Fat Tuesday -- Shape up to join the Army

[pixy0stix]

Aug 14, 2012 10:41:55 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

What do you do for a living, elise?

If I'm remembering correctly she works on publications for one of the armed services branches.

[hawkeye]

Aug 14, 2012 10:42:02 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Aug 14, 2012 10:40:36 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

Since you feel this way, you should support any efforts that ensure we keep an All-Volunteer Army. Because you really won't like the alternative.

What in the world ever made you think I was in favor of the draft?

I think she was trying to say that more agressive recruiting ensures that people keep volunteering whereas, laying off the recruiting efforts would result in lower numbers of volunteers which, if they get low enough result in a draft.

[msmerymac]

Aug 14, 2012 10:05:19 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

you think middle school is the time to be thinking about life goals?

Middle school is the time where "career day" is popular - parents and parent friends come in to talk about what they do.

Not to mention, the classes you take in middle school can affect the classes you are eligible for in high school. In my state, if you took were in more advanced math or science in 6th and 7th grade, you were eligible to be placed in a high school level math or science class in 8th grade. Then you were basically a year ahead in 9th grade... and finishing your regular state-mandated math classes by the end of 10th grade was the only way you could get to Calculus or AP Calculus by senior year. If you finish the requirements for the first year of a foreign language in middle school you move to year 2 in 9th grade, and end up being more advanced than your classmates by 12th grade.

Personally, because I was in more "advanced" classes for English and history in middle school, I was placed into the honors classes for those subjects in 9th grade.

There was also a program in my area where the REALLY advanced math kids went to a special class twice a week instead of taking math at school (kids from all over the county), at a local college. That started in 6th grade, so you'd have to qualify before then.

Do I think it's always the best thing to make pre-teens think so hard about what kind of career they want? If they want college, or trade school, or military? If they want to focus on science or writing or languages? No. But 1) childhood obesity is a huge issue, no one can deny that and 2) at least this will leave their options open.

I know recruiters have lied to my brother before (he's thought about a career in the military several times, including when he was in high school). About what kind of financial aid you'll get for school, what kind of rank he'll get off the bat. So maybe I wish there was a way to institute this program where military recruiters weren't involved, but it's possible it's the easiest, cheapest way to do it.

[chichimi]

Aug 14, 2012 10:40:54 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I don't want people in the military simply because it was the best of a series of bad choices in front of them. I want people in the military because they feel an inclination or proclivity towards it, not because it was either that or deal drugs.

Hey I want doctors that only want to help people and dont care about money but most of the time, surviving and earning money contributes to career decisions. In most areas of the country, the military are well respected and it is known that they make decent money, have health insurance, and get some perks like having college paid for or very affordable housing.

[wawa]

Aug 14, 2012 10:47:33 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Leaving aside the issue of recruiting, I think it's abhorrent to make seventh-graders start thinking about what they're going to do for a living.

so you're opposed to career day?

[msmerymac]

Aug 14, 2012 10:30:21 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

I am severely squicked out at the idea of brainwashing the uber-low classes into working hard to be cannon fodder. That is some China style bullshit.

I'm as liberal and doveish as they come, but it's some bullshit to say that the only use for our military is as "cannon fodder." No matter the mistakes that have been made in our military engagements in the last decade, there is a lot of good that the US military does, too. Peacekeeping forces, National Guard, US Army Corps of Engineers, NASA. Hell, there's a ton of technology the military has developed that we now use in our everyday lives including THIS VERY INTERNET.

And although graduates of the military academies and ROTC programs are commissioned higher than "regular" enlisted men, I really do think the military is one of the more equitable professions there is. Talk about boot straps. Every general started out at a much lower level...

[hawkeye]

Aug 14, 2012 10:47:33 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Leaving aside the issue of recruiting, I think it's abhorrent to make seventh-graders start thinking about what they're going to do for a living.

What? Why on earth is that bad?

