Monday, January 10, 2011

Jared Loughner as he relates to William Daley

First, any commentator/blogger, even one as insignificant as myself, needs to do a little soul-searching after this weekend's events.  Me? I was not able to finish my first beer before I was finished. I believe that I know each of my readers personally. Although I call on you all to become angry, somehow I doubt if my angry reponse, which you know to be letters to my Senator, thanking him for taking a specific position, engenders any  violence; especially with my readership.

So onto today's topic. Once again, the press gets it wrong. Why, oh why, can't they come up with the right issue? The issue, in this case, is not how vitriolic political discourse has become.  It is not the violence of the individual.  If you look at all the political assassinations and domestic terrorist events you'll note that the vast majority of them have been committed by nut cakes. They may be wing nuts, whether left-wing or right-wing, but they are definitely nut cakes. The average wing nut, no matter how angry he or she becomes, is not liable to pick up a glock to solve his or her problems.  That does take a little bit of insanity.


So what, in my opinion is the issue?  I think you have to go back one step as to what causes the vitriol and the anger.  The issue is NOT that there is vitriol and anger, but why it exists.


One tactic of the rich and powerful (R&P) has always been to drape themselves in the flag and cry mom, apple pie, and the American Way of Life (AW0L.)   In doing so they have convinced a class of people, who are NOTHING like the rich and powerful, that the rich and powerful are like them.

Of course since they have the same core beliefs,. They believe in a strong government, belief in God, and keeping America for Americans.
(prompt:  flag waving and America The Beautiful playing in the background.)

So the ignorant continue to vote in the rich and powerful thinking that they and the rich and powerful have the same goals.

BUT IT AIN'T SO!!!!!

Our new Speaker of the House, Congressman Boehner, has sent letters to 150 businesses asking them what government regulations they would like to see overturned. Now Pres. Obama, already a moderate pro-business politician, feels the need to appoint William Daley as his new chief of staff. William Daley is the epitome a pro-business politician. So the biggest businesses, and the R&P, in the country are getting help from both the left and the right. And the little man, once again, is getting screwed.

Thus the anger. One percent of the population controls 50% of the wealth  Can someone please tell me why the hell does that 1% need even more representation. Why does it need to be asked what can we do to make your lives easier? When there was even a mention of a National Consumer Advocate why was there so much outrage about the government “wanting to tell us what to buy” yet there is no outrage that the government wanting to protect the rich even more at the backs of the poor?  It's because the R&P have convince the Poor and Ignorant (P&I) that they are in this together.  We both wear flag lapel pins, we want to pray to Jesus, and we want them furners out of our country.  So the right of the political spectrum is angry because their friends have told them to be angry.  As to the left?  Hey, just go back and read about the 1% and 50%.  That's why we're angry.  An if the P&I ever understood what the R&P was doing to the, they'd join us.  But as it is, we are all angry.  And we are all getting screwed.

So the question is, when will we get the government that protects the people instead of the rich? When we start asking that question then we will begin to understand the anger and vitriol that is in existence today.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

My bona fides vis-a-vis Capt Honors

The military is a strange bird. A perfect example is the use of the third person. I'll explain this and then give an example in which I was involved that demonstrates that I am not new to the task of ridiculing the ridiculous.

The military uses the third person much in the sense of Louis XIV, the Sun King who stated “L'etat.C'est moi.”   For example, I would ask “is there anything else that the Colonel desires?” The Colonel would then have the option of saying "No, I'm okay” or “the Colonel is not very happy with the results of our discussion.” This is an indication that the rank and the person are one.

When speaking to a subordinate there is also a very large difference in whether a personal pronoun is used or the rank. For example, if my CO said to me “how could you do something so stupid?” it would be much different than if he had said “how could a lieutenant in the Marine Corps do something so stupid?”  (In fact, the latter case is probably a lot worse.  It's ok for him to think I was an idiot, but not that I was an idiot as a Lt.)

