Heartland Hates Hollywood Humor

Having read "Variety", any number of times in my youth, I couldn't pass up the chance to title this post in something akin to what may appear on that rag in the not too distant future.

Hollywood in it's seemingly self destructive and or narcissistic mind set, continues to focus on the 9/11, post 9/11 mindset. None of their efforts in presenting the War on Terror or the struggle in Iraq have paid off at the box office. The public, for the most part, has stayed away in droves. So now the are trying a different tact. We can't win 'em over with "serious" "heart wrench(ed)ing" drama ... so let's attack their funny bone!!

Guess it was bound to happen sooner or later. Sadly, it appears to be sooner.

Yeppers, it worked so well with WWII. Who can forget (those who are still alive to remember) the crazy madcap antics of those "Concentration Camp Cutups ™ " , the Waffen SS. Or that oriental laff riot, Tojo. I seem to recall even with a better then 20 year gap between the end of WWII and the airing of "Hogan's Heroes", there was still quite a flap over it. Granted, that particular show placed the American (and allied) POW's in the positive/controlling characters virtually all the time. And did make the German Officers/Nazi party types and German solders in general, to be nothing more then buffoons, morons, and pompous blowhearts. Which I am sure made any number of vets wonder why then did it take us so long to WIN the damn thing?

And yes, there were a number of "funny" or "humorous" movies, based on the war. "The Wackiest Ship in the Army" (both the movie, staring Jack Lemmon, and the short lived TV show) was based on an actual ship/events. And there were many others, usually portraying the trials and tribulations of either becoming indoctrinated to military life (boot camp/basic training) or finding ways to work with-in/around the system, in order to "get the girl", beat the enemy, meet the challenge given by the chain of command or circumstances.

But that was Hollywood of 40 some years ago. At least they had enough presents of mind to make the good guys just that, the good guys. Not so, with the current crop of military mirth/Gitmo guffaws/global terroristic tomfoolery, and international political/big business gone wild. Oh, and did I forget to include zombie troops and strippers? (Nothing says "We support the guys and gals in the military" more then a film with "re-animated" ranks risking limb to continue the fight for freedom!)

Perhaps this is just Hollywood's way of redefining a term which is probably not considered PC these days. "T&A", no longer stands for that particular segment of films. Now it can be used as an umbrella for almost all the content coming out these days. Now "T&A" stands for "Trite & Asinine"

I'm off to go and watch an old classic, starring Lee Marvin, called "The Dirty Dozen". Thank god for dvds!

With the obligatory tip of the "Squid lid ™ " to Jeffrey Ressner at "Politico" for his enlightening article on same.

Ok, so this is about 3 months too late ... better late then never!.

Fact is, I finally went to Ms. Clowry's site tonight. Hey, anyone who can make a "bumper" which sounds just a tad bit smoky, has got to be worth looking into. (And judging by her outstanding musical/vocal talent, it won't be my last ... this lady rocks!!) Thanks to being constantly promoted by WGN over night radio talkers, Steve and Johnnie. (Monday 2-5 am, Monday thru Thursday nights, 11pm-5am ... shameless plug - Harbor Master)

The big thing which got my attention, was a song written by Christa Wells, and performed by McClowry, called "Before The Tree Comes Down". Take a minute or two to listen to it (the full length version) here.

Done listening? (Wiped the moisture from your glasses? This one will raise the level of humidity in your room, guaranteed!) Yeah, it does pull at the heart. Especially if you have served, or you have loved ones serving now.

But wait! There's more!!

Profits from the sale of "Before the Tree Comes Down" are pledged to the charity The Armed Forces Foundation. Please help us support them with the purchase of this song via iTunes.

Source: Lisa McClowry's website

I don't know what her political views or slant is, and guess what, I don't care. The willingness to lend her considerable talents in the production of this song, along with providing all proceeds towards those which the song is about, says it all. She "gets it". And for this if nothing else, may require me to go and actually visit a music store and purchase a new cd or three.

And as for The Armed Forces Foundation, their mission statement says it all:

"The Armed Forces Foundation is a national nonprofit organization under the Department of Defense’s America Supports You Program. The Foundation is dedicated to promoting the morale, welfare and the quality of life of the United States Armed Forces community."

