January 19
...serving up your daily dish.
Military recruiters show up regularly in Glen Ridge High School. The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) is actually offered at Bloomfield High School. But students at Montclair High have started an organization called OYE OYE (Open Your Eyes Open Your Eyes), encouraging parents to opt out of the No Child Left Behind Act provision that gives military recruiters access to student information. So far, according to a story in today's Ledger, 1,628 of 1,937 students at the school have had their parents to block access to their records.
So, when you're ready to stop arguing about Girl Scout cookies (lighten up, we just thought it was funny), come on over and start a brawl here.
(Clip and print the opt-out letter below)
Dear Administrator of __________________ High School, I, ______________________, am writing on behalf of my child to request that you do not make my child’s, ________________, name, address or telephone listing available for military recruitment purposes as is provided for under Paragraph 2, Subsection (a) of Section 9528 of Public Law 107-110. I believe that nations and peoples should settle disputes nonviolently though diplomacy and dialogue. I look forward to your prompt reply to this letter. Sincerely, _________________ Signature _________________ Name in Print _________________ Date
January 19, 2005 in Controversy, Only in Montclair | Permalink
Is it blog sweeps week or something? Can we just click like mad on your banner ads instead?
Posted by: Lex | Jan 19, 2005 1:37:07 PM
This is actually an apt segue.
I'b bet that Montclair High opting out is about "effective" in their anti-war cause as a box of cookies. (maybe even less so).
But I would imaging our Bluish friends will see this act of futility as noble.
I'd say that both applications of action are admirable because the "plan of action" comes from the youngin's themselves.
Posted by: Right of Center | Jan 19, 2005 1:50:47 PM
Does she pay you to post these things?
I do find that most of my parenting time is spent trying to suppress the "plans of action" devised by my tots. Recently these have involved the sofa cushions and the stairway landing. Good training, I suppose, for the First Airborne. If they manage to live that long.
Posted by: Lex | Jan 19, 2005 2:09:50 PM
"Does she pay you to post these things?"
ixnay....ixnay....
"I do find that most of my parenting time is spent trying to suppress the "plans of action" "
mine too, but with the exception that if the plan involves cookies being donated or petitions being circulated. With plans like that I am rather obliging because it will keep them out of (bigger) trouble!
I think my kids might be older than yours.
Posted by: Right of Center | Jan 19, 2005 2:13:51 PM
> I'b bet that Montclair High opting out is about "effective" in their anti-war cause as a box of cookies.
What kind of cookies?
Could be a B R A W L-worthy topic.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 19, 2005 2:18:44 PM
p.s.
I only get paid if it goes over 50 posts or someone calls me something nasty, so, sadly, it seems all for naught in that cookie thread as of yet.
Posted by: Right of Center | Jan 19, 2005 2:19:45 PM
"I only get paid if ... someone calls me something nasty"
You... you... Republican!
Posted by: Lex | Jan 19, 2005 2:33:25 PM
Yoiks! I was joking about cookies and brawling, but now I see there are 47 posts in the thread about Girl Scout tsunami cookies.* It's enough to make ya toss 'em.
*Now going to see what the hubbub's about.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 19, 2005 2:35:23 PM
Please quit being so pathetic in Montclair. The reason we are here today is thanks largely to lots of help from selfless soldiers in the military. Maybe you can quit being so elitist and try to contribute someday to actually fixing the world's problems. You band together as a group of wimps not willing to stand up for the freedom and liberty you abuse on a daily basis. Not everything in the world can be solved without conflict. It's a fact of life.
Posted by: Red State Man | Jan 19, 2005 4:22:44 PM
Hey! Don't forget us Glen Ridge people! We pathetically dislike having recruiters hard sell a potentially life threatening career to the people we're still legally responsible for too!
Posted by: Lex | Jan 19, 2005 4:39:57 PM
Oh no, your boys and girls might have to sacrifice something for freedom and liberty. Surely you need to protect them as they are not smart enough to fend for themselves? This country is great thanks to people sticking their neck on the line to protect people at home. Play a part.
Posted by: Red State Man | Jan 19, 2005 4:44:51 PM
It seems incredibly obvious to me, but maybe I should state it clearly. I am against conflict whenever possible. BUT, please don't be so utterly naive to think that you can always solve issues that way. It would be great if we could sit down with Iran, North Korea, Syria and even our French friends and come to agreements. Afterwards, we could all drink milk and cookies (or lattes and biscotti for Montclair) and be happy. Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way.
Posted by: Red State Man | Jan 19, 2005 4:50:31 PM
My kids can fend for themselves? In high school? Well, then, gee, why am I fending for them?
I've always been proud of our all-volunteer army. Not so proud of them using direct marketing techniques perfected by boiler shops and geegaw merchants. But, as the man said, recruitment is up; personally I would have said volunteering is up, but I guess that's the difference in mindset.
Posted by: Lex | Jan 19, 2005 4:59:49 PM
"I am against conflict whenever possible... It would be great if we could sit down with Iran, North Korea, Syria and even our French friends and come to agreements... Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way."
Just to be clear, you're advocating we go to war with Iran, Syria, North Korea and... France?!? Would you like to do that simultaneously or one at a time?
