This article, an excerpt of which was published in the 05 May 2008 edition of The Olympian, originally appeared in The Houston Chronicle. I attempted to find the original article but - alas - had little success.

One reason recruiting highly qualified young people for the armed forces has become so difficult is that they see the unfair and seemingly endless demands placed on our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan while the general public sacrifices little.

So let me get this straight: young people are declining to sign up for the Armed Forces because they're waiting for a greater burden to be placed on the general public? I'm not in disagreement that the public should be doing more to mobilize the American War Machine, but what happened to leading by example?

I think it's a pretty long reach to arrive at the conclusion that all of these recruits are just waiting in the wings who would head down to their recruiter's office if only there was a greater demand from the general public.

Previous hit-or-miss treatment of wounded veterans after they returned home gives little assurance to prospective recruits that they will receive the best medical care their country can offer should they become disabled.

Now this is a statement which has a lot of weight. It's atrocious how our service members are treated when they return from combat. Unfortunately, it's not the first time and it won't be the last.

Is that a reason to not serve in the Armed Forces? I think it's a reason to examine everything in your life prior to putting your name on the dotted line and just weigh the risk versus reward. While the Armed Forces has a lot to offer, there's a reason a lot of people don't make a career out of it. For the vast majority it's just a short stint and then you move on with life.

And then there's this one...

Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) is trying to amend a provision from 1997 which "banned sales of 'sexually explicit material' on military bases." (You can find the Army Times story from 24 APR 2008 here).

Rep. Broun is concerned that tax dollars are being used to fund pornography. Here's the thing about Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES): "Exchange officials noted that tax dollars are not used to procure magazines in the system's largely self-funded operations." When I buy an item from an AAFES establishment (which, on any base or post, is going to be just about everywhere) money goes back into the base or post.

I haven't read a Penthouse in a long, long time (and I've seen Playboy recent enough to argue that today Playboy is far more of a platform for reading, similar to Esquire or GQ, than it is pornography).

Rep. Braun - described as an "addictionologist" by his spokesperson - feels adult-themed publications sold to military personnel increases the likelihood of sexual assault. I'm no "addictionologist," but I don't think the reason there's a higher percentage of sexual assaults in the Armed Forces has anything to do with Playboy or Penthouse. In fact, I think Rep. Braun should be examining the similarities between the Armed Forces and American universities if he's concerned about decreasing the number of sexual assaults.

Getting back on track, though. The reason this amendment is a big deal around military bases isn't even about the intended target (pornography). It's about Maxim and FHM (for the record, I've subscribed to Maxim since university).

If you read the letters section in each magazine you're bound - at least once a month - to see one from Iraq or Afghanistan thanking the magazine for providing entertainment. Army Times has published numerous letters from people who say - while they would have survived in a combat zone without Maxim or FHM - each made life easier. I know even looking at the cover of Maxim may horrify some of our OlyBlog readers, but Maxim has one extremely intellectually stimulating article in each issue. And I'm saying in-depth, rival The Economist-type of articles.

Besides, photographs of attractive women and the Armed Forces used to have a much closer relationship. Far more intimate than just selling magazines, that's for sure.

Of course, this amendment would only prove to be an inconvenience for soldiers stationed in the United States. It's the ones in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa who would be the most affected.

So thank you, Rep. Braun, for looking out for the soldiers stationed overseas.