 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! March 11, 2005 The Student Privacy Protection ActBy GreyhawkThe Student Privacy Protection Act is a piece of legislation that will never see the light of day, even though (or perhaps because) California Democratic Congressman and DNC vice chair Mike Honda is sponsoring it. Invoking the traditional Democratic myth of a right to privacy the purpose of the bill is actually to limit military recruiters contacts with potential recruits. Some Republicans label this as yet another backdoor attempt by Democrats to re-institute the draft. Honda and Michigan Republican Congresswoman Candice Miller (hmm.. is it surprising that a Michigan congresswoman opposes Honda?) appeared on Hannity and Colmes to present their arguments. The transcript follows. As I said, the bill will not become law - it's but another noisy distraction from the kiddie table. But pay attention to the question that Honda refuses to answer, and ask yourself why? HANNITY & COLMES MARCH 8, 2005 Lets review the number of time he refused to answer: HANNITY: ...Let me ask you, do you think our military is a force for good in the world today, sir? The only reason I can imagine for the vice chair of the DNC to refuse to say "yes" is because his honest answer would be "no". Posted by Greyhawk / March 11, 2005 6:32 PM | Permalink 15 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Gee, the libs don't seem so concerned with parental rights when it comes to notifying the parents if a child wants to get an abortion...
No agenda, yeah right.
Good point Keith. In fact, they'd use the same "right to privacy" argument there too, wouldn't they?
Wow, sorry I missed that exchange. Can you belive that Honda ia an elected official?
It also speaks volumes for the DNC that he is one of their leaders.
Keith(Indianapolis) You are right on point with your comment.
Grayhawk,
Have you ever spent a single day in USAREC? I have as an "on the numbers" recruiter. If you saw how the system works and how otherwise ethical detailed recruiters are pressured into contacting and contracting marginal/unqualified applicants it would make you head spin. Recruiting is all a numbers game and giving recruiters increased school access and contact info when the Army is LOWERING enlistment standards and not making mission is the WRONG answer.
In "school" lists are used to target the most gullible, financially strapped folks - NOT the heavy hitters. Our leadership in USAREC didn't give a $hit about the QUALITY of who we were putting in, they just were concerned about getting the minimal number of minimally qualified people. We weren't sent to the best schools in our area, we were sent to get lists from places that had "easy kills" (read: financially needey). We were instructed to "slam" contracts from anyone that met minimal qualifications, not targeting those who WE thought would be the best for our Army.
The Army and our nation suffers when the we can just roll into a H.S. or college and badger the heck out of kids. We will not attract the best this way.
The Army requires its detailed recruiters to P1 prospect (blind phone calls) to 9PM each evening. This is not the most effective way to sell an Army at war or cull the best that young America has to offer.
If Rep. Honda were truly concerned about a student's right to privacy, his bill would not focus exclusively on Military recruiters. I have a daughter who is a senior in our local h.s. She has received recruiting calls at home, as IRR Soldier has pointed out, as late as 2100 hrs. She has received recruiting mail as well. She has also received unsolicited mail from several small colleges and trade colleges as well, and not "local" ones, either. If she has a right to privacy, and I have a right to know who is soliciting her, then those colleges shouldn't have a right to send her literature without my signing off on it. (Don't get me started on the whole abortion-mental health-medical stuff!)
However, as IRR Soldier has pointed out, recruiters need to be upfront and more "quality" vs. "quantity" driven. With the MSM and the world waiting to pounce on any U.S. military misstep, lowering entry standards seems like shooting yourself in the foot.
Denise,
The reason your daughter gets those college mailings is because she agreed to receive them when she signed up to take the ACT, SAT or PSAT. These testng companies ask if you want college info. If you say yes, they sell the lists to colleges. BTW, they also sell the lists to Army Recruiting Command, the service academies and ROTC Cadet Command.
These lists are beyond "mailings". Colleges don't get private home phone #s from the College Board when they buy SAT lists. The Recruiters Do get this info without permission and it is an issue.
If we the "volunteer Army" is so great, why are we so afraid of letting folks actually volunteer and make up their own minds. If joining an Army at war and having an almost 100% chance of going to Iraq is such a "good" thing, why the shady sales tactics and half-truths?
I might have seriously considered joining when I was comming out of HS if it had been offered directly to me. I think my Mom kept most of that away from me. I know when we were at a college fair she shoed away the Army recruiter, and at the time I didn't think twice about it.
With the lack of good information about the war in Iraq from the MSM, how can anyone be fully informed about anything. Whether it's someone trying to decide whether to join, or someone trying to vote, the lack of information is a disservice to us all.
Of course, if the Armed Services were to start trying to recruit the cream of the crop, say based on GPA, I just know there would be cries of discrimination about that.
Keith,
A few points..
1) Parents have the right to filter whatever they want to for their minor children. This is a huge part of the ideology of many that support home schooling, vouchers, the teaching of sex ed or evolution. Why the different standards for military recruiters? You can't have it both ways. If recruiters should get access to kids phone #s w/o parental consent, what leg do you have to stand on on other more important debates of parental control?
2) Again, you blame the "MSM" for a distorted view of reality, but lay no plame at the feet of recruiting commands that "sugar coat" dangers and the realities of service today. I would point you to www.1800goguard.com and www.goarmyserve.com as prime examples of that. NOWHERE on those sites or in any literature will you see a single mention of the reality that a newly enlisted Army Guardsman or Reservist can almost bet on being activated/deployed for 2 of the 6 years they signed up to actively drill? The services are doing a good deal of their own distortion that you very much.
The Armed Services can traget whomever they want to recruit. There is no "discrimination" there - legally r otherwise. We have ASVAB score cutoffs for enlistment, OCS and many job specialties. The reason we don't target those with higher scores, better grades and more affluent home lives (both red and blue state) is because this is a harder sale. It is worth the effort, but the career recruiting sales force (MOS 79R) only want the "easy kill." Sadly, the "easy kill" contract is not what we need in an insurgent war that requires skill, tact and intelligence. FYI, 29% of enlistees (2002 #'s) fail to complete their hitch. that number has gone up over the last three years and hovers around 58% for white females. We are not getting the best. Our nation and Army deserves better.
If you are so regretful about never serving, JOIN UP. Put your $ where your mouth is - ie. don't blame Mom. If under 35, there is a 100% selection rate for Army Reserve OCS. The Navy Reserve will take you to 39.
IRR - actually I agree with you here to a point. But that's not the point of Honda's legislation. He's not concerned with maintaining a first-rate military, and that's undeniable. I might do a whole series on recruiting - it's a topic well worth discussing.
I know several former-recruiters, and to a man they're burned out; long hours, travel, hard work, high pressure.
IRR - I have no direct knowledge of recruiter tactics, so I can't comment on them. I lay blame on the MSMs conduct because there is plenty blame there. Frankly, anyone silly enough to think that they wont see action somewhere in the next decade is delusional. There's more going on than just Iraq. My wife and I corrected this opinion with a neice of ours who thought since she was told she wouldn't see action that she could count on it. We basically told her that despite what was said, if they needed her somewhere they would send her there.
Frankly I don't see much different in the armed services recruiting tactics then with the tactics of other industries. Doesn't mean I condone it or don't think it should be reformed.
Now you tell me I could of joined the Navy Reserves if I was under 39, of course it doesn't matter now that I'm 40. Don't particularly like being on the ocean either, so not sure if the Navy would have been a good fit. The Navy was the one service I didn't bother looking into because of that reason.
Get them to start recruiting 40 year old borderline diabetics into the Army and drop me a line. Otherwise I'm a victim of age discrimination.
Or if there is a way to serve that I'm not thinking about, drop me a line.
I want to serve.
I want to serve in Iraq, boots on the ground, rifle in my hands.
As an aside, are there any current statistics on recruits that are accessible on-line?
In the full interest of disclosure...
I will be the first to admit my status of "armchair warrior" or whatever you want to call me. I've never tried to represent myself as anything else, and go out of my way if there is any confusion.
