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.