharringhausen said. "It's not as `The Tonight Show' and educators say: a dead-end career."
Posted by CPT at 08/26/2005 @ 2:32pm
HMAN23 It seems as though i misread you intent, sorry, but facts are still valid
Posted by CPT at 08/26/2005 @ 2:41pm
CPT:
My post to ZEDDMEN was directed at the computer technology/engineering jobs, and how those jobs are being outsourced, which is the focus of Roberts' article. My comment was not directed at military skills per se, and the Roberts article does not talk at all about military skills. I did not mean what you are trying to attribute to me and Roberts.
It was a tongue-in-cheek response, admittedly on a different topic. ZEDDMEN used training in these fields as a motivating factor for some to join the military. My comment was an attempt at irony because the U.S. labor market has seen a general decline in these specific job fields. Since companies are outsourcing these jobs, there is not much opportunity in these fields once someone goes back to the private sector. I was basically telling ZEDDMEN to pick another selling point for useful skills to be learned in the military, not that there weren't any to be learned at all. I agree with you.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/26/2005 @ 2:52pm
HMAN23:
Sensationlized cover stories do not change the simple fact that students don't have to pay attention to recruiters if they don't want to. It's not as if students are being kidnapped and forced to be in the military. You sign a contract and if you felt you made a serious mistake, you can leave during basic training.
My other point was that if you do not want to go into the infantry, there are plenty of non-combat jobs that teach you valuable job skills you can transfer to civilian life. Some of which involve computers and engineering. The military has always been involved with ground breaking reasearch in these areas. Guess where the Internet came from?
There are plenty of jobs avaliable in computer software in the U.S.. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans don't have the required skill set to get hired. Microsoft hasn't opened up offices in India and China for cheap labor. They went there to hire some of the best people coming out of universities.
Posted by Zeddmen at 08/26/2005 @ 3:07pm
One fact that seems to get lost here. Articles like the one in the Nation make it sounds like the Military is in an existential struggle to replenish their ranks. This is not the case. The hardest hit have been the Reserves and National Guard which will end up well under recruiting goals for 2005, 80% to 50% depending on the branch. (They were also short in 2004 and 2003) The regular Army however should be above 90% for 2005 and the Navy, Air Force and even the front-line, hard-core Marines will meet or exceed recruitment goals for 2005. Here are some facts below easily available from the internet. Stop pretending like the sky is falling and our military is in decline. I also have no problems with military academies or jrotc for younger students, for most kids they're a positive influence.
"The Marine Corps made its July goal and was 2 percent ahead year-to-date. While the Air Force hit its targets, the Navy missed its July goal by 1 percent but remained slightly ahead of its year-to-date quota."
"The Army, Marine Corps and Air Force met or exceeded their goals for the month, and the Navy achieved 99 percent of its July goal, DoD officials reported.
The Army recruited the most new members, more than 8,000, 9 percent above its July goal. The Marines recruited more than 3,600 members, 103 percent of their goal; and the Air Force, almost 2,100, 101 percent of its goal. The Navy added more than 4,700 new sailors to its ranks, just 41 short of its July goal."
Posted by aganesan at 08/26/2005 @ 4:15pm
ZEDMEN:
You obviously miss the point. It's not the amount of actual coersion involved, it's the age. I presume you have no problem with recruiters approaching an eleven-year-old. Sorry, but I draw the line older than that, and I am sure a lot of other parents would not find my position unreasonable.
As for your third paragraph. You are dead wrong on every point.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/26/2005 @ 5:01pm
Rio Bravo (brave river?? how the hell is a RIVER -brave-???) 1) I'd take you more seriously if you could spell 2) I have visited 'conservative sites' - anything but slavish Bush-worship and Clinton-slamming were met with immediate cancellation of my account.
Free speech means nothing to you cretins. You'd kill us all if the law didn't restrain you. The world is more complicated than 'I'm strongest, that makes me right' - but it's difficult to get that across to people whose father beat them at every opportunity.
Posted by doog at 08/27/2005 @ 04:42am
I noticed that besides RG (with his "No...it's not the same" unsubstantiated disagreement) there was NO counter to my question, why is a 15 year old so immature and helpless, that they can't "withstand" an Army recruiter....but they are "wise beyond their years and totally mature enough" to seek and receive an ABORTION, without their parents' consent.
