Pentagon Creating Student Database

The Washington Post ^ | Thursday, June 23, 2005 | Jonathan Krim

[lurker214]

The Defense Department began working yesterday with a private marketing firm to create a database of high school students ages 16 to 18 and all college students to help the military identify potential recruits in a time of dwindling enlistment in some branches.

The program is provoking a furor among privacy advocates. The new database will include personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects the students are studying.

[Meldrim]

"This is news to me. Would you elaborate? I've got a daughter hard set on a military future."

I could answer this in two words: Jessica Lynch. How ever I'll steer you in other directions.

I'd look at the Army Times story covering the dismal performance of females in the Army. The average white enlisted female does not make it through the first four years of their enlistment. Typically, they are separated for pregnancy, other physical problems (many the result of too rigorous training) and/or failure to perform. Read the article, and keep in mind the Army Times is a liberal paper.

Robert H. Knight of the Concerned Women of America has written extensively about these problems.

I would also steer you toward the current figures regarding preganancies, abortions, evacuations from the field, failure to conform to military life, etc. that indicate extraordinary problems integrating female soldiers into the force. The problem is that the Army (and other services) don't make any of these public. You can guess why. What I've written applies to the Army, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and Navy. The Air Force, by virtue of their mission, is a different animal. I'll let somebody more familiar with the Air Force comment on that service.

[Meldrim]

Your son can serve in the reserves during college, go to ROTC, and he won't be liable for deployment until he graduates.

[FreeAtlanta]

I keep hearing the music Laura Ingram plays when the left tries to make something simple, into something notorious. da da dummmmm

[Wolfie]

A new draft would be interesting, if only because it would be fun to watch Congress write the rules so the children of the elite (their's included) wouldn't have to serve.

[Graymatter]

Thank you for taking the time to respond, Meldrim. I'm always looking for something new to worry about.
Will definitely explore this further.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"A few more months of bad recruiting numbers and this is going to be more than just a data base."



DRAFT THE PEACENIKS! DRAFT THE PEACENIKS!


They're already angry and looking for a fight and claiming to be cannon fodder. We may as well give them a job....


/SMIRK

[SoDak]

I'll be 40 this year. I doubt they are looking for old out-of-shape SysAdmins.

[lurker214]

I'd think about it but have got such bad vision 20/200 and 20/80 diff eyes that you wouldnt want to see me behind a wheel let alone aiming a rifle. If you're 39 though the reserves have raised the age limit from 34 to 39.....

http://www.dod.mil/news/Mar2005/20050322_280.html
Army Reserve Components Boost Enlistment Age Limit
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, March 22, 2005 – The Army Reserve and the Army National Guard have raised the age limit for recruits from 34 to 39, Defense Department officials said.
The move will add 22.6 million people to those who could potentially enlist in the reserve components, said Pentagon spokeswoman Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke.

[af_vet_rr]

This is new?

No, it's not new, or at least news - as part of the "No Child Left Behind Act", if high schools want to receive federal aid, they have to hand over all student names, addresses, and telephone numbers to the military.

I'm not sure why people missed this before now.

[spunkets]

"barking moonbat antiwar leftists."

That's right. If it was a compiliation of gunowners, or other folks reufsing to follow their glorious path of elightenment, they'd be singing a different tune. Privacy indeed!

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you, at least as far as the Navy is concerned. Other then SEAL teams, most of us sailors are techicians of one sort or another. It's just not the same environment as an Armored or a Mechanized Infantry Battalion.

[af_vet_rr]

I know your being sarcastic, but in reality, a draft wouldn't work these days. Putting aside the problems that many Conservatives have with a draft, and putting aside the fact that it would mean an end to Republicans in the White House and Republican control of the House/Senate (which is not necessarily a bad thing - we could use the opportunity to rebuild the GOP in a more Conservative light), there would be two problems with a draft.

1)Would you want your son or daughter to have to rely on draftees? This isn't the 1940s or even the 1960s where we still had a lot of people who had a good upbringing and who weren't corrupted. This is 2005. Many of our best and brightest of this generation are already serving. Many of those who are in this generation might not be the best choice for drafting - poor upbringings and poor values/morals.

2)It would easily be dodged (and I'm not talking Canada). $10-$20 worth of pot, one failed drug test, and they are ineligible. That would place a large burden upon those who are honest and who would have probably considered serving in the first place. Just as many liberals used college in the '60s to dodge the draft, they would use $20 worth of pot to dodge this one.

[Meldrim]

Acutally, when your ship requires serious damage control, it is in many ways a worse environment, and the gals cannot do the litter evacuations or move the P250 pumps: the Navy has know that since 1992.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

We don't have P250 pumps anymore. We haven't had them for years.

I've watched women do litter evacs, so I'm not buying that one either.

[Meldrim]

Well, if you've seen them do litter evacuations it has been under circumstances different from the 1992 tests, which were rigorous and stipulated only two persons on the litter.

[verity]

" barking moonbat antiwar leftists"

ROTFLMAO. You are pure genius.

[Meldrim]

Davis, O. Paul. "Physical Demands of Ships' Tasks are a Factual Matter" Navy Times 2 July 1990. Special Edition - Equal Opportunity September 1990: 1-2.

New York's fire department has come to the same conclusion. In a outfit of over 14,000 there are fewer than 40 females. It all has to do with whether or not the leadership is willing to enforce tought standards.