Trying to remain calm. Obama wants women to register with selective service.

[coffeefreak]

The difference here is that you CAN get out of the military because you are pregnant/ have a child that you can't find care for.

 

Double military service is a VOLUNTARY position. I know of plenty of families who are and have even stood "in-loco parentis" for friends over the years.

 

These families stay in, mom or dad, and stay in knowing FULL WELL that they could both be deployed, even to a war zone at the same time as their spouse.

 

The difference with what is being suggested of a civilian being required to serve in the military and a dual-military family is the pretense of fore-knowledge and acceptance of the risk of leaving a family's children parent-less for a short or long term period of time.

 

Were a mandatory military service to be instated or a draft including females between the ages of 18-35 (I'm 33), I would first file a request of deferment for long term status. My husband is active duty military on sea duty and leaves for extended periods of time. Were he to go to shore duty, I still don't see my being able to be called up because he can be recalled to sea duty at any time (a "perk" of his job).

 

Kris, who loves a debate but ALWAYS tries to be respectful

 

I see your point Kris, I guess I just don't have much faith that they would take that into consideration. They SHOULD and you're right, when husband and wife are both in the military they both know the risk. However, if the draft were ever put into action, would this be a consideration? Imagine all the paperwork that would have to be filed if men and women were part of the draft. And all the exceptions that would have to be made. Maybe that's a good reason NOT to mandate women sign up.

 

Does anyone know why we still have the SS sign up? Is it just a law that's never gone away? It is purely for draft purposes, or is there another reason it still exists?

 

Thanks for the respectful discussion Kris :D

[cricket1178]

I know that many men and women are serving in the armed forces and doing a great job the bottom line is that men and women are different. While I would worry tremendously if my ds was in the military I can't imagine my 5 foot 90 pounds when wet dd going in the military in 1 1/2 years. Even emotionally she is completely different from my son.

 

I may be old fashioned and this may be opening up a can of worms but I think God intended men and women to be strong in different areas.

 

:iagree:I have 2 sons and 1 dd. There certainly are differences! I don't want my sons in a combat situation anymore than I want my dd in one, but I just can't ignore the differences of the sexes.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

And all the exceptions that would have to be made. Maybe that's a good reason NOT to mandate women sign up.

 

 

Here's a little bit about deferments. Says people have ten days to file for one. Also, this is page 4 (or 5?) of a several page article with links embedded, so it might interest folks to to the top and read from page 1.

[Peek a Boo]

The proposal here as I see it is not charity, it is the fulfillment of one's responsibility as a citizen to contribute in a beneficial manner to one's society by serving in some capacity (whether it be teaching or military or what have you).

 

...and part of what makes America so great is the opportunity to be FREE from another person's idea of "citizenship."

 

American soldiers fight for our right to be FREE.

They fight for our right to burn the flag, to speak against our government, to not vote, and to refrain from military service should we choose to do so.

At least, that's the way my Army sister, Marine Corps bro, and AF dad see it ;)

 

We talked a bit about these ideas of "citizenship"in the pledge thread too.

[Laura K (NC)]

Dang. Bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan, blah, blah, blah, shoot yer enemies for ya, take out yer trash, bring yer slippers.

 

Women's lib has come back to bite women on the arse.

 

I say, viva la difference. Women do enough to give birth to soldiers, sheesh.

 

Oh, I forgot. Obama isn't to thrilled with women having to burden themselves with birthin' babies. To him, equality = androgeny.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

Oh, I forgot. Obama isn't to thrilled with women having to burden themselves with birthin' babies. To him, equality = androgeny.

 

Link, girlfriend. You can't be posting such stuff and not back it up with something other than rhetoric. Please?

[Elaine]

Link, girlfriend. You can't be posting such stuff and not back it up with something other than rhetoric. Please?

 

I ask in all sincerity, why? Isn't she entitled to her opinion? It's what she thinks. I think Obama is a Muslim and still believes every word that Rev. Wright spouts. Do I have to support that with links?

[Peek a Boo]

Link, girlfriend. You can't be posting such stuff and not back it up with something other than rhetoric. Please?

 

 

sorry Pam, but there's just no spinning "I don't want my girls to be Punished with a Baby" if birth control fails.