Think it "twanged a nerve" with those who think it's "okay" for a stranger (a clinic operator) to help a child with a momentous decision without parental "interference" that could happen IMMEDIATELY....but NOT "okay" if it's a military officer simply giving out information and "trying to make a sale" (if you want to put it that way) for something that is YEARS off.
The truth is ...Mr Rothberg and the "anti-recruitment" guys need a "target" for stopping young people from joining the military....if there was a draft, they'd go after that. But there isn't, it's all voluntary and the people joining up (higher than was previously reported by the way) know EXACTLY what they may be getting themselves into.
But he wants them to be "innocent, naive children"...so that they can atleast be called "neutrals" and not supporters of the war...and can reinforce HIS feelings about it.
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2005 @ 07:12am
DOOG You are right in a way, the world will always have Pol Pots, Saddams, Kim Il Sungs, Idi Imans, Milosivics, Bin Landens, Maos, Stalins, Mussolinins, Noriegas, and Hitlers.
That is the nature of THIS world, Conservatives seem to recongize that.
You cant make our swords into plowshares hold hands with the rest of the world and sing kumbaya and hopw everything will be alright.
This world is not like that.
And just because its hard to take action, is not an excuse not doing it
Posted by CPT at 08/27/2005 @ 08:42am
CPT,
FYI, that kid who changed his mind that you refer to in an earlier post and his recruiter threaten jail time. CPT
Perhaps part of your problem is that you are recruiting "kids" (boys and girls) and not men and women; but then again it is "kids" who believe they are invincible.
The rest of your post was pure recruitment propaganda.
On winning wars; if you take a close look at the wars that America has won, then you will see a large proportion of the warriors were in the age group that would be considered male maturation. It ain't the 18 and 19 year-olds.
Leadership and steadfastness for winning wars comes from men and women who are mature and have experienced life's up and downs; not from still wet behind the ears 18 and 19 year-olds with only false senses of glory in their eyes.
Recruitment of people who will provide leadership and steadfastness is failing because these same people know why we are in Iraq and many of them don't agree with that 'noble cause'.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/27/2005 @ 10:00am
ORAIBI1952
Perhaps those "kids" should not be allowed to vote if that is the case. By the way the leaders of the Army are the commissioned and non-commissioned officers(NCO). They are for the most part experienced and knowledgeable leaders, and their training is rigorous. Except for 2LTs, all have re-upped. So you dont have to worry, the leaders of the young enlistees are in very capable hands, as evidence by the low casualty rate among those who have served in the theater since the onset of hostilites, over 1 million.
Compared to the number of casualties 15,000 you do the math.
And morale is high in the service as evidence of the re-enlistment rate of combat vets at 107%. We are not disillusioned, and we shall remain so.
I know you can cite some vets who disgruntled, but they are in the very small minority. Propaganda? What I posted was the absolute truth.
No Soldier has a false sense of glory, many are guided by what Gen Patton described, when he said:
"50 yrs from now, when you have you grandkids on your knee, and they ask you what you did in the great WW2(War on Terror for us), You WON"T have to say. 'Well, I shoveled sh*t in Louisiana! And you can thank God for it!"
In short that sense called, duty
Posted by CPT at 08/27/2005 @ 10:27am
CPT,
Perhaps those "kids" should not be allowed to vote if that is the case. By the way the leaders of the Army are the commissioned and non-commissioned officers(NCO). They are for the most part experienced and knowledgeable leaders, and their training is rigorous. Except for 2LTs, all have re-upped. So you dont have to worry, the leaders of the young enlistees are in very capable hands, as evidence by the low casualty rate among those who have served in the theater since the onset of hostilites, over 1 million. CPT
Your statements above clarify my point about maturation; the maturation level is among the mid-level NCOs and above. The winning wars had maturity at the corporal level and below, and this is as important as having maturity in the NCO and Officer ranks, possibly more important.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/27/2005 @ 10:36am
ORAIBI1952
Let me clarify even further
A fire team has 3-5 Soldiers led by a SGT E5< He is average age of 22-25 and has been in the Army since 18, He has been to numerous schools and gone before a board of Senior NCOs before being given his stripes. He is with that team ALL the time, in the field right beside them.
A Squad is 8-10 Soldiers led by a Staff SGT E6< He is average age of about 28-35 has been to many more leadership schools and is also there where with them, when they kick down the door. He has two fire teams he controls with two E-5.