Source: The Armed Forces Foundation website

And for those who chose to donate to this group and help advance their mission, this is very good to know:

According to an independent financial audit of 2007, the Foundation proudly gives 96 cents for every dollar donated directly to the troops through financial assistance and support programs. With an operating budget of over three million dollars, the Foundation is committed to fiscal responsibility by performing independent third party audits on an annual basis. The Foundation is happy to provide the public with audit papers and answer any questions if needed.

Source: The Armed Forces Foundation website

Please, check out the song, and if so inclined, at least take a look at what good works The Armed Forces Foundation is doing for our countries service members and their families.

A floating turd ...

no matter how many times you flush, always tries to re-surface. You know this to be true. They refuse to exit the crapper... going quietly into the night.

So it would seem to be the case with that traitor err ... decorated Navy zero ... John "EFFEN" Karry(did you know he was in Viet Nam???). Just when you think this turd has finally left the commode, up to the surface he comes.

I have not a single word of kindness or support for this piece of human excrement. He violates what is good and decent about being a Naval Officer. No, I wasn't one, but had the honor and privilege to have served with and under quite a number of dedicated, professional, personally accountable men and woman. Officers who took their oath of duty quite literally to heart. Kerry, isn't worthy of licking their boots, and his actions past and present besmirch them all.

My blood pressure is heading north just typoing this. So to provide a brief refresher you could look at my post on Aug 5th 2004 regarding Kerry (I would link it, but the archives seem to be a bit hinky... though going back to Aug on the monthly Archives seems to work ... at Snugg Harbor ... not at CIA), or more importantly head over to The Patriot Post and read their take on the junior scumbag Senator from Teddy "the floater" Kennedy's personal playground. His recent antics, have caused him to float to the surface of the political cesspool. Can we finally get it right and flush him out to the backwaters of inequity once and for all?

Loose Lips?

"Hey Akmed. do you think we should tell our exalted leader about the latest news?"
"What are you talking about Mo?"
"We are supposed to launch a massive attack against the infidels, Jews, and less then faithful followers of Allah as soon as the spawn of Satan Naval forces leave the waters near Iran."
"And ...???"
"Akmed, don't you read the New York Times, or Washington Post??"
"Mo, you son of a diseased camel and infidel whore, you know I can not read any thing printed in the tongue of the infidel ... I break out in hives!" "Tell me, what you have found out."
"The Great Satan is so weak he can not even keep his own people from sharing their secrets with us. And we are not talking about some secret infidel agent ... no, the Great Satan's own print media willingly provides us with the time table for their fleets movement(s) in and out of the Gulf."

From the Washington Post, via the Associated Press, Tuesday, July 10, 2007; 4:20 PM

WASHINGTON -- After a much-publicized military buildup in the Persian Gulf, the United States is now planning to have only one aircraft carrier in the region for part of this year.

In what officials have said was partly muscle-flexing toward Iran, the Navy has maintained two aircraft carrier battle groups in area since early this year and twice held major exercises in the Gulf.

But the force could be reduced to one carrier in the coming weeks unless one now there is ordered to stay beyond its planned homecoming or another is rescheduled to go there early, three defense officials said Tuesday.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to speak on the subject for the record. The military tries to say as little as possible about ship movements for security reasons. (text placed in BOLD by me- the Harbor Master)

"Mo, can this be true? The Great Satan is just giving this information away? If it was our people who would leak this to the enemy they would suffer a quick and painful death. They are either weak, fools, or both"

"Only Allah, or the owners of the NYT know the answers to these questions Akmed. We should just be thankful we are able to enjoy the benefits of the Great Satan's Freedom of the press. Our grandfathers didn't have that luxury back during the West's World War II. But we do now!"

Oh, and Akmed, if you think this is a fluke, the other news agency of the West, Reuters, tries to camouflage it, but says much the same thing. Ya know, sometimes being a terrorist ...err freedom fighter for Allah ™ is just too easy."

We Are The Folksong Army

"So join in the folk song army!
Guitars are the weapons we bring
To the fight against poverty, war, and injustice.
Ready, aim, sing!"

Tom Lehrer "That Was The Week That Was"

Why start a rant about basic training with a clip from a Tom Lehrer song? Well, in today's Wall Street Journal, in their "Page One" section, or on the front page left hand column (if you happen to have access to the paper version), there is an article about the "kinder, gentler, Army". After reading it, all I can say is, "May god have mercy on this country, cause if we get into a major scuffle....we are going to have some major concerns to work around." These concerns would not have been there (or at least not to the same degree) had basic training been exactly what it was, say, 30 years ago.