Punished. with a BABY.

 

his words, not our rhetoric.

 

take your pick:

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=punished+with+a+baby+obama&aq=f&oq=

 

androgyny:

 

Being neither distinguishably masculine nor feminine, as in dress, appearance, or behavior.

 

...or social construct? ;)

Edited October 14, 2008 by Peek a Boo

[kokotg]

I think John McCain is going to kill all the puppies if he becomes president. Hide your puppies!

[Peek a Boo]

I ask in all sincerity, why? Isn't she entitled to her opinion? It's what she thinks. I think Obama is a Muslim and still believes every word that Rev. Wright spouts. Do I have to support that with links?

 

only if you're interested in having some credibility in an ongoing discussion :D

[Peek a Boo]

I think John McCain is going to kill all the puppies if he becomes president. Hide your puppies!

 

 

but if you spay your dogs that will solve the problem ;)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I ask in all sincerity, why? Isn't she entitled to her opinion? It's what she thinks. I think Obama is a Muslim and still believes every word that Rev. Wright spouts. Do I have to support that with links?

 

Maybe because I'd like to know. If it's her opinion, that's one thing. If she has facts or a link to back it up, that's another. I guess I don't understand what she means about androgyny. It seems a hateful thing to say if there's not a source for that opinion.

 

I didn't know you felt that way.

 

No, I guess that's not something you can support with links. That's more of a gut feeling thing.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

sorry Pam, but there's just no spinning "I don't want my girls to be Punished with a Baby" if birth control fails.

Punished. with a BABY.

 

his words, not our rhetoric.

 

take your pick:

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=punished+with+a+baby+obama&aq=f&oq=

 

androgeny:

 

Being neither distinguishably masculine nor feminine, as in dress, appearance, or behavior.

 

...or social construct? ;)

 

Oh, ok, it's about abortion or morning-after bc. See, I did not know that.

 

As to "sorry, Pam," well, I was only asking, not trying to SPIN anything and I guess I should have been more astute and with it about what the current talking points are.

 

Silly me.

[Elaine]

only if you're interested in having some credibility in an ongoing discussion :D

 

So her opinion isn't credible if she doesn't have a link? And who is to say which links are credible? A NYT link is credible but a blogger, who sites facts, isn't? Just because someone from CNN or FOX reports the news we believe them?

 

Maybe it's me, it's probably just me.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

So her opinion isn't credible if she doesn't have a link? And who is to say which links are credible? A NYT link is credible but a blogger, who sites facts, isn't? Just because someone from CNN or FOX reports the news we believe them?

 

Maybe it's me, it's probably just me.

 

Sorry, Elaine. I'm out of this thread. I'm making people angry, and that was not my intention.

[Laura K (NC)]

But Obama's voting records also are clear indicators of his views on women and girls... and parenthood. Women are fundamentally different than men in the sex characteristics, among other things. Take away the sex characteristics (boob jobs don't count) and you have androgeny. Yes, that was a rhetorical flourish (or two) on my part, but the aim of militant feminism is right there with Obama's platform, that there fundamentally is no difference between women and men. Sex differences can be reduced to something negligible, whether by indoctrination, chemicals, or surgery. And all these make it easier for women to fight for our country beside men. Obama does not envision any sexual tension in the barracks. If he envisions any sex in the barracks, he certainly doesn't envision any fruit that would naturally result.

 

I used to watch MASH. I know these things. :tongue_smilie:

[Peek a Boo]

Oh, ok, it's about abortion or morning-after bc. See, I did not know that.

 

no. It's that Obama called a baby a PUNISHMENT.

not punished w/ an embryo, not punished w/a buncha cells.

 

punished w/a Baby.

 

 

As to "sorry, Pam," well, I was only asking, not trying to SPIN anything and I guess I should have been more astute and with it about what the current talking points are.

 

Silly me.

 

the 'sorry Pam' really wasn't intended to be condescending.

 

I'm sure YOU might not try to spin something, but plenty of people on this board already have.

[mommytobees]

I'm saying that I think it's completely immoral that we (the parents) "allow" our government to draft our children for wars instead of going and fighting them ourselves. And I'm not being silly. I absolutely 100% believe that.

