Ravenwood - 05/19/05 07:00 AM
A high school in Seattle has banned military recruiters from their campus, in violation of the No Child Left Behind Act. In doing so, they are gambling that their federal funding will not be cut off.
During discussion at the PTSA's meeting last week, Ted Inkley argued against the resolution because he thought it dangerous to deny free speech to organizations simply because their philosophies or intentions disagreed with the PTSA.Ludwig's daughter may not end up pursuing a career with the imperial military machine, but at least she'll have easy access to Planned Parenthood, should she decide to date the football team.Mr. Inkley, an attorney whose daughter is a senior, told the crowded library he could "easily" see a resolution by some other PTA that banned Planned Parenthood representatives from campus because of their views on contraception and abortion.
Steve Ludwig, whose son is a senior and whose daughter will enter as a freshman next fall, made a point shared by many in attendance: Garfield does not allow organizations that promote illegal activities to recruit students to perform those activities, nor does it allow organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, national origin, or sexual orientation to recruit on campus.
"Planned Parenthood, as far as I know, does not advocate or perform illegal acts. The US military does," Mr. Ludwig continued. The soft-spoken carpenter said he would not object if Army representatives came to Garfield to debate their ideas on torture or aggressive war. "What I object to is their coming here to recruit students to perform those acts," he said. "It's not about free speech."
Category: Left-wing Conspiracy
Comments (9) top link me
Career opportunities? Perhaps. But can you blame parents for not wanting their children to become fodder in a war achieved through lies and deceptions? I think these parents ought to be applauded for having the courage to stand up and say "ENOUGH!"
If our nation were in danger, this would be a very different conversation. Thankfully, we are not, but this has not stopped George W. Bush from achieving the war he so badly wanted by lying his way into it. What reasonable parent would want to sacrifice their children to neo-Conservatives lies and arrogance?
Students will, of course, still enlist. That doesn't mean parents have to make it easier to the US military to recruit them.
Bravo...would that more parents demonstrated this sort of moral courage.
Posted by: Jack Cluth at May 19, 2005 7:53 AMJack -
18-year-olds are not children.
Posted by: roger at May 19, 2005 8:51 AMJack,
Joining the military does not guarantee you will die in battle, neither does it guarantee you will even go to war.
As for our nation not being in danger, have you already forgotten the attacks of 9/11/2001? Just because we have not been attacked *on our soil* since then does not mean we are no longer at war.
Bin Ladin declared war on us back in 1993, prior to the first WTC bombing. Had we listened then, we might not be at war now. We did not and suffered many attacks on our citizens (most of whom were military, but quite a few civilians lost their lives as well) until September 11, 2001. *That* got our attention, and we have been battling those who would see our nation toppled since then.
If you do not believe we are in danger, please stop paying taxes and vacate this country. We don't need you, and personally I'd rather not have to listen to you exercise the freedom for which so many have died when the speech you utter is slander.
Posted by: Lornkanaga at May 19, 2005 10:30 AM"...a war achieved through lies and deceptions"
"...but this has not stopped George W. Bush from achieving the war he so badly wanted by lying his way into it."
What lies are you talking about?
Posted by: CAshane at May 19, 2005 12:01 PMSo Jack thinks the military is too disreputable to allow on public school property.
Newsflash. The military is a constitutionally mandated defense of our natural rights. Education is not.
Posted by: Brett at May 19, 2005 12:58 PMThere are so many things wrong with "Jack's" comments I don't know where to start, so perhaps I won't. Just let me say: Jack, f*** off.
Posted by: kjo at May 19, 2005 4:43 PM"What reasonable parent would want to sacrifice their children...?"
Jack, you must think that all of those people in the PTSA were pretty horrible parents, if 18 years of their parenting can be trumped by a half hour of recruitment talk, true or not.
Posted by: Pasty at May 19, 2005 6:13 PMHAHAHA! Good one Jack.
Moral courage - Kill American babies is cool and awesome, killing terrorists is the sickest of the sick.
Cheers mate, that was so funny I came.
Posted by: DaveJ at May 19, 2005 9:41 PMApparently, some individuals, ie Jack and Mr Ludwig, are lacking in knowledge of who actually makes policy on things like "torture and aggressive war." Hint: it's not the Army, nor is it even the Department of Defense.
Guess what, folks? It's Congress. Military policy on gays has been approved by Congress, up to and including Dont Ask, Don't Tell. The Afghan and Iraqi operations were approved by Congress.
You've got a problem, take it up with your elected representatives. Of course, Jim McDermott, who I think represents Garfield High, isn't exactly the most effective advocate.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian at May 20, 2005 7:15 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