Posted by: Lex | Jan 19, 2005 5:03:05 PM
"I believe that nations and peoples should settle disputes nonviolently though diplomacy and dialogue. I look forward to your prompt reply to this letter. "
To: Saddam, Osama, Mullah Omar, et. al.
Re: World Peace and Crankiness.
Hey Folks,
We know you don't like us much and wish to establish that Pan-Arab Theocratic Caliphate thingy. We know you would like to eliminate Jews and other infidels from the entire middle east, and you stone your adulterous babes to death when they 'wander'. And we further understand that you see no problem with the purposeful targeting of innocent civilians in the furtherance of your goals.
We'd like to request you stop that and maybe start acting a little better.
No look, we MEAN it. You better stop! And if you don't you'll force us to get really mad and write a REALLY angry letter.
So save us all a lot of time and knock it off!
Thanks for you prompt attention to this matter.
The Blue Moonbats of America.
Posted by: Right of Center | Jan 19, 2005 5:11:05 PM
I don't know, is it pacifism, self-righteousness, leftism, plain old fear or what have you that gets Baristaville folks so upset about the armed forces? Still, "you guys" really have to get over it. Military service (or law enforcement, to cite something else that requires uniforms and firearms) is at least as honorable a profession as medicine or teaching, and more of one than, say, practicing law or being an investment banker. They're not recruiting for the Waffen SS, people, not by a long shot, and the hysteria evidenced by correspondents who apparently think they are is just appalling.
Posted by: cathar | Jan 19, 2005 5:33:23 PM
Sacrifice? Freedom? Liberty?
Funny, that. I don't recall Republicans sacrificing much of anything lately. Tax cuts in wartime? Check. $40 million inauguration? Check. President who didn't even fulfill his cushy duty to the Champagne Regiment during Vietnam? Check.
Sacrifice something for Freedom and Liberty indeed. How 'bout if the President sacrifices his Liberty Ball and his Freedom Ball?
Liberal elitist Montclairians, thwarting our national defense at every turn. Fifth Columnists, no doubt.
And for the record, I do not support this withholding of records.
Posted by: Marshall | Jan 19, 2005 5:39:34 PM
Yes, unlike you Lex, I do think we have issues with Iran, North Korea, and Syria. No, I don't think Iran will stop in their quest for a nuclear weapon through negotiations (see North Korea). Why should we care if Iran has nuclear weapons (we do of course)? Because we will not use them to attack other nations and because we do not support terrorist causes. I have no problem with France having nuclear weapons even if their current leadership is morally corrupt. Not sure but seems to me that Iran doesn't really like Israel (or us) too too much and would love to do more about it than just support and train Hezbollah (you might not be familiar with global politics given you are only concerned about "the children")... North Korea is the most repressive nation on the face of the earth. Why care about others though? Syria supports terrorism and is allowing (among other things) ex-Iraqi goons to set-up shop and kill innocent Iraqi civilians along with coaltion forces (but coalition forces are probably evil occupiers in your book anyway). So, without expanding further, yes I do think we have issues to settle with Iran, Syria, and North Korea. And no, these issues are more important than coffee prices in the 3rd world, exaggerated global warming claims, and wearing fur or eating meat. Hopefully this will not lead to all-out war or any war at all. Lybia wisened-up. Let's hope pressure on these evil governments will do the trick.
Posted by: Red State Man | Jan 19, 2005 6:16:29 PM
Red State Man:
"care about" does not equal "invade". No one says we should preemptively exclude war from our menu of options; however, there are ways to make the world a better place other than war. Why do Republicans love war so much anyway? Have they forgotten that war itself is often bad and it's a very, very rare war that accomplishes its goals?
More importantly, though, I don't care one iota about international relations. I do care that a Republican President has severaly diminished our range of options in every respect: no way can we sustain a war at the moment, no way will various of our potential Muslim allies be seen on our side; no way can we engage our potential enemies as they drift to supporting terrorists.
In all of these respects, Bush has made us less safe and less powerful.
Posted by: Marshall | Jan 19, 2005 6:54:40 PM
Marshall,
I wonder what purpose it serves to keep debating the war. Hasn't the nation ratified that decision?
Do you think we have any obligation to support the efforts that majority of our countrymen approve?
To what end do you oppose the war? To stop it? To feel good about yourself?
Posted by: Right of Center | Jan 19, 2005 7:21:33 PM
What do you mean "the war"? Are you talking about the Iraq War? If you are, of course I oppose it, along with 56% of my countrymen, and of course I think it's worthwhile to debate it--would you have us ignore the past?
I opposed and oppose the Iraq War because it was and is a mistake; as I said, it has made us considerably less safe and hobbled the spread of our worldview.
Posted by: Marshall | Jan 19, 2005 7:53:46 PM
"Why do Republicans love war so much anyway?"
With the exception of police actions like World War I under Woodrow Wilson (D), World War II under Franklin Roosevelt (D), Korea under Harry Truman (D), and Vietnam under Lyndon Johnson (D), and all that dabbling in the Balkans and Somalia under Bill Clinton (D), I guess you could say that the wars of the 20th Century typically happened under Republican Presidents.
/sarcasm off
Posted by: Miss Martta | Jan 19, 2005 8:07:08 PM