 

If a war is "right" there will most likely be enough volunteers to fight it. When a war is so wrong or unpopular that people refuse to volunteer and there has to be a draft, then I strongly believe that it is the generation that started the war (the parents) that ought to fight it. I don't care if we're older, slower, stupider, or make more money. We get ourselves into a war, we get ourselves out of it.

 

If every senator, congressman and president was required to go be a foot-soldier in each war they started, we wouldn't fight so much, would we? People are spurred to action whenever a cause is just. When they aren't spurred to action we should spend a lot more time asking "why" and a lot less time forcing them to join up.

 

 

Ahhh, okay!! I understand, and in principle agree.

 

The bolded part is why I believe, in the theory of mandatory service.

 

Mind, in THEORY, I don't think that the theoretical and the practical often end in a good situation.

 

Kris

[Elaine]

Sorry, Elaine. I'm out of this thread. I'm making people angry, and that was not my intention.

 

I am not angry. At all. Really.:grouphug:

 

I am just trying to understand.

[Peek a Boo]

So her opinion isn't credible if she doesn't have a link? And who is to say which links are credible? A NYT link is credible but a blogger, who sites facts, isn't? Just because someone from CNN or FOX reports the news we believe them?

 

Maybe it's me, it's probably just me.

 

No, her opinion is credible *as an opinion.*

But yes, for a discussion about facts to continue we need to have some sort of citation FOR those facts. A NYT link is only credible if it is backed up w/ facts. I happen to put a lot of stock in a blogger that has done a wonderful job assembling a slew of citations for me to access quickly.

 

and there's plenty of just plain ol' unsubstantiated opinions that mean a lot to ME, too. But if we're trying to either reach common ground or explain our POV, that usually needs more than a couple short posts.

clarify and elaborate :D

[Elaine]

I used to watch MASH. I know these things. :tongue_smilie:

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[mommytobees]

I see your point Kris, I guess I just don't have much faith that they would take that into consideration. They SHOULD and you're right, when husband and wife are both in the military they both know the risk. However, if the draft were ever put into action, would this be a consideration? Imagine all the paperwork that would have to be filed if men and women were part of the draft. And all the exceptions that would have to be made. Maybe that's a good reason NOT to mandate women sign up.

 

Does anyone know why we still have the SS sign up? Is it just a law that's never gone away? It is purely for draft purposes, or is there another reason it still exists?

 

Thanks for the respectful discussion Kris :D

 

Deferments are ALWAYS going to happen. It doesn't matter what the reasonings are for. Ever watch MASH? They poke fun at the "enlistment" process, but really there is a basis of truth there.

 

As for the SS, I honestly have no idea why we still have it. I suspect it is there on the off chance we ever have a serious situation on our home soil which would require a fast militia to be keyed up.

 

Though, amusingly enough, I know many men who have never bothered to register, law or no law. Amusingly enough, my own husband isn't on the SS enrollment. He's been active duty for 11 years, and just got "caught". He was called on it a few months ago... caused a HUGE laugh in his department.

 

Something stupid about the arm not talking to the leg.

 

Kris

[Vida Winter]

Dang. Bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan, blah, blah, blah, shoot yer enemies for ya, take out yer trash, bring yer slippers.

 

Women's lib has come back to bite women on the arse.

 

I say, viva la difference. Women do enough to give birth to soldiers, sheesh.

 

Oh, I forgot. Obama isn't to thrilled with women having to burden themselves with birthin' babies. To him, equality = androgeny.

 

All right, I'm back from my TKD class and ready to jump back into the discussion.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

And of course I think that women would line up to volunteer if the need would arise in a national emergency. I might even be in that line.

 

But... I'm getting awfully tired of things I think we've gotta do under Obama.

 

My family would "gotta" get higher taxed, no doubt. And we are by no means "rich". We're still paying back student loans from medical school. But...since we do earn over a certain level, we fully expect to have to pay for college for the kids with no assistance (or a high interest loan, if need be).

 

And now maybe our children "gotta" join the Peace Corps or whatever for two years, whatever that means. If the "corps" are run the way any other government agency is run, they'll be in deficit mode from the outset. Sounds to me a way to "socialize" college educations. But what happens when a Peace Corps "graduate" doesn't have a decent SAT score? Will they have priority over someone who didn't "serve"?