A good example would be if you were a supply officer going on a field exercise and you had sufficient rations for four people but five people had to be fed.  So you make the decision to give each person 4/5 of the full ration. You get called in by one of the people's commanding officer and  he asks you “why did not my Marine get a full ration?”

If you began to answer “I thought...” The CO would scream at you "I don't give a shit what you thought.  I asked why my Marine didn't get a full ration.”

So the correct response is: “Sir there were four rations remaining. There were five Marines to get those four rations. The two options I saw were to give each Marine 4/5ths of a full ration or to give four Marines a full ration and one Marine none. I consulted with my sergeant who stated that in other cases such as this he learned that it was better that all Marines get a partial ration then one to get none. I then made the decision to take the Sgt's. advice and give each Marine 4/5 of a ration. I take full responsibility for the decision, Sir.”

Of course saying "I thought that it would be better to give everybody partial rations then have one person get no ration at all." is really the exact same answer.  But as he stated, the CO did not "give a shit" about what someone thought.  He wanted the answer of a Marine Corps Officer.  A person wasn't standing before him, a Marine Lieutenant was.

Very silly? Maybe.  But it does demonstrate Capt Honors' error.  It was not he, Owen Honors, who made those videos.  It was the XO of the USS Enterprise.  "Le XO?  C'est lui."


So now to my personal example and this is a "No shit story", i.e. the god's honest truth.

I had a collateral duty as Mess Officer for the enlisted Mess Hall. In English, that means I ran the facility that provided meals to the troops.  One day a particularly asshole type Marine, a Corporal, came in, complained about the food, stated “this food isn't fit for dogs to eat" and then left. I knew I would hear more of this. The next morning proved me true. I got called in to the Marine's commanding officer's office. After screaming at me about the shit I was serving for his men to eat and how it was bad for morale and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah (you know on Charlie Brown cartoons how the adults sound like blah blah blah blah blah blah blah? That's how the CO sounded to me.)

I looked the Colonel in the eye and said “Sir, the corporal is a liar.” (Notice the use of the third person.)  The Colonel looked at me incredulously and said “what do you mean?” Standing at rigid attention  I stated “Sir, the corporal said that the food was not fit for dogs to eat. I brought some home last night and gave it to my dogs. They loved it.”

The Colonel looked at me and I could see the anger in his eyes. I thought I was fucked.  Then he screamed at me “Lieutenant, get the fuck out of my office.”  So I did.

(This should not be confused with the time I was called into the Master Gunnery Sergeant's Office because one of his men claimed that he had sold me pot.  He was a liar too.  He never sold me pot.  He sold it to a civilian friend of mine from whom I bought it.  I would never have bought pot from an enlisted man.  That is SO against the code of an officer and gentleman about which I wrote yesterday.)





PS:  They use the word "fuck" a lot in the military.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Capt. Owen Honors

As usual, the press gets it wrong and the extremists scream.

However, before I start I want to say that I do know that Captain Honors was a Commander and the XO of the the ship at the time of the incidents.  However, many of the crew were on the Enterprise when these events occurred and obviously would remember them.

Imagine that you live in a small town of about 6000 people.  The population of the town is approximately 1/3 ranchers and 2/3 farmers. The mayor of the town is appointed, not elected, and must be a rancher. The mayor is also the chief of police, the town magistrate, the town sheriff, and the town judge. The Mayor has the power have people arrested, put in jail, have their salaries reduced, have their job position reduced, and he holds the keys to rewards also.  The only complaints against him can be made to those who appointed him.

Now imagine that instead of the town this is a US naval vessel. There's the Air Combat Navy, of which the captain is a member, and the surface warfare navy, which is the majority of the population. The captain is that mayor.  He has absolute power over that vessel and all who are on. And don't forget that he holds the power over life and death. Remember, you are on an aircraft carrier. Think what the purpose of it is.  In an all out war its mission would to would be to get all of its aircraft in flight before it was sunk, most likely by an enemy submarine. So yes, it is life-and-death.

That is what the press does not say about this affair. It is not a case of keeping up the troops morale, or free speech, or left wing political correctness. Under the UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice, a Captain has the following  Judicial powers:

Field Grade (O-4 to O-6) may impose:
  • Restriction for not more than 60 days
  • Extra duties for not more than 45 days
  • Restriction with extra duties for not more than 45 days
  • Correctional Custody for not more than 30 days (only if accused is in the grades E-3 and below)
  • Forfeiture of ½ of base pay for two months
  • Reduction by one grade if (USA/USAF E-6 or E-5; USMC E-5 or below; USN E-6 or below); or reduction to E-1 (USA/USAF E-4 to E-2)
  • Confinement on diminished rations or bread and water for not more than 3 days (USN/USMC E-3 and below only, and only when embarked on a vessel)
  • Admonition or reprimand, either written or verbal


There is also an article of the   UCMJ that talks about all conduct unbecoming an officer. Common saying in the military is that RHIP, that is, rank has its privileges. What is more important, just as common is RHIR, or rank has its responsibilities.

(from Wikipaedia)

Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (or conduct unbecoming for short) is an offense subject to court martial defined in the punitive code, Article 133, of the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), enacted at 10 U.S.C. § 933.
The elements are:
  1. That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and
  2. That, in the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.
Here "officer" is understood to include commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen of both sexes, hence the more common term conduct unbecoming. A gentleman is understood to have a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty.


Now imagine life on-board that ship as a surface warfare type when the captain said:

"This evening, all of you bleeding hearts - and you, fag SWO boy - why don't you just go ahead and hug yourselves for the next 20 minutes or so, because there is a really good chance you're going to be offended tonight."

Imagine what it was like for the more religious who were offended by watching simulated masturbation by the captain  or simulated sex acts in the shower by two men or by two women. Imagine what it was like for the gays, for gays could serve under don't ask don't tell as long as nobody asked nobody told. So imagine what it was like when he made fun of fags.

So, no this is not a subject of free speech or of good morale. It was gross, gross misuse of his position. For someone like a 2nd Lieutenant or Ensign to fool around with his troops to boost morale is one thing. However, even then there are limits as to what should be said or done. The limits for  a CO are astronomically higher. He has to be the epitome of fairness, justice, good judgment, and bring not even a modicum of disgrace to the position.  He is that mayor I mentioned previously.



Now, in my opinion,  Capt. Honors is not the subject of the witch hunt. He demonstrated such poor judgment that was “detrimental to good order and discipline” that it reach the degree of “conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman."


One of the first things I learned at the Naval Academy was “if the Navy wants you to have an opinion, it will give you one”.  One of the reasons I left..... just so I could give you my opinion.  

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

vacation is over

 and time to get back to my ranting and raving. I want to continue my last post concerning wage discrimination. As I stated, using a more discriminated against group E. G. Transsexuals to prove discrimination against a less discriminated against group E. G. Females cannot provide an accurate result.

However, although I normally dislike anecdotal evidence, I do have a better example. I have a friend who is a world renowned engineer in a very specific field. She is an academic, normally a very liberal group. Therefore her entire environment is one in which an individual is judged mainly by the quality of his/her work. Or so we would hope. My friend tells the story concerning the first seminar she attended after her surgery. Prior to her surgery my friend said when she spoke everyone listened.  I will use Larry as her pre-op name (obviously I would not use her correct name.) When Larry spoke, people listened.  When there was a discussion everyone waited to see what Larry's pronouncement would be. Larry was THE expert in the field. However, at that first seminar after her surgery. Laura (again a false name) was not treated the same. When she entered the room someone said to her: "As long as you're up, you can bring in the coffee." This would never have been said to Larry. I asked Laura if that's if it were a joke. She said no, the individual was serious.

Anticdotal evidence of course. But isn't the life of a female mostly anecdotal evidence?