Don't most kids like to say "I want to be ____ when I grow up"

Career day is a good thing.

[eliseb0323]

Aug 14, 2012 10:41:55 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Aug 14, 2012 10:40:36 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

Since you feel this way, you should support any efforts that ensure we keep an All-Volunteer Army. Because you really won't like the alternative.

?? The fuck? Is there some legislation pending to bring back the draft that I'm not aware of?

What do you do for a living, elise?

There is no legislation currently pending to bring back the draft. However, we came really close to losing the all-volunteer army in 2009. The recession stimulated recruiting enough that talk of anything other than an all-volunteer army stopped. My point is, if you like having a choice of whether you and your kids will serve in the military, it's a good idea to support the all-volunteer military.

I work for the guy in charge of Army Human Resources.

[wrathofkuus]

Aug 14, 2012 10:41:28 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

kuus - Did you read this thread? pandce.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=44156

I'll save you some time and point you to mx's post on page 4.

The military isn't a great option, but it's an option. An option to get out of the hellhole of the lives these people are leading. It's also a respected occupation in the lower class without the stigma of "trying to better yourself by going to college."

I went home before that thread got to a page 4, but I agree with the mx's perspective, especially on the condescending nature of our interest in the poor, and how we think "helping" means assimilating them into our culture rather than allowing them to preserve their own somehow. And I do get that the military is respected in this miniculture, more so than doing things the middle or upper-middle class way, and that it provides them with enough money to live a helluva lot better. But I just can't feel good about the idea that the poor are being funneled into dying to serve the upper-class's interests, no matter how good they feel about that and how well it fits into their culture. There has to be another, better way. This just isn't ethical.

[copzgirl1171]

Jesus, LHC. It is like you crawled in my head. Just ditto every single word she has typed.

I am not a fan of career days in junior high, there is too much pressure on kids as it is. Sorry, at 13 there isn't a thing to be gained from a career day other than a day out of school.

[pixy0stix]

Aug 14, 2012 10:45:56 GMT -5 @mx said:

Is there data on class mobility as attributed to military service in the US?

I'm hoping that someone with better google-fu finds something. I found a couple of articles that suggests that the military is a jump start upwards to the middle class. However, they're nothing reputable that I'd post the links to.

[wrathofkuus]

Aug 14, 2012 10:44:41 GMT -5 hawkeye said:

Aug 14, 2012 10:42:02 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

What in the world ever made you think I was in favor of the draft?

I think she was trying to say that more agressive recruiting ensures that people keep volunteering whereas, laying off the recruiting efforts would result in lower numbers of volunteers which, if they get low enough result in a draft.

And THIS is why I support second amendment rights so strongly. There is no reason it should simply be accepted that if people don't want to volunteer to risk their lives for a cause, then the government should be able to force them to do so. How about just, you know, not engaging in any military conflicts that the citizens don't believe in enough to volunteer? Isn't that the sort of freedom we're supposed to be defending?

[hawkeye]

Aug 14, 2012 10:51:17 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Aug 14, 2012 10:41:28 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

kuus - Did you read this thread? pandce.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=44156

I'll save you some time and point you to mx's post on page 4.

The military isn't a great option, but it's an option. An option to get out of the hellhole of the lives these people are leading. It's also a respected occupation in the lower class without the stigma of "trying to better yourself by going to college."

I went home before that thread got to a page 4, but I agree with the mx's perspective, especially on the condescending nature of our interest in the poor, and how we think "helping" means assimilating them into our culture rather than allowing them to preserve their own somehow. And I do get that the military is respected in this miniculture, more so than doing things the middle or upper-middle class way, and that it provides them with enough money to live a helluva lot better. But I just can't feel good about the idea that the poor are being funneled into dying to serve the upper-class's interests, no matter how good they feel about that and how well it fits into their culture. There has to be another, better way. This just isn't ethical.