 

And our three daughters would "gotta" have to register for the draft. Hmmm. If I were a young woman who was actually drafted I'd bet my biology that I might "gotta" get an urge to have a baby.

 

Watch out what you wish for. You may get more than you bargained for.

[Nestof3]

Why do you disagree with mandatory registration for women?

 

 

Because some people actually believe women are to be keepers of the home. Call me old-fashioned, I don't care.

[Murphy101]

Differing concepts of service here, I believe. Yes, charity comes from the heart. The proposal here as I see it is not charity, it is the fulfillment of one's responsibility as a citizen to contribute in a beneficial manner to one's society by serving in some capacity (whether it be teaching or military or what have you).

 

Indentured servitude by any other name is still slavery, however temporary.

 

Though, amusingly enough, I know many men who have never bothered to register, law or no law. Amusingly enough, my own husband isn't on the SS enrollment. He's been active duty for 11 years, and just got "caught". He was called on it a few months ago... caused a HUGE laugh in his department.

 

Something stupid about the arm not talking to the leg.

 

Kris

 

My dh informed me that he never enrolled either and he didn't know it was legally mandated until I told him last night.

[Bev in B'ville]

I was in the army, in a "non-combat role." I was a flight medic on a helicopter. We went in and picked up injured soldiers in hot zones. I can tell you from first hand experience, just because you're in a designated non-combat role does NOT mean that you don't get shot at.

 

It was the running joke in my unit actually that the white patches with the red cross we wore on our flight suits were great for lining up the cross hairs on the enemy's rifle. Women were shot at, and yes, killed in the line of duty in a non-combat role. Our helicopters also had the red cross emblazoned on it, so it wasn't as if the enemy didn't know who we were or what we were doing.

 

Someone explained it like this to me. Eliminating the ability to be rescued and/or treated if injured is demoralizing to the troops. Additionally, it gives the troops something else to worry about, that is rescuing the rescuers. So, bottom line is attacking the people without guns (that would be those in non-combat roles) is perfectly acceptable to an enemy who does not distinguish those things morally.

 

That said, I'm not sure how I feel about women in actual combat roles. I saw how protective my unit was of me (I was the only female medic in the unit). It may not be fair, or right, but the fact is men do treat women differently in those situations and I think that protective nature is something that goes way back to the beginning of time. There's enough things to worry about in a combat situation other than worrying about protecting the person next to you because she's female.

 

As always, just my $.02.

[eight_gregorys]

Bev,

 

I actually couldn't agree with you more. There are reasons that men serve in combat roles. HOWEVER, any woman that has served in the Army in Iraq can tell you that combat/non-combat jobs do not matter. You do what you're told to do. I too had a non-combat job and in Iraq I spent my days and nights doing vehicle recovery missions. (Meaning vehicles were disabled and our team went out to either tow them in or destroy them in place.)

 

I've been shot at and seen some really ugly stuff. The effects of war are serious, and unless you've been there and know what I mean you can not understand. The way this stuff effected me when I came home was seriously different than the way it effected my husband. I think people make these assumptions that women should serve....and they should, but not in these type rolls.

 

Something to consider when you think of this:

 

Can you pull a 200 pound man that has been shot to safety? The answer for most women is no. I'm sure there are some that could.

 

Bev is also right in that men treat you differently because you are a woman. Another reason women are not "supposed" to be in combat roles. Men are more likely to try to save an unsavable women than a to try and save a savable man. It's in their genes.

 

Anyway, I'm the mother of six. When I joined the Army I didn't have a family and I was recalled years later after I gave birth to my youngest son because of some technicality that was in my contract. I spent a year and half away from my children and came back with some memories I'd rather forget. Like I said before, women should serve, but in different capacities.

 

That's just my opinion anyway.

 

Andrea

[Titus.Two.Five]

worried about protecting the woman in the foxhole next to them (any guy worth his salt will feel this way) exc, exc.

 

 

BINGO! Any man who would propose to have women *possibly* forced to serve in that capacity, well my golly --> What a Man! BOO!!! :thumbdown:

 

My .02

[Titus.Two.Five]

Because some people actually believe women are to be keepers of the home. Call me old-fashioned, I don't care.