A platoon is 30-40 Soldiers of 3 or more squads led by a LT with the help of a SGT First Class, SFC, he has 14-16 yrs in the Army and about 35-42 yrs of age, they are also in the field of combat making those decisions with the LT.
So per platoon you have roughly 6 SGTs, 3 SSG, 1 SFC, and 1 LT, thats alot of experince and knowledge, and they move that platoon and they are with their men at all times in combat.
Hence they are mature and well qualified
Posted by CPT at 08/27/2005 @ 10:50am
CPT,
I hope you aren't confusing rank with maturity; to be of a certain rank is not the same as having a certain maturity.
Many of the Sgts and Lts/Capts are below the age of maturity for young men and women; possibly many of them are ages 20-22 instead of say age 27 and above.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/27/2005 @ 11:22am
.
You start with a denial and puzzlement. You are saying, how strange that I could have attributed such an entirely unjustified innuendo to you. But by the time you've written your second sentence, you agree that mine was a warranted inference. Your third and last sentence admits that instilling a sense of guilt (via the suggestion that ours is an army of stolen children) is an affect you are after.
You in effect plead nolo contendere to my point that yours is not journalism but visceral propaganda.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/27/2005 @ 12:49pm
NACL wrote in 8/27/05 @ 12:49 am (first full paragraph is Peter's, the rest belongs to NACL:
"PETER ROTHBERG
Not sure how this sprang to your mind but I certainly never thought of it, nor has anyone else here at the magazine, including the editor responsible for the magazine cover. But it seems a telling association. Feeling a little guilty yourself perhaps??
You start with a denial and puzzlement. You are saying, how strange that I could have attributed such an entirely unjustified innuendo to you. But by the time you've written your second sentence, you agree that mine was a warranted inference. Your third and last sentence admits that instilling a sense of guilt (via the suggestion that ours is an army of stolen children) is an affect you are after.
You in effect plead nolo contendere to my point that yours is not journalism but visceral propaganda."
Wrong NACL, dead wrong, as usual. Peter's second sentence does not "agree that [yours] was a warranted inference". Peter's second sentence is poking fun that you would see that association when the editors of the Nation did not intend what you see. They did not insinuate an association of American children to African children, you made that leap, and Peter's third sentence amusingly points out that you must be feeling guilty about your chickenhawkish ways.
Keep parsing (incorrectly) prose if it makes you feel just NACL. But it doesn't make you just, but it's no one's right to deny you of your self-delusions.
Keep marching to war in your head NACL, since you're cowardice will never allow you to do it in real life.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/28/2005 @ 07:59am
is there no way to ignore a POSTING, and not all of the the postings of a writer? sometimes i like read the wacko-posts for amusement.
Posted by dabar at 08/28/2005 @ 08:26am
NACL
Really.
You think journalism has ever been anything but visceral propaganda?
Why does somebody become a journalist, as opposed to a stock broker?
Because they are ideologues. They want to shape history.
Besides, people don't want to think hard enough to understand the issues.
Cindy Sheehan.
Need I say more?
By the way, you nailed it. Pure Propaganda.
And false, as well.
Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 11:00pm
JonB:
Do you think religion telling people there's an afterlife is anything more than pure propaganda?
Posted by urmygyro at 08/29/2005 @ 02:39am
.
Sorry, journalism and propaganda are not synonyms, really.
I don't know whether Anne Navasky, the wife of The Nation's chief honcho is now or ever has been an ideologue, but I know she was as late as 2001 a well paid stockbroker at Solomon Brothers.
I am pretty sure that it is possible for a stockbroker to be an ideologue, just as it is possible for a journalist not to be one. People can segment their thinking. They can be experimental physicists and disciplined logicians six days a week and on the seventh on their knees before a revealed religion. They can be pragmatic about pork belly futures and dogmatic about Hiss and Chambers.
Incidentally, Victor Navasky supervises the Columbia Journalism Review. For some reason that important involvement was not registered on the CJR's masthead. It was only after a blogger made a fuss that Navasky found it right to remedy that omission.
In his judgment incidentally, though he is responsible for the content and direction of The Nation, he is not an ideologue and resents that suggestion.