Funneled into dying? Come on. How about funneled into an education? Funneled into skills? Funneled into affordable, clean housing? Funneled into quality health care?

And in regards to doing things the middle or upper class way- isn't that what we are trying to achieve here for the poor at least in a financial sense? I'd like to hear the cultural differences between the lower classes and the middle that are not strictly based on the fact that they have very little income compared to a middle class family?

[chichimi]

It is very naive to think that 7th graders dont need to worry about what they are going to do. Maybe for middle class and up, there is no reason to worry because their parents are paving the way for them to have options but if your mom was a hs dropout and your father has never been around, 7th grade is a good time to start thinking about a plan for your own life. Most of the time, poor children of this age have responsibilities at home including caring for younger children and I would argue that those are things 7th graders dont need to worry about.
When is a good time for a 7th grader to think about avoiding obesity? This too, should be something that other caregivers hold responsibility for but when they are failing, the least we can do is try to arm children with as much info as possible so they have a fighting chance.

[wrathofkuus]

Hawkeye, I would say that reproductive choices are a huge cultural difference between the poor and the middle class, and that's a difference that has nothing at all to do with income.

And of course there are benefits to being in the military, if you survive. That's the "if", the danger, that makes the whole idea so ridiculously unethical.

[wrathofkuus]

Aug 14, 2012 10:57:33 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Let's funnel them into an eduction, marketable skills, clean housing and affordable healthcare WITHOUT teaching them how to shoot someone at a hundred yards.

Can we do that?

YES. Thank you. And while we're at it, let's try to avoid putting them in situations where they are likely to be shot at, too.

[eliseb0323]

Aug 14, 2012 10:55:37 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Aug 14, 2012 10:44:41 GMT -5 hawkeye said:

I think she was trying to say that more agressive recruiting ensures that people keep volunteering whereas, laying off the recruiting efforts would result in lower numbers of volunteers which, if they get low enough result in a draft.

And THIS is why I support second amendment rights so strongly. There is no reason it should simply be accepted that if people don't want to volunteer to risk their lives for a cause, then the government should be able to force them to do so. How about just, you know, not engaging in any military conflicts that the citizens don't believe in enough to volunteer? Isn't that the sort of freedom we're supposed to be defending?

And what do you do when the country is attacked and we can't defend ourselves because we don't have a strong enough military? Are we just going to muster up enough volunteers after the bombing starts? People who serve in the military are defending your freedom NOT to serve. I'd think you would want to support that.

[pixy0stix]

Aug 14, 2012 10:57:33 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Let's funnel them into an eduction, marketable skills, clean housing and affordable healthcare WITHOUT teaching them how to shoot someone at a hundred yards.

Can we do that?

Are you looking for a serious answer, or are you looking at the hypothetical?

Seriously, right here right now, and probably for the coming decades until/if there is a major overhaul in our government, educational system, and the economy. No. We can't.

[wrathofkuus]

Aug 14, 2012 11:00:19 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

Aug 14, 2012 10:55:37 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

And THIS is why I support second amendment rights so strongly. There is no reason it should simply be accepted that if people don't want to volunteer to risk their lives for a cause, then the government should be able to force them to do so. How about just, you know, not engaging in any military conflicts that the citizens don't believe in enough to volunteer? Isn't that the sort of freedom we're supposed to be defending?

And what do you do when the country is attacked and we can't defend ourselves because we don't have a strong enough military? Are we just going to muster up enough volunteers after the bombing starts? People who serve in the military are defending your freedom NOT to serve. I'd think you would want to support that.

The volunteer military has NEVER had too few people to defend the country against an invasion (and really, when is the last time we were actually invaded? it's been what, a hundred years? two hundred?), though if we were actually being invaded or in danger of being invaded, that would be a cause a lot of people would volunteer for.

[hawkeye]

Aug 14, 2012 10:59:37 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Hawkeye, I would say that reproductive choices are a huge cultural difference between the poor and the middle class, and that's a difference that has nothing at all to do with income.