My recruiter, to his credit, told me the main purpose of basic training was to see if I could handle the pressure, and physical stress the military (potentially) could demand. It (boot camp) was a weeding out process as much as it was a major learning experience. The benefit to (in my case, the Navy) the respective service was they got someone who would be able to handle themselves when it mattered. The benefit to the Airman, Soldier, Sailor, or Marine....was they got a *gut check* and once tested...knew more about themselves and their abilities then ever before...and could build upon that.

New recruits used to be welcomed to boot camp here with the "shark attack." For decades, drill sergeants in wide-brim hats would swarm around the fresh-off-the-bus privates shouting orders. Some rattled recruits would make mistakes, A few would cry. Today, the Army is opting for a quieter approach. "I told my drill sergeants to stop the nonsense,".

Nonsense?!?! I suppose this "nonsense", which was nothing more than a tool used to start the weeding out process, to see how the new recruit would react to sudden change/stress, and give drill sergeant(s) a heads up as to which recruits may be potential concerns....was just a waste of time. Never mind it worked. And was a start to the process of changing individuals into becoming a member of a well trained fighting force. What appears to be more important, though the "Journal" did not come out and say it, is we have to preserve the individuals self esteem. Don't raise their stress levels!! They might get too upset and want to go home to mommy! And though this may be part of the Army's reasoning...it isn't the real reason, that is brought to light a bit further down (it gets worse).

For most of it's existence, boot camp was a place where drill sergeants would weed out the weak and turn psychologically soft civilians into hardened soldiers.......Once-feared drill sergeants have been ordered to yell less and mentor more. "Before, our drill sergeants' attitude was 'you better meet my standard or else.' Now it's I am going to do all I can to assist you in meeting the Army standard,'"

Funny, back in the day, my Company Commander (the Navy version of a Marine Drill Instructor or Army Drill Sergeant) was the standard to be met...period. He WAS the Navy in our eyes. He was GOD. The Alpha and Omega. Besides the fact all instruction(s) given by him or his fellow instructors were to be considered law, and followed to the letter, his "standard" and the Navy's "standard" were one and the same. Sounds like a cop out on the Army's part and a further erosion of the Drill Instructors authority. (To be fair...the other services seem to be heading in this same direction....people, we are all in trouble.)

Recruits still must meet the same basic standards and pass the same tests for physical fitness and marksmanship to graduate, say Army officials. But more variable criteria that in the past might get a recruit expelled-such as whether a Drill Sergeant thinks a recruit has the discipline and moral values to be a soldier-have been jettisoned. "Now it doesn't matter what the Drill Sergeant thinks. We work off the written standard."

Sheesh, forget about eroding of the Drill Sergeant's authority....this sounds like an out and out mudslide!

Some Drill Sergeants worry that the "kinder and gentler approach"-as Drill Sergeants have dubbed the changes-is producing softer Soldiers. "If the privates can't handle the stress of a Drill Sergeant yelling at them, how will they handle the stress of bullets flying over their head?" "War is stressful. I think we overcorrected."

At least it appears there are some among the Senior NCO/NCO ranks who still understand what is (or should be) the end result of basic training.

So, what group of numb-nuts and fuzzy thinkers produced the current "kinder gentler" setting at basic??

A team of 20 officers from the Army's training command was formed to figure out how the service could help more Soldiers survive the first six months. they consulted sociologists, and psychiatrists and even flew in MTV's senior vice president of strategy and planning, in search of fresh ideas fro motivating today's youth.

Hmmmmmm social engineering strikes again!! But why does the Army (the other services are going down this path as well....with the possible exception of the Marines...bless their hearts!) feel the need to, yet again, soften what is possibly the single most important environment a young man or woman will be immersed in....to produce an American service member second to none?

The WSJ alludes to the answer on the second page of this article.

The new approach is helping the Army graduate more of its recruits. Last month, only 23 recruits failed to make the cut at Fort Leonard Wood's largest basic-training brigade, compared with 183 in January 2004. Army -wide about 11% of recruits currently flunk out in their first six months of training, down form 18% last May.

That's just a tease...a hint at the real bottom line...which comes a paragraph or two later...

