I had never heard of this before.

This is no ordinary boot camp.

These are no ordinary recruits.

It takes just four days for the U.S. Marine Corps to transform 80 teachers, guidance counselors and principals from South Florida schools into a more patriotic, informed group armed with an attitude to help it recruit students.

Twelve weeks a year, the Marines invite teachers from anywhere east of the Mississippi to visit their training depot on marshy Parris Island in South Carolina. During the all-expense-paid trip, teachers watch recruits at nearly every phase of training, from initial physical-strength tests to a grueling 54-hour segment called The Crucible.

Teachers fire rifles with live ammunition. Alongside recruits, they eat prepackaged meals that can be heated without stoves, the kind eaten on the battlefield. They see recruits reunite with their families. They tackle parts of an obstacle course and battle each other with giant Q-tips called pugil sticks to practice martial arts.

The Marines ask only that they set aside their political views about the current war and their skepticism.

Before the trip, Kane More didn't know a lot about the Marines. "Now I know they are Marines, not soldiers," said More, who teaches at West Boca Raton High. "I now know Marines are more real, normal kinds of people who very much believe in what they are doing."

Although Marines from the Fort Lauderdale recruiting station are regulars at 133 high schools in South Florida, giving teachers a recruit's-eye view of boot camp is a way to create a legion of advocates when Marines aren't around.

Especially when some Iraq war critics are campaigning to bar recruiters from campuses.

"The purpose of the educators' visits is to help our recruiting," said Maj. Guillermo Canedo, public affairs director at Parris Island. "It's such a different world. It's such an insular world to some extent. It's hard for the American public to understand."

I have a couple of questions.

1) Is this program available in other parts of the country?

2) Do the other branches of the military have such programs?

3) Who do I call to apply?

Posted by: Greg at 09:16 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

Rather than take a patriotic stand on behalf of Australia, a council in Australia has voted not to fly the Australian flag over a beach pavillion for fear of provoking more violence by Middle Eastern immigrants.

In a decision met with outrage from locals, returned servicemen and ethnic groups, Waverley Council voted 6-5 against the proposal, declaring the popular beach should remain clear of flags to "remove provocation".

Mayor Mora Main and fellow Green George Copeland led a block of Labor councillors including deputy mayor George Newhouse, Peter Moscatt and Ingrid Strewe in rejecting the proposal by Liberal councillor Joy Clayton on December 13.

The irony is that even the Muslim community opposes the flag band.

Islamic Friendship Association of Australia founder Keysar Trad said decisions made on behalf of Muslims with no consultation only caused further division.

"To suggest that Muslims would be offended at the sight of the Australian flag is naive. A great deal of Muslims call Australia home and they are just as happy to see the flag flying high," he said.

Sounds to me like hanging a flaf from the pavillion is the second thing they need to do. The first would be to hang six members of the Waverly Council from it.

Posted by: Greg at 09:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess it depends on whether the leak helps or hurts US national security -- and whether or not the Democrats can use it to bash the Bush administration. Since the security of the United States is degraded by the leak about NSA surveilance of al-Qaeda operatives AND it plays into the standard leftist Bush=Hitler talking point, its a good leak in the eyes of some Democrats. Take this one.

The investigation into leaks about a domestic spying program should determine whether the motivation was damaging security or revealing a potentially illegal activity, a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday.

"There are differences between felons and whistleblowers, and we ought to wait 'til the investigation occurs to decide what happened," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

On Friday, the Justice Department opened an investigation into who divulged the existence of President Bush's secret domestic spying program. The New York Times reported last month about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican who appeared with Schumer on "Fox News Sunday," urged the Justice Department to "go after those who breached our national security and endangered Americans in the war on terror."

If this program was illegal, then I hope people are prosecuted -- but I don't think it was illegal. But regardless, those who leaked the information to the press for front page publication cannot be seen as acting in a legitimate fashion.The appropriate recipient of those suspicions would have been a prosecutor, a senior law enforcement official, or a member of Congres (which has oversight authority over the NSA). The New York Times has no legitimate role in making the determination of the legality of the program.

MORE AT: My Pet Jawa and Dread Pundit Bluto.

1/2/06 -- Welcome to everyone dropping by from Michelle Malkin's excellent blog. Thank's for the mention!

Posted by: Greg at 07:03 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.