I have studied military history, played wargames, follow military developments closely, and support organizations that support the troops. About the only clear memories I have of Vietnam are a few pictures. One of the naked little girl and refugees running from a napalmed village, and the other the evac of Saigon. I would have been 8 for that first event.
But by then I had already seen worse from looking at pictures in books about the death camps of WWII my Uncle had. War is Hell. And you don't have to be there to know that. I might not have the same appreciation that those who've lived through it have.
So take that for whatever it's worth.
Keith (and any other reader) - IRR Soldier's comment to you is a variation on the "shut up you never served" argument. His use of it goes a long way to explaining his obsession with Blackfive on another topic thread here. For the record I don't support that response to non-military people who express an opinion on the war, the military or whatever. It's a frequent argument from the left. Let me tell you, when I was in Iraq we appreciated a bit of "wish I was there, but give 'em hell, boys!" attitude from the folks back home.
Though not the sole cause, the relentless droning anti-military attitude of America's media contributes greatly to low moral and by extension all the problems with recruiting and retention IRR describes above.
Support from non-mil related civilians is a great tonic to counter that. And that's why the left hates the sound of it so much.
Regardless of the Congressman's views on our armed forces, I think the legislation is a bad idea.
(caveat: I've only done a cursory search on the subject, so if my information is wrong, I'd appreciate correction.)
As I understand the current law, military recruiters are granted the same access as postsecondary institutions; if military recruiters call and colleges don't, that would seem to be because the colleges don't want to. Parents may currently "opt out" to prevent military recruiters from getting the student's information; the proposed legislation would change this to an "opt in" scheme.
I think the proposal is bad because it ONLY targets the military recruiters. If it changed ALL information to an "opt in", it would be much more evenhanded.
Considering the topic, I'm right in the crosshairs of this privacy issue.
But...It’s very interesting that there is this wide belief from (seemingly) the most vocal solders in the military that the media is always "left" and filled with abortionists who don't support the troops. It just points to the fact that your opinion originates from the right. Remember that there are plenty of people in that camp who have serious problems with the war (and people from the left that don't have a problem). There is always greater diversity inside a group than between groups. You may perceive the media as wholly leftists, but what I hear is a balanced view...both sad and honorable, at times dis-honorable and often overtly patriotic in my area. If not so, I would not be considering such a huge move in my life.
But I digress... I'm an inch away from joining the Army Guard and my recruiter has been relatively strait forward with me...to a point. Mainly because I have asked question after question (I honestly don't see how any “kid” could understand the true consequences, or ask the right questions...but that’s youth for ya!). It is true, that I'm not your typical "prospect", in terms of whom IRR is talking about. I contacted the Guard directly after considerable thought and was answered by my recruiter.
At my age and considering my success in business, I have personal reasons why I'm considering service. That being said, I was unnerved and quite pissed when I received a phone call from a call center trying to convince me to join the active Army. I asked the caller how they got my phone number, and it turned out that since I am taking lower level classes at a Community College, I was on the list. The natural question in my mind was, I wondered if all the students at the local 4-year universities were being called too? Was it only the community colleges? Nearly every day on the CC campus, there is a recruiter in his Class A's waiting just outside the cafeteria for that perfectly needy student. I could understand if all college/high school campuses where equally targeted, but I personaly like my privacy...and I didn't like that random call in the middle of the night. Or the pushy recruiter trying to convince me that active was the best way to go.
Privacy, in most American's minds, is akin to freedom. Congressman Honda's true purpose for this legislation is probably to simply make a point since it will not even leave committee. Thus is politics on both sides, why else toss up the idea that ANWR drilling will help gas prices now when it will be more like 3 to 5 years? The purpose is to get people, like us, talking/believing the subject and to bring attention to certain developments. Like how 2000+ more recruiters have been added to contact lower income recruits by phone without parental permission of that No Child Left Behind eased limits on recruiters. My question is, if recruiters were targeting mainly affluent high school students for the military, would this even be a blog topic? Or would the congresswoman from Michigan suddenly be the sponsor? Something to think about.