<p>Cheers, </p>
<p>Too bad he’s at sea, or he could weigh in for himself</p>
<p>The Seattle-Portland area?</p>
<p>That would be around Chehalis? :-)</p>
<p>no- chehalis is too far east- but good try ;)</p>
<p>What I meant by that is, that I read the local ( Seattle) papers, but as my daughter now lives in Portland, I also read their papers.
Im not going to find out what is happening down there by waiting for her to tell me thats for sure.</p>
<p>BUt I also assumed, that the references to my daughters school on this thread and others, and the notarity that I assumed the[parent group]( <a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/18/iraq/main696054.shtml”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/18/iraq/main696054.shtml</a>)had, at least with those connected with the military, that people knew what I was talking about. * but I know- assumed makes an a$$ of you & me *</p>
<p>EMK and any other parents are should be proactive if recruiters or anyone, for that matter, are taking inappropriate measures in schools. The pressure should be on the school to set ground rules about recruiters within the parameters of the law, and to report any guest in the school who goes outside of the rules. Recruiters have rules that they need to obey as well, but there are always those who try to circumvent them. I see it as a major problem, however, just as the courts and government do, that schools that take federal dollars are hostile to military recruiters. That, to me, is a sign of disrespect for our military.</p>
<p>EK, of course I figured out where you are :-)</p>
<p>I had just never heard anyone refer to the Seattle-Portland area.</p>
<p>I have been hearing it quite a bit lately I guess when I read local posts from those on the east coast wanting to move here, and wondering where they can find housing/jobs, so I must have picked it up from there. Portland is really only a few hours away though ( if you drive fast)</p>
<p>I appreciate the perspective of those who are willing to listen to others who have a different experience. I think we can learn to appreciate others experience and even if we don’t use their perspective to make decisions this time, we might another time,
As I have already pointed out- although I am not thrilled about recruiters in the schools, I was one of the 5 that voted against making the statement from the PTA that we didnt’ want recruiters.
The main reason was , I felt it was discrimination. If I want groups that I agree with, to be able to contact students on school property, I have to be willing to allow groups that I am not so fond of, to contact students on school property.</p>
<p>Just as a few schools have had to close their doors to all student/community groups because they didn’t want a particular one to be able to use the building, once you set up guidelines for your groups, you have to let the ones in, who fit under the guidelines.</p>
<p>One of my biggest frustrations with this issue, is that I feel that the issue has become polarized and no one is listening to anyone else ( im really not talking about this thread… I think). If someone is really interested in the miltary, heck on your way to Starbucks you will pass the recruiting office. ( about a block away).</p>
<p>I would like to see however, more kids encouraged to attend college, whether academies or ROTC, than go into the service right away.</p>
<p>I know they need grunts, but for some people it seems pretty difficult to be in the miltary and go to school at the same time.</p>
<p>My brother who retired from the Air Force about 8 years ago, was so frustrated, that while he finally did earn a BA while he was at Co Springs, it was too late for him to be anything but enlisted. ( I don’t know if I am using right terminology)</p>
<p>I also worry about studies that show that the skills people learn in the military, aren’t enough to get them a comparable civilian job with others who have more transferable skills. Making it easier to get a degree while in, or before serving, I think would make it easier to move into the workforce once they are discharged, and so better able to continue to contribute to the community.</p>
<p>Something else I have also said before , since I am repeating myself, is that I would like to see required service for all upon graduation from high school or college. Not everyone in the military, but for instance when my daughter completed her year volunteering with Americorps, she recieved an educational voucher that she could apply to loans or tuition.</p>
<p>I think there are a lot of kids, who could benefit more from college if they took a year off to do something to give back.</p>
<p>This could be a money saver in the long run, because we subsidize students to change majors, when if they had taken time to take a breath before college, they might have been more focused.</p>
<p>I am not clear on what educational military benefits look like now, but I would be happier about all the tax money going to the military, if I knew that soldiers had sufficient resources to continue or change fields, including additional education , once they were discharged.</p>
<p>All I want, is for all the kids, to be as aware and supported in their options as our own kids are.