And finally, it is worth noting in this discussion about slippery US recruitment methods, that Navasky's admits proudly that The Nation has representatives distributing copies of the magazine to students across some 160 college campuses.
.
Posted by nacl at 08/29/2005 @ 10:21am
As always, a sweeping generalization about a class of people will be incorrect in some cases. I should know better than to say such things without qualification.
Posted by jonb at 08/29/2005 @ 1:20pm
My point was only that to expect otherwise is unrealistic.
Because it seems to me, every journalist I have encountered (either directly or through their writings) has a decided ideological bias.
I have one myself, actually.
Though I do try to refrain from propaganda.
Posted by jonb at 08/29/2005 @ 1:24pm
So you guys don't support the troops then?
Posted by whyme at 08/30/2005 @ 6:00pm
So it's not ok for a 17 year old to talk with an Army recruiter but it is ok for a 13 year old to get an abortion without her parents knowing about it? I just want to understand this line of thought.
Posted by whyme at 08/30/2005 @ 6:01pm
ZERO--Apologies for taking so long to reply to your question about Sudan...which I, frankly, don't have a good answer to. I agree that a military can sometimes be legitimately used in rare cases that don't involve self-defense. Fighting the Nazis in the 1940s is an easy example. And I'm just not sure whether I'd support a UN-sponsored invasion and occupation of Sudan at the moment but I do think it's a very arguable position that I could probably concede. BUT, re the question of recruiting and the size of the US military, I don't think supporting invasions to prevent genocide should require esp large numbers of US troops if it's a UN mission. To me it's key that no one country dominate in a UN mission of this sort so I could envision the US being part of such a project w/o having to necessarrily supply lots of troops.
To NACL--I can't answer you any better than did URMYGYRO. He nails your (probably knowing) incorrect parsing better than I could do.
Finally, re this interesting debate about journalism and bias: I agree that all journalists have biases....as we are people too. And I don't believe it's possible for anyone to be truly objective. BUT that doesn't at all mean that journalism is or has to be propaganda. One can strive to be fair and balanced regardless of one's beliefs and that effort, combined with rigorous fact-checking is what, to me, marks the most valuable journalism.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/31/2005 @ 4:28pm
Peter Rothberg wrote:
"Finally, re this interesting debate about journalism and bias: I agree that all journalists have biases....as we are people too. And I don't believe it's possible for anyone to be truly objective. BUT that doesn't at all mean that journalism is or has to be propaganda. One can strive to be fair and balanced regardless of one's beliefs and that effort, combined with rigorous fact-checking is what, to me, marks the most valuable journalism."
Absolutely Peter. American law works in a similar fashion as good journalists. We are lucky in this country to have an independent judiciary, an independent bar, and a method for judging defendants by impaneling ordinary citizens. No judge, lawyer, or jury member can ever check all their biases at the door, they are human, after all, and having biases is one of the traits that makes humans human. However, the American system of law is far less biased than countries where judges take bribes to settle cases and law enforcement extorts as much money as they can out of local businessmen. Journalists are quite often bought off by their local governments in much the same fashion. For all the biases any of us have, we should be thankful we have a system that allows media outlets such as the Nation to exist. Do you think Peter Rothberg's words would be heard if he lived in Russia or China and was constatnly questioning Russian or Chinese authorities? Do you think any of us would be able to log on and agree or diagree with Peter?
County thy blessings.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/31/2005 @ 11:32pm
.
I ignore urmygyro's posts. If you can't do better than he you are in deep trouble. Urmygyro showed what he is made of when he described a conversation in which he claimed to hve asked me questions, received answers and followed up with another question, all of which was a fabrication. Yes, not a distortion, not a difference in point of view, a complete invention, a total lie. I detailed that in Katrina's "Religion and the Left" thread: Posted by NACL 08/10/2005 @ 2:22pm
Your problem Peter is that you open your mouth only to change feet. As my posts demonstrated, you lurched from one inanity to the next. That you find refuge with urmygyro whose very mouth odor is green and mephitic compounds your shame.
Your bromides are ridiculous in the context of Karen Houppert's partisan polemic. There is no question that legitimate journalists can have a point of view, that that does not make them propagandists. That is unrelated to whether or not Houppert's piece is journalism. For that matter, whether you are a journalist. In my book you are not.
