Cite? Because as I heard it, that was Oral Robert’s plan, and it was to be named the Oral Coit-U.S. tower.
It’s been rumored that there was in early withdrawl of Mr. Robert’s support, resulting in the Coit. U.S. Interruptus tower.
Heh… I think that most of the other blue states would stick with the red just so they weren’t called Californians 
REally? So if the Mustang Ranch wanted to recruit students, you’d be ok w/that?
No problem, I didn’t exactly flesh it out.
Perhaps… but I think it’s also the admin’s job to pick and choose. After all, should we have the porn industry setting up a kiosk?
Perhaps… I think it would possibly be a more nuanced answer to say that it was a protest against having children be used as bullet sponges for the war in Iraq.
I don’t agree. Students can go down to the military recruiting centers if they really want to, and it is a school’s job to select things which are appropriate, and reject things which are not. I really do think that it’s not so easy to state the case in absolutes. After all, banning books for silly reasons isn’t good, but that doesn’t mean that, for instance, soft core porn should be in the school library. Anne Rice’s Sleeping Beauty books may be, erm, exciting and all, but…
Sure it does. One of the main reasons people join out of highschool is for education, training, and federal financial aid.
Here’s an interesting twist: San Francisco happens to have a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Since the US military does discriminate on that basis, are they entitled to a special exception to allow them to recruit in San Francisco schools, or other schools that have similar antidiscrimination policies?
It would be illegal to solicit minors with pornography or expose them to it.
None of the soldiers in Iraq are children, so I think your “nuance” adds an element of falsity to the action. It was a protest against the war.
I think the porn angle isn’t going to work, since there are legal issues involved. As for other books that might be banned, the students can also go down to the public library to get them. I purposely chose that analogy because it’s exactly the same thing-- an attempt to prohibit students from having access to something which is perfectly legal even though they might be able to have access to it elsewhere.
Someone else’s dime? San Francisco residents don’t pay federal income tax? It’s their OWN fucking dime and they’re morally entitled entitled to receive that funding without unreasonable conditions like predatory military recruiters pouncing on their children. A public education is something that is needed, something that SF residents pay for, and something that is not supposed to be contingent on parents being forced to allow their kids to hustled by sleazy pimps in uniforms.
How about parents? Do I, as a parent, have a right to say that I don’t want military recruiters harassing my kids at school? These guys are scum, man. They’re smarmy, lying skeeves. I know first hand. I got suckered by them when I was 17. Everything they told me was a lie and everyone I was in the Navy with had the same story. We hated recruiters worse than child molesters. No way would I want them going after my kids.
Limbaugh lives and works in New York City. He’s yours.
Hold on there just a minute. When I pay my income tax, do I, as an individual, get to the government how to spend it? Sorry, but the tax money belongs to the people of the United States, and the people, thru their elected officials, have made this rule. You may object to it morally, but that’s an entirely different matter. Like I said earlier, if you want to return to strict federalism on these types of issues, I’m with you 100%. But you can’t have it both ways.
Don’t take the federal money. It’s that simple. We made a bargain with the devil, so to speak, when we signed up for the federal money. And now the devil has come to collect.
Sorry**, Dio**, that didn’t really answer your question. Think about it this way. Does the religious fundamentalist have the right to say he doesn’t want evolution taught to his kids in a public school? I’m sure he feels roughly the same way towards teachers of that “God-hating doctrine” as you do about military recruiters.
I’m pretty impressed at how Bill O’Reilly managed to escape from this pitting with hardly a scratch. I mean, whatever you may think about the merits of suggesting that a city vote against military recruiters in public schools while still accepting federal education funding, I would’ve thought that the reaction of publicly advocating terrorist attacks on such a city would receive a worse cussing-out than it’s got so far.
IIRC, Everson vs. Board of Education addressed that. Unless I missed something, there’s no SCOTUS decision against keeping recruiters out of schools.
Not so fast: He also has a residence in Palm Beach, Florida. Because his Oxicotin bust was there, he is being tried in Florida. I would have loved to see his jurors from the future trial to come from New York.
Probably the easist place to score his oxy.
So we only allow 18 year old seniors to attend that special kiosk, and have a black curtain all around it. Is it still cool?
[
](http://www.rand.org/commentary/020903BG.html)
[
](http://www.army.com/enlist/active-duty-requirements.html)
So to quibble, you claiming that my nuance is false is, well, false.
(I win the internet!)
Well, personally I think there are moral angles involved with trying the hard-sell on 17 and 18 year old children in order to ship them off to fight a war waged on false pretenses. If adults want to make that decision, it’s their right, but preying upon children is just slimey in my book. But YMMV.
You are aware that there aren’t full first ammendment rights for students while in school? You’re allowed to prohibit perfectly legal materials if you feel they don’t have a place in the school.
Sleeping Beauty soft-core porn in the school library, yes or no? It’s perfectly legal for minors to buy it, should the school pay for it and put it in the library?
AFAIKnow: I’d still disagree with that having anything to do with education. Training in the tools of war doesn’t satisfy my definition of education, nor does offering money for college. Many places will offer money for college, but that doesn’t mean they have anything to do with education, only with paying for it. (Which, by the way, any job can do if they give you money that you then use to pay for college. Is McDonalds an educational business because they offer you training and you can take your paycheck and invest it in school?)
Bill O’Reilly is a crusty old fungus-infested heirloom douchebag. Wherever he goes he trails behind him the putrid slime of the dripping infected asshole that he is. May his penis rot slowly, falling off piece by piece. May his body be cursed with leprosy. May his brain degenerate so that his lack of control over his bodily functions matches his lack of control over his big mouth.
That said, I think both the handgun ban and the recruiting ban are stupid stupid stupid. What a waste of time and taxes. I wish San Franciscans and all Californians could get their heads out of their asses. (Despite this, I still think we do better than most states.)
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
Day-um! 17 is awefully young. Yes, you do indeed win the internet. Use it wisely!
But we can argue about the motivations behind the votes for prop I all day, and in the end only the voters know why they chose to vote as they did. I somehow doubt that if the enlistment age were 18 instead of 17 that this ballot initiative would have failed.
Of course there is a moral angle. But I prefer to make those moral decisions myself, and to let parents and their kids do the same. I think schools should facilitate the career choice options of students-- but they should do so in a morally nuetral way. If the military is proven to be deliberately falsifying information to lure kids in, then I have no problem excluding them.
I don’t think allowing or not allowing certain material into school libraries is a first amendment issue, but (as a side note) administrators don’t have carte blanche to limit students’ speach, even if students don’t have *full *1st amendment rights.
I’ll second that. I would like to know if his harangue could be construed as some sort of inciting to violence, or inciting to terrorism (if there is such a thing)?
I’ll second that too, and I live here. Voted against both of them as either unworkable or irrelevant.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Excellent. To start, what’s with all this non-porn bullshit cluttering things up?
Good points. Pr’aps we should agree to disagree.
But schools do have a certain responisibility, and not all parents feel the way you do.
Well… this is one cite I found.
And this is another. There’s also a seemingly informative about.com site, but they’re essentially a wiki, so I don’t think they’re exactly a valid cite.
Run a search for “military enslistment lie” and see what you get. Not, by the way, that I’m an expert or anything, but from my limited reading on the subject recruiters aren’t often… clear enough, if we’re to use non accusatory language.