 

Well slide yer keester over, I'm gonna sit right next to ya.

 

:iagree:

[Laura K (NC)]

nt

[Holly IN]

I am against this too! I am referring to the OP. I do not want my daughter to serve. I would go before I would allow my dd to go. This is another reason why Obama SCARES me!!!! :glare::iagree:

 

Holly

[Josie]

and may you hear it with the same fair reading I'll give everyone else's response.

 

Someone has to keep the home fires burning! I believe that God designed women to be particularly good at this task. We are very, very strong in our own right, yet I believe a woman's brand of strength (generally speaking) to be more valuable here on the homefront. Of course there will be exceptions - there always are - but this is my general sentiment. It is based on my Bible-based beliefs about how God designed the roles of man and woman.

 

I wonder though... what if both mom & dad got drafted? Will there be an easy out for one of them, or will they have to scramble for child care arrangements?

 

:iagree: Good post, AuntieM

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I think women should register and would encourage my daughter to do so. The scary thing for me is Presidents like Bush who put men and women at risk in places like Iraq for the wrong reasons. I would hope that if my dd was registered, she would be called if her country needed her to defend it and the freedoms of it's people- not for the reasons we went into Iraq. I don't think anyone should be forced to register for selective service in the military. I'm sure Barack Obama and I probably differ there.

 

My mom served in the Peace Corps. She always said it was the best decision of her young life. I did not and now wish I had taken that opportunity. I did take opportunities to serve as a younger woman and still do now that I'm old and moldy (lol). I wasn't able to graduate without a certain number of community service hours. I think that should be the gold standard for every public school and university in America- including community colleges.

[KarenNC]

...and part of what makes America so great is the opportunity to be FREE from another person's idea of "citizenship."

 

We are *all* operating under "another person's idea of citizenship". In our case that definition comes primarily through our elected representatives. The definition and rights/responsibilities associated with it have also changed over time (whether minorities or women or non-landowners or members of particular religious groups etc are as fully citizens as white landowning men of a particular ethnic heritage and religious affiliation, for instance) and continue to do so.

 

Freedom includes both privileges *and* responsibilities, and I don't see an inherent reason why a requirement of a short period of public service of some sort should not be at least up for collective consideration. Yes, there are many, many areas in which we have a great deal of autonomy, more than in many (possibly most) societies, but it is not all-encompassing. We do not have the freedom to not pay taxes, break laws and do any variety of things without incurring penalties, for example.

Edited October 14, 2008 by KarenNC

[Nestof3]

Another thing -- and I realize not all men are raised this way -- but our sons are raised to protect women. My son told me that if he joined the Army (which he did seriously consider doing -- now it's the police force) he would have a hard time with women in combat because his instincts would be to protect and not put in any danger the women there.

[Haiku]

I wasn't able to graduate without a certain number of community service hours. I think that should be the gold standard for every public school and university in America- including community colleges.

 

I think that is an excellent idea. I had a fairly good college experience but one thing that annoyed me to no end was that here were all these nice middle class kids going to college in the heart of coal-mine Appalachia, where the poverty was unbelievable, and most kids were more concerned with getting sloshed on Thursday night bar night than about doing anything to be of service.

 

If colleges required service learning, no one could claim they were "forced" to serve any more than they could claim they were "forced" to take exams, etc.

 

I'd go ya one step further and say that high school students should be required to do community service, as well. And not some pathetic little amount like 10 hours a year that our local Catholic school requires. I'm talking at least 2 hours a week.

 

Tara

[Murphy101]

I think that is an excellent idea. I had a fairly good college experience but one thing that annoyed me to no end was that here were all these nice middle class kids going to college in the heart of coal-mine Appalachia, where the poverty was unbelievable, and most kids were more concerned with getting sloshed on Thursday night bar night than about doing anything to be of service.

 

If colleges required service learning, no one could claim they were "forced" to serve any more than they could claim they were "forced" to take exams, etc.

 

I'd go ya one step further and say that high school students should be required to do community service, as well. And not some pathetic little amount like 10 hours a year that our local Catholic school requires. I'm talking at least 2 hours a week.