Your one sensible and honest riposte could have been, The Nation does not pretend to report the news. It is a journal of opinion, with the emphasis on opinion not journalism. It acknowledges its leftist penchant. It offers arguments, polemics from the point of view of socialists. Their gravamen is not to offer information, but to persuade.
But you insist you are a journalist and demand to know why Houppert's piece is not legitimate reporting.
I already gave you just one reason, but you ignored it. Already in her second paragraph Houppert puts statements in quotes, to lend them authority, but without ever specifying who is speaking. Thus she writes:
On whose say so is that what recruiters are told? She suggests its "Army brass." Which officials did she speak to?
Did everyone she spoke to tell her they were suckered? (BTW once enlistees get a load of boot camp many decide they were deceived and want out.) Did she speak to someone like me? Yes, I was fingered in school by a swim coach, a retired Jarhead. Yes, recruiters came on campus. (The Nation Navasky claims, does also.) They praised everything about me, including my posture and my grandfather. But the fact is, when it finally came to signing up, it was in NYC and had nothing to do with any recruiter. A major interviewed me. We talked for a good half hour about lots of things including my scars (the coreman who gave me a physical had counted them) and Gustav Le Bon's, The Crowd. He asked me whether my parents knew about my decision although I was well over 18. Then his gunnery sergeant took over, gave me a long written test, took a photograph of me, asked me about my dad, gave me pointers about letters of recommendations, warned me about the rigors ahead.
People sign up for different programs and have different experiences. But that is not reflected in The Nation's piece. It is tendentious. It is there to disparage. If it had praised the rectitude of the recruiters, would it have been published?
Journalists are not ipso facto propagandists. To have a bias is not the same thing as letting one's perspective subordinate the truth. But that is what you Peter are about, and Houppert's piece, and The Nation.
.
Posted by nacl at 09/01/2005 @ 09:18am
NACL--You ignore URMYGYRO at your own expense! As I said, he effectively highlighted the silliness of your second-most-recent post using about a third of the words you habitually employ to make whatever slight point you're straining to convey. But guess it's easier to tune out your smart adversaries rather than actually having to consider their points.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 09/01/2005 @ 09:53am
.
.
Posted by nacl at 09/01/2005 @ 10:40am
NACL wrote:
"The more you say diverse it gets"
LOL - You see Peter, when he attempts the brevity thing, he doesn't make any sense.
And Peter, to clarify NACL's saying I "fabricated". That's not true; I "misattributed" is the accurate description. At the time of the dialogue on that thread, I was on that thread on this page and two threads on two other pages, having pretty much the same conversation on all three threads, just with different people. I attributed something to NACL (without using quotes, I simply paraphrased what I thought he had written) which someone else who holds the same position as NACL had written on a different thread about the same topic. When I realized I made a mistake in attributing it to NACL (after he pointed out he didn't say what I attributed to him), I retracted it on the message board and apologized to NACL. If I had attributed a direct quote to NACL that he never wrote, that would be a fabrication, and that would be egregious. That didn't happen.
By the way, my retraction and apology aren't enough for NACL (obviously). He'd prefer to be a hateful man who comes to thenation to be as verbose as possible to make points that are as weighty as a grain of salt.
I think it's quite telling that he can't forgive someone for an honest mistake. An apology and retraction were given. I looked foolish to anyone who was reading the thread for incorrectly recalling a conversation he and I had. I looked sloppy. I've learned to not try to carry on multiple conversations on different threads, espcially if the topics are the same or overlap, because having that many windows open just leads to the possibility of the sloppiness I showed in my argument with NACL. His continuously calling me a "liar" is simply not true, and makes him a "liar" (which is beautiful irony).
NACL is full of hate. He comes to this website to tell the authors of the different blogs how much he disagrees with just about everything you write. Many other folks besides myself have noticed and written about how hateful NACL is. Many of them treat NACL as they treat ALUDRA. I think NACL is more intelligent than NACL, but he's not here for true dialogue.
NACL has no forgiveness in his heart (see my example as proof) and NACL has no willingness to see any other's point of view (see his continued attacks on the authors of the blogs here at thenation).
NACL's not here for dialogue. He's here to make us feel bad about ourselves. He shall not succeed.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/01/2005 @ 2:49pm
Correction:
"I think NACL is more intelligent than Aludra, but he's not here for true dialogue" - much the same as Aludra.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/01/2005 @ 2:53pm
""I think NACL is more intelligent than Aludra, but he's not here for true dialogue" - much the same as Aludra."