- it takes a village* :D</p>
<p>“All I want, is for all the kids, to be as aware and supported in their options as our own kids are. it takes a village”</p>
<p>I agree emeraldkitty. That and to be fully informed as to what each of those options means. I fully support any student who wants to choose the military as an option. I just want them to make a fully informed decision, not one based on just the positive sides of military service. I spent five years in the Navy and do not regret it for a moment. It helped me grow up and mature in addition to paying for my education. At the same time I hated the vast majority of the 5 years I spent in the service. I learned very early on that I did not have the mentality for a military career. I want to be careful to add that the problem was me, not the Navy. I don’t think it can operate and run in any other way. Kids just need to know that there is not a great deal of tolerance for free and independent minded thinkers, nor for people who have a tendency to ask “Why?” (My problem)</p>
<p>Thanks for the lecture, EK, but I don’t “blindly accept” everything my government or military does. I think maybe the timing of your latest military expose post yesterday was just a little off (considering what just occurred in the UK). And I, for one, would NOT like to see mandatory service of any kind for kids in this country, nor do I think “it takes a village,” mainly because I don’t necessary trust the judgment of the “village.”</p>
<p>“I recently watched the movie Annapolis with my younger son. It was essentially a recruiting movie for the naval academy.”</p>
<p>My Sweet Babboo,</p>
<p>Not so much. It wasn’t filmed there, didn’t have the cooperaton of the Naval Academy, and didn’t really represent life there. In all, it was a boxing movie rather than a USNA movie. Maybe they were recruiting boxers. :)</p>
<p>The August 1 issue of Government Executive reports that public companies headed by former military officers have beaten the S & P index by three to 20 percentage points per year during the one, three, five and 10 year periods ending September 2005, according to a study released June 16 by Korn Ferry International and the Economist Intelligence Unit. </p>
<p>I don’t have links, sorry, but the article goes on to say that the ability to impact and the influence on corporate life is in the first ten years of service; thereafter, benefit of service is <. </p>
<p>“Young officers enjoy the opportunity to manage large teams and multimillion dollar budgets at an age when the majority of their peers in the private sector are taking their first steps on their career paths” the study noted. </p>
<p>In addition, the article said that the average tenure for a CEO if s/he has prior experiece as a military officer is 7.2 years; for CEOs with no military service, 4.6 years.</p>
<p>As far as I’m concerned, they can recruit pretty much any way they want. Recruiters, headhunters and hiring officers for private industry sometimes engage in some VERY underhanded tactics in the competition for a skilled workforce…so…I don’t have a problem with anything our mililtary is up to.</p>
<p>There are kids who just are not in the mind frame to go directly to college from highschool. Living at home, working a min wage job, and hanging out may work out as a short term breather before they can get on their own two feet, but for too many of our kids who are in that category, that life style can become permanent, and the jump start grow up does not happen. THere are too many kids who get into all kinds of trouble during those years, and end up taking a spiral ride down in lifestyle. It’s hard on the parents and family as well to suffer through those growing pains. We are talking about the majority of familes, too. Those of you on CC, represent the minority, who are not only looking at sending their kids to a live in college, but are trying to find the best school for them. It is the luxury for the well to do in resources, not only money but in ideas. Yes, the “poor” kid with top grades, test scores and ambition will get money for school as would the kids whose parents are motivated to come up with ways, if not money, to get them into a school. But those who come from homes that are not as sophisticated do not have that option. The military can do alot of those kids.</p>
<p>Latetoschool said:</p>
<p>“As far as I’m concerned, they can recruit pretty much any way they want. Recruiters, headhunters and hiring officers for private industry sometimes engage in some VERY underhanded tactics in the competition for a skilled workforce…so…I don’t have a problem with anything our mililtary is up to.”</p>
<p>Well, most headhunters aren’t recruiting for job that can cost you your life. Kind of a big difference there. And many recruiters are shady and underhanded in their presentations. This is well documented.</p>
<p>Media and advertisement, as well as recruiting techniques, are very sophisticated, whereas their receiving audience is not. War is not a video game. It is not only a method to pay for education (since you could end up dead first). </p>
<p>While it the way out of bad situations for a lot of poor kids, they fall prey to the enticing rhetoric of recruiters. Sure, they may be old enough to join up, but they aren’t even old enough to legally buy a beer, and yet we think they are old enough to sign on to participation in a war?</p>
<p>Here is an article of relevance to this thread from today’s Washington Post
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401002.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401002.html</a></p>
<p>I’m not sure how to do links or quotes on this board.</p>
<p>Some imagination is an absolute necessary in fighitng terrorists. Certainly in figuring out how they could come after us.</p>
<p>If they know that a 80-year old lady wouldn’t be searched, how hard would it be to slip something you need into the lady’s carry-ons? </p>
<p>Now if you advocate giving everybody at least as much of a search as they’re getting now PLUS doing a more extensive search of certain people, that’s fine. </p>
<p>If you advocate “playing percentages” and searching certain people but giving other people minimal or no screening, our advesaries will exploit that. I can guarantee it. That I have a problem with.</p>