And of course there are benefits to being in the military, if you survive. That's the "if", the danger, that makes the whole idea so ridiculously unethical.

Can you elaborate a little on the reproductive choice differences you see? I'm curious.

I think the benefits of the military clearly outweigh the risks when considering this group of people. I would say they already face a much higher risk of dying given the presence of drugs, violence, lack of healthcare, proper food etc etc. So the risk of dying in the military seems no greater and they still obtain the benefits of job skills, housing, health care etc

[SusanBAnthony]

I think that if the army wants to fund and organize a anti obesity program for that age group, cool. As long as they are not actively recruiting (or recruiting at all for that matter). I guess I could see a 10 week program where 9 weeks were exercise, cooking class, nutrition, and 1 week was about the army, and that week was optional and had to be attended with your parents. Or something like that. So that parents knew what was being said about the armed forces and could opt out.

[copzgirl1171]

Aug 14, 2012 11:04:02 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Then let's work on overhauling the educational system and fixing the economy, instead of teaching all the lower classes how to invade small Middle Eastern countries under the guise of bettering their lives.

Why? When it is economically more feasible to get those kids who see nothing at the end of the tunnel. How see this as a saving grace in their shit life of the moment.

God, this infuriates me.

Kids. Basically preying on kids with life problems.

[wrathofkuus]

Aug 14, 2012 11:03:47 GMT -5 hawkeye said:

Aug 14, 2012 10:59:37 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Hawkeye, I would say that reproductive choices are a huge cultural difference between the poor and the middle class, and that's a difference that has nothing at all to do with income.

And of course there are benefits to being in the military, if you survive. That's the "if", the danger, that makes the whole idea so ridiculously unethical.

Can you elaborate a little on the reproductive choice differences you see? I'm curious.

I think the benefits of the military clearly outweigh the risks when considering this group of people. I would say they already face a much higher risk of dying given the presence of drugs, violence, lack of healthcare, proper food etc etc. So the risk of dying in the military seems no greater and they still obtain the benefits of job skills, housing, health care etc

It's mostly what we were talking about yesterday, about how you can teach people how to prevent pregnancy at a young age, but you can't teach people to WANT to prevent pregnancy at a young age. An upper-middle class teenager could probably afford to have a baby, or several, before reaching age 20. No one would have to sell drugs, or go on welfare, or live any kind of poverty-stricken lifestyle. But they don't, for the most part, because they don't WANT to have children that young. It's not a part of their cultural norm. A lower-class teenager, on the other hand, probably can't afford these choices, but chooses them nonetheless. It's a cultural difference that has nothing to do with what you can and can't afford.

I do see your point about the drugs and violence, and how their lives may be at risk either way. But calling it "helping" when you're not really decreasing the risk, but instead making it a risk that serves the interests of the upper-class... it's just wrong. Why is there no option to help that just takes them out of danger, period?

[eliseb0323]

Aug 14, 2012 11:03:06 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Aug 14, 2012 11:00:19 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

And what do you do when the country is attacked and we can't defend ourselves because we don't have a strong enough military? Are we just going to muster up enough volunteers after the bombing starts? People who serve in the military are defending your freedom NOT to serve. I'd think you would want to support that.

The volunteer military has NEVER had too few people to defend the country against an invasion (and really, when is the last time we were actually invaded? it's been what, a hundred years? two hundred?), though if we were actually being invaded or in danger of being invaded, that would be a cause a lot of people would volunteer for.

This is the reason I think high schools should teach the National Security Strategy in U.S. Government class. Most people do not have the the faintest idea what goes into defending our country. You seriously think we can train an army after an enemy takes action against us? You think it was just dumb luck that the Cold War never turned into an actual war?

[pixy0stix]

Aug 14, 2012 11:08:28 GMT -5 @copzgirl1171 said:

Kids. Basically preying on kids with life problems.