I'm here for the dialog, I don't know why Aludra hung around when most people ignored everything he/she said.
You guys normally disagree with everything I have to say but I know you read it.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 09/01/2005 @ 9:54pm
.
I generally don't read your posts. It is not that I have you on ignore, you just don't interest me. However, I couldn't help notice that you include me in your last missive. Why? Why are you diverting to me, and joining in a disparagement of Aludra?
She apparently was kicked out. That by a bunch whose own existence depends on a generous definition of free speech. These paragons of freedom, these champions of minority opinion, promptly proceeded against the minority in their midst.
I might add, almost immediately after I began posting here people like Zero demanded my eviction. I was not just denounced as a "crank" to be ignored (fine with me), but to be ejected. Another found insufferable "gutter language" my recourse to the word, "ass." It lowered the site's high tone. Nevermind that an ad for BULLSHIT was at that moment flashing on the top of the page. One posters charged me with failing to contribute positively, another that I was disruptive, and a third griped that I had no right to use a forum paid for by Nation subscribers. They meant they did not like my opinions and lacked the wit to riposte effectively.
And you, it turns out, instead of expressing your disgust at these hypocrites, side with them against Aludra. Very sporting.
.
Posted by nacl at 09/02/2005 @ 08:22am
NACL - Can you seriously be defending "he/she who cannot be named"? That individual is free to post foul-mouthed drivel, many of us chose to ignore it. Your typically hate-filled spews at least contain some evidence of thought - hence I, at least, choose not to ignore you.
Posted by Fishbite at 09/02/2005 @ 08:33am
Fishbite:
NACL is Aludra with the ability to use ornate language.
And don't you love the hypocrisy in NACL being upset with oksportsguy, prefacing his comments with "I generally don't read your posts. It is not that I have you on ignore, you just don't interest me" but others here, according to NACL, can't ignore him for the same reasons.
NACL is not interesting to most posters on this site for two reasons:
1. he focuses on parsing petty issues incorrectly over and over 2. he resorts to obscenitites
Posted by urmygyro at 09/02/2005 @ 09:17am
NACL wrote:
"She apparently was kicked out" referring to Aludra.
To educate you, since you clearly need it, the "ignore user" button doesn't evict any poster from participating, it simply allows any poster to ignore any other poster. That's not limiting free speech. It's setting the rules of the forum. Aludra habitually resorted to name calling and then began habitually reposting entire multi-page articles on this website, so rightfully other posters found him to completely disruptive to dialogue.
These blog forums at thenation.com are free. Aludra has not lost out on money by being ignored by other posters.
Glad I could educate you this morning.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/02/2005 @ 09:35am
Yeah, NACL, it's impt to note that NO ONE has been kicked off of any Nation forum. I'm sorry if some of the other posters hurt your feelings but we have no intention of evicting anyone from the conversations.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 09/02/2005 @ 10:23am
Nacl,
" I couldn't help notice that you include me in your last missive. Why?"
The part with your name in it here: "I think NACL is more intelligent than Aludra, but he's not here for true dialogue"
Was a quote from someone else, I simply requoted it.
As far as Aludra being kicked out, that isn't correct as Urmy stated. People just started putting him/her on ignore and thus very few people were even reading his/her posts. My guess is at that point he got bored and left.
I was saying the same thing, I'm here for the dialog and the entertainment, I don't have any delusions of saving the poor liberals from themselves the same way I think most understand they aren't going to change my views on life ether.
So as long as they respond to me, I will continue to post. If they really want me to leave their sacred "The Nation" blog then they need to put me on ignore as well, and I'll get bored and leave.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 09/02/2005 @ 10:35am
oksportsguy wrote:
"As far as Aludra being kicked out, that isn't correct as Urmy stated"
I never stated Aludra got kicked out. I stated Aludra has been put on many people's "ignore list" for legitimate reasons. Get your facts straight oksportsguy.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/02/2005 @ 10:55am
oksportsguy:
you know what, I just re-read your post, and I see I may have misinterpreted that sentence because of improper sentence structure (not criticizing your grammar - just letting you know why I wrote my 10:55 am post)
Posted by urmygyro at 09/02/2005 @ 10:59am
NACL
If you're so concerned about everyone listening to your or Aludra's message, I wonder if you're consistent and think Cindy Sheehan should have been granted an audience with the president last month?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/02/2005 @ 11:02am
.