 

Tara

 

I think it's a terrible idea! When schools can manage to educate in academics, I MIGHT give some remote consideration to the possiblity that they know at least diddly about teaching social services and civic duty.

 

Aside from that I just don't think any public school should be in the business of social services and charity work. If the kid makes the required academic grades then they should graduate.

 

ETA: In addition, who will regulate what is or is not considered an acceptable community service? What if I strongly object to what they might consider appropriate service for my kid? And is this going to be on school time or before/after school hours? If not during school time, then why should I /my dc be olbigated to spend our time the way they think we should? ARGH! Yet another reason to homeschool!

Edited October 14, 2008 by Martha

[Haiku]

If the kid makes the required academic grades then they should graduate.

 

Yeah, and that's where NCLB falls flat on its face. Kids can (and do) make the required grades but fail the test and don't graduate.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

 

ETA: In addition, who will regulate what is or is not considered an acceptable community service? What if I strongly object to what they might consider appropriate service for my kid? And is this going to be on school time or before/after school hours? If not during school time, then why should I /my dc be olbigated to spend our time the way they think we should? ARGH! Yet another reason to homeschool!

 

Schools could provide at-school opportunities for those who wish to avail themselves of them, or kids could find their own opportunities to do on their own time. Would packing canned goods for a soup kitchen really violate someone's religious or moral principles? I don't really see it as different than obligating kids to do homework, which is what my oldest daughter's school requires. She might get excellent grades on her tests, but if she doesn't do her homework, she won't pass.

 

While I don't really (ok, don't at all) buy into the idea of character education, I certainly don't think their is anything evil about having kids devote some time to a cause greater than oneself. I agree with John McCain on that one. :D

 

Tara

[Crissy]

Define "we."

 

Obviously we = women in the general sense.

 

But you knew that.

[coffeefreak]

I think John McCain is going to kill all the puppies if he becomes president. Hide your puppies!

 

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

[Hot Lava Mama]

Has anyone heard his response to a questioner that asked why he "wanted to punish small businesses by raising their taxes?" His response is that he believes that "when you spread the wealth around, everyone is better off." Uh. Isn't this communist? From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. If he firmly believed that, why is he living in a million dollar home? Can I have his house, and he can move into my tiny 1,200 square foot house (which currently houses 6 of us, soon to be 7). Won't "I" be better off if HE spread HIS wealth to me?

 

Ugh. I can't believe the American people are falling for this guy. Please, please, anyone who is supporting him. Please read what this guy REALLY stands for. Why is it o.k. for the GOVERNMENT to decide HOW MUCH MONEY YOU SHOULD HAVE FOR YOUR FAMILY!

Edited October 14, 2008 by Hot Lava Mama
Whoops, meant for this to be a different post. SOrry

[Crissy]

Please, please, anyone who is supporting him. Please read what this guy REALLY stands for.

 

Please, please realize that this board is full of intelligent parents who *are* carefully considering their vote.

 

Don't assume that because folks will vote for someone you are opposed to they haven't done their reading.

[Jenny in Atl]

Has anyone heard his response to a questioner that asked why he "wanted to punish small businesses by raising their taxes?" His response is that he believes that "when you spread the wealth around, everyone is better off." Uh. Isn't this communist? From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. If he firmly believed that, why is he living in a million dollar home? Can I have his house, and he can move into my tiny 1,200 square foot house (which currently houses 6 of us, soon to be 7). Won't "I" be better off if HE spread HIS wealth to me?

 

Ugh. I can't believe the American people are falling for this guy. Please, please, anyone who is supporting him. Please read what this guy REALLY stands for. Why is it o.k. for the GOVERNMENT to decide HOW MUCH MONEY YOU SHOULD HAVE FOR YOUR FAMILY!

 

Seems it's been this way since man has organized into groups larger than tribes. In one way or another, those with power always take away from those with less. You worry so much about your money, but seem unfazed about the loss of your civil liberties over the last eight years. You really think McCain will be any less big government than Obama? :lol:

[coffeefreak]

I found the answer to the SS sign up!

 

Carter re-enacted it during his presidency (I can't find the link now, sorry!)

 

http://www.endusmilitarism.org/faqonsss.html

"Why do we need Selective Service if there may never be a draft?