Hey, it's better than wealthy/middle class adults saying, "We're going to fix all the problems decades from now. Not that it will help you, but it might help your grandchildren!"

[wrathofkuus]

I think there is plenty of volunteer army NOW to defend the country against invaders. Sure, incoming volunteers will be trained in the interim, but we don't need enough troops to invade two damn foreign countries and have a home presence in order to defend against invading troops. That's ridiculous.

[pixy0stix]

Aug 14, 2012 11:09:59 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Why is there no option to help that just takes them out of danger, period?

Because there is no financial incentive to do so, only a moral and ethical one and those aren't enough to get bi-partisan support in our country.

[wrathofkuus]

Aug 14, 2012 11:15:36 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Aug 14, 2012 11:09:59 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Why is there no option to help that just takes them out of danger, period?

Because there is no financial incentive to do so, only a moral and ethical one and those aren't enough to get bi-partisan support in our country.

It should be enough, shouldn't it? Let the grassroots start here.

[hawkeye]

Aug 14, 2012 11:09:59 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Aug 14, 2012 11:03:47 GMT -5 hawkeye said:

Can you elaborate a little on the reproductive choice differences you see? I'm curious.

I think the benefits of the military clearly outweigh the risks when considering this group of people. I would say they already face a much higher risk of dying given the presence of drugs, violence, lack of healthcare, proper food etc etc. So the risk of dying in the military seems no greater and they still obtain the benefits of job skills, housing, health care etc

It's mostly what we were talking about yesterday, about how you can teach people how to prevent pregnancy at a young age, but you can't teach people to WANT to prevent pregnancy at a young age. An upper-middle class teenager could probably afford to have a baby, or several, before reaching age 20. No one would have to sell drugs, or go on welfare, or live any kind of poverty-stricken lifestyle. But they don't, for the most part, because they don't WANT to have children that young. It's not a part of their cultural norm. A lower-class teenager, on the other hand, probably can't afford these choices, but chooses them nonetheless. It's a cultural difference that has nothing to do with what you can and can't afford.

I do see your point about the drugs and violence, and how their lives may be at risk either way. But calling it "helping" when you're not really decreasing the risk, but instead making it a risk that serves the interests of the upper-class... it's just wrong. Why is there no option to help that just takes them out of danger, period?

Good point about the reproductive choices, but is that a cultural difference you really want to preserve? Hell no. That is something that I would absolutely want to change flat out for the lower classes. Educate them to think more like the middle and upper classe kids in that regard. Just because something is a norm in the middle/upper classes doesn't make it iherently wrong, does it?

Also, I don't think the risk of being in the military serves only the upper class. The armed forces are comprised of plenty of middle and upper class people. There are some professions where a military background is practically the only way to get in- airline pilot comes to mind. The military is a really viable alternative for lots people across all the classes I think. Even if we made our education system the absolute best it could ever be and accesible to all, you will still have plenty of 18 year olds out there who don't like school, don't want to continue in a classroom and this is a way for them to keep improving their skills without that.

[msmerymac]

Aug 14, 2012 10:59:37 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Hawkeye, I would say that reproductive choices are a huge cultural difference between the poor and the middle class, and that's a difference that has nothing at all to do with income.

And of course there are benefits to being in the military, if you survive. That's the "if", the danger, that makes the whole idea so ridiculously unethical.

It's not really a big "if." Not to downplay the sacrifice those who have been KIA have made, but of a military of almost 1.5 million, less than 10,000 people have been killed in the last 10+ years of fighting ACTIVE wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. That's a .00666 chance of being killed if you are a member of the military, period. (Obviously this increases for those who are serving in combat zones, and then again, depending on your position.)

Plenty of people coming back have to deal with traumatic brain injuries and PTSD, as well as other issues adjusting to civilian life, but your big concern seems to be poor American being killed, so that's what we'll talk about, I guess.