I don't know what urmygyro said, as I don't see him, but I do know he is a shameless and a practiced liar. As to Aludra, I don't know for sure what happened to her. I do know, she was very determined, almost compulsive, and certainly disgusted. Is it likely that she would have folded her tent without a few choice words of good bye?
Finally, you don't know whether she thought she was being ignored, and if she did, that it bothered her. She was speaking her mind; people are forever speaking aloud to no one in particular. Who hasn't burned up the keyboard for a few pages and immediately discarded them!
And why really, do you write? Do you think you are going to change anyone's mind?
.
Posted by nacl at 09/02/2005 @ 1:49pm
.
I accept that you find it "important to note that." But it is not so easy to accept that as the truth. You demonstrate a peculiar idea of sincerity and honesty in your posts here. You much prefer to play cute. Not unlike your brilliant friend, urmygyro.
I've treated myself to a look at his posts. Boy was that a mistake. He is a jumble. He is to confusion what flypaper is to flies.
He claims he mistakenly attributed to me a conversation he had with someone else, and to have apologized to me. Let him identify the posts where he apologized to me, and let him point out the conversation and the other person, he confused for me. I showed the specific posts where he maligned me. Let him show the posts that support his explanation.
Moreover, my dust up with your friend was only secondarily about his lying. It was mainly about his bigotry, his wholesale denigration of an entire race and a religion. His way of apologizing for that was to rear back in hurt and disgust at how I maligned liberals. (It so happens that I don't think the term liberal is shameful, I hold liberal positions on a number of counts.)
You've got some friend there. You guys make a nice pair. If only you had a modicum of brains, so that I could insult you.
.
Posted by nacl at 09/02/2005 @ 2:22pm
NACL:
if I'm on his "ignore list" he won't be able to see this, but it's quite amusing that you think you're actually making a difference and changing minds at thenation.com. With your lack of civility and complete lack of persuasive skills you have a snowball's chance in hell of changing anyone's opinion on a blog or in person.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/02/2005 @ 2:35pm
Peter:
You're as capable as anyone of reading anyone's posts, either in the current blogs or in the archives. Read my blogs and see how I interact with people who actually want to discuss topics civilly. Read NACL's blogs and see how he interacts with people.
NACL's arguments are always buried in unconvincing minutae, so he holds in contempt anyone who makes straightforward, clear arguments. That's why he despises me, and you.
If I'm on NACL's "ignore list", he can join Aludra on mine.
NACL's got nothing on you Peter, even though he claims you (and I) have no "modicum of brains".
Don't stay too angry forever NACL, being angry on your deathbed would be tragic.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/02/2005 @ 2:44pm
Peter:
Nacl wrote "Let him show the posts that support his explanation."
See the August 9th "Religion and the Left" blog by Katrina.
My admission of mistake and apology are in two posts on 8/10 at 4:13pm and 4:44pm.
Just in case you were feeling obliged to believe NACL, I figured I'd direct you to the proper place, for edification that I'm telling you the truth (if you need it). Thanks.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/02/2005 @ 3:14pm
.
You finagler. I had proved to you that we never had the conversation you alleged. You then claimed you misatributed to me words you exchanged with someone else. I asked you to show me that conversation actually carried on by you with an other person. Where is it?
In short, I haven't denied that you made that excuse. Or that you claimed to have apologized. I challenged you to prove that that excuse was valid. The apology, btw, was secondary. If you didn't fabricate that exchange but merely confounded me with someone else, then not much of an apologize was called for in any case. But you have not established that that excuse was true. And as a matter of fact, you have not shown where you apologized to me. To just claim to have done both is not the same thing as having done either.
.
Posted by nacl at 09/02/2005 @ 7:13pm
NACL:
Thought I was on your "ignore list"? Your constant need to portray yourself as a victim is amusing. Keep it up, since you are here to amuse me.
I don't need to provide the conversations I was having on other websites. I have those conversations under a different username than I use on this website, I'd prefer to keep them separate (as I've noted above, since I don't carry them on at the same time anymore).
NotAnotherCluelessLightweight? Yep, NACL truly is just another clueless lightweight.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/05/2005 @ 02:46am