As President Clinton informed Congress in 1994, 'Maintaining the Selective Service System and draft registration provides a hedge against unforeseen threats and a relatively low cost 'insurance policy' against our underestimating the maximum level of threat we expect our Armed Forces to face.' "

 

Wow! I didn't know Clinton said that!

 

And, this was an interesting read:

http://www.selective-service.org/selective-service-registration.htm

[coffeefreak]

DUH!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

 

When in doubt, go to wikipedia :)

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

In addition, who will regulate what is or is not considered an acceptable community service? What if I strongly object to what they might consider appropriate service for my kid? And is this going to be on school time or before/after school hours? If not during school time, then why should I /my dc be olbigated to spend our time the way they think we should? ARGH! Yet another reason to homeschool!

 

Services that would qualify would have to be those that did not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or nationality. It would be fairly simple to regulate. Organizations could submit requests for volunteers and could be screened to keep out those that are religious/discriminatory in nature (just talking public here).

 

Of course it would be after school hours. I think the American school day is way too short as it is. Considering most parents work and don't get home until 5, I think from 3-5 is the perfect time for schools to arrange opportunities for kids to volunteer. I would assume there would be bussing similar to what is done for other city-sponsored after school programs.

[Murphy101]

Yeah, and that's where NCLB falls flat on its face. Kids can (and do) make the required grades but fail the test and don't graduate.

 

or pass an incredibly dumbed down test

when I said "grade" I meant all grades - including those of whatever tests.

 

Schools could provide at-school opportunities for those who wish to avail themselves of them, or kids could find their own opportunities to do on their own time. Would packing canned goods for a soup kitchen really violate someone's religious or moral principles? I don't really see it as different than obligating kids to do homework, which is what my oldest daughter's school requires. She might get excellent grades on her tests, but if she doesn't do her homework, she won't pass.

 

but math homework to pass a math class makes sense!

sorting canned food on saturday to pass does not make sense!

 

While I don't really (ok, don't at all) buy into the idea of character education, I certainly don't think their is anything evil about having kids devote some time to a cause greater than oneself.

 

Did I say I think it's evil?

No I did not.

What I said was it's not the school's place to coerce service projects. And how great the cause it would be is highly suspect. If I want my kid to devote their time in that manner or they want to devote their time in that manner - that's one thing. Freedom for example. For a gov't funded institution to mandate that my kids have to do it is a whole other thing entirely.

 

And people seem to assume that it'll have a possitive outcome.

It's just as likely that the kid could view it negatively and has nothing more than indentured servitude and be completley turned off from community service.

[Carrie12345]

If my dds want to volunteer, they have as much right as their brothers.

 

If my dss must register, so should their sisters.

 

That said, I think Canada is lovely. I am also in favor of exploiting the deficits my children have that might make them unfit for duty. I believe I can handle their hypothetical choice to enlist. I don't believe I can handle their hypothetical forced service any more than I could dump them in Nebraska. And Nebraska isn't likely to kill them.

[Haiku]

What I said was it's not the school's place to coerce service projects.

 

I don't see it as any more or less coercive than any of the other things that parents agree to when they enroll their kids in school. I keep my younger kids out of school for the same reasons most people here do, one of them being that I want to be in charge of their growth and development and free from government intrusion into our home and family life. However, I chose to send my oldest to school because that is what worked for our family. I don't love her school, nor do I hate it. I accept that I had to make trade-offs to send her to school. If parents are really opposed to their kids giving service, they don't have to send their kids to school, right?

 

My daughter attends and after-school program that focuses on service to others. It is completely voluntary, and over 90% of the kids in her pod (6th-8th grades) attend. So I think most people already think that their kids learning about service and having opportunities to serve is a good idea. So it's probably not necessary to make something like that compulsory. Of equal benefit to my daughter, imo, in serving others is the reinforcement from outside sources, not just her weirdo parents, that service to others is a high ideal.

 

FWIW, I don't believe in compulsory attendance laws. But I do think that schools, which are their own little community microcosms, in some respects, are a good place to model citizen service.

 

I feel like I live between two worlds: my ideal world, and my world that is. Sometimes I am willing to compromise my ideals to improve (imo) what actually is. Does that make sense?

 

Tara