The Army's decision to overhaul basic training came last spring. The service was having a hard time bringing in new recruits. It ultimately missed its 2005 recruiting goals for active-duty troops by 7,000 Soldiers, or 8%, and National Guard Soldiers by 13,000 or 20%. Meanwhile, boot-camp attrition was climbing. New Soldiers brought in to replace those who were tossed out weren't much better. "We realize that the further you go into the barrel, the lower the quality"

Bingo!!!! There it is. The real reason for all this sweetness and light. Fact is, the Army couldn't reach it's target numbers. So instead of attacking the root causes of this. They (as have the schools, the colleges, and others) took the easy way out....THEY LOWERED THEIR STANDARDS

There is more in this outstanding article by Greg Jaffe at the WSJ, and it is worth reading and commenting on. But for two things, the web access to WSJ is a subscription site, and more importantly, after reading it my blood pressure has reached the danger zone.

We are, as a rule, always going to have excellent men and women in our Armed Forces. But when the Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines who would have met the standard, regardless of where the bar was raised....now have to (at least subconsciously) worry about the ability of their fellow service member to be able to do whatever they are tasked with because they were not weeded out in the first place, then you've the potential for some serious problems.

WaPo Weasels

Russ Vaughn's writings are always welcome here. When the recent publishing of an editorial cartoon in the Washington Post, prompted all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit an official response, you know Russ would not be silent on this issue.

Normally, he sends his verse ...and lets it do his "talking" for him. This time, owing to the passions raging within, there was a brief line or two of commentary before his offering.

This may be too strong for some tastes. My usual forum, the American Thinker turned it down because of the implied violence. I had actually gone to bed after a fine dinner at an Italian restaurant looking forward to sweet dreams; but the anger at Toles and WaPo had been simmering all day. So much to my wife's dismay, I got up and started hammering the old keyboard. This is the result. Use your own judgment in deciding whether to post it or pass it on.

No, my friend, it won't get passed on here. And even though I am a retired Navy Vet, who has never had a shot fired against him in anger, I fully agree, be it a political cartoon or not, the medium Toles used to produce his message went beyond the pale. He is welcome to argue the validity of the message all he wants...there is freedom of speech/thought in this country after all. But to so flippantly denigrate those who gave so much, so he and others would continue to HAVE the right to speak and draw.....shows just how much those who seek to protect your rights, and have sacrificed, are really regarded (by the folks on the left)

I remember being jeered an spit upon in San Fransisco International back in the mid 70's (the war was long over...but the trash remained). It would seem today this trend still continues from those left of center. Only this time, they spit from their pens.

Your work is always welcome here Russ....and this one is no exception to that.
It's been done up in "black and white" because frankly there are only two sides...you either honor those who are willing to answer the call or you do not...it's as simple as that. To use their discomfort and pain for political punditry/point of view/more votes at the ballot box (and that last goes for both sides of aisle, btw) is the height of moral cowardice.

The Navy's CNO Has A Vision

In a recent issue of Proceedings the monthly magazine from the Naval Institute, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Navy's current CNO (Chief of Naval Operations, and for those unfamiliar with the military and the Navy in particular, he is *our* equivalent to a CEO in the civilian world.) pens an interesting article on his vision for the 21st century Navy.

To the Admirals credit, he recognizes the need for a strong, flexible, multi- platformed Navy. The demands of "today's world" will call on the maritime services to not only project power, but, as with his example of the Navy's response to the tsunami which devastated so much of the Indian Ocean coastal communities, be a key player in providing humanitarian aid/relief as well.

They will be expected to understand and foster cooperation in cultures far different from our own. They will be ambassadors, educators, health care providers, mentors, and friends to a diverse cross-section of the global community. They must, therefore, be equipped with the tools and skills to meet these challenges and to develop as leaders.

Despite the pc speak sprinkled throughout the above statement. This is really nothing new. From at least the early 70's (and, I am quite sure, well before that) upon entering a foreign port Sailors were constantly reminded they were "America's cultural ambassadors". For many of the people we would meet, we would be their first real contact with "An American". And most took that to heart. Fact is, Sailors were as curious about the country they were visiting as the foreign nationals were about us.

In short, you take the buzz words and pc speak out.....and most of this article could have been written 20 to 30 years ago. It is really nothing new. This, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. (Boring perhaps, but not bad.) It is, after all, a puff piece viewed primarily by those who are either presently in, have since separated/retired from the Navy, or interested parties in other agencies both governmental and civilian.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Si vis pacem, para bellum -- Flavius We may as civilized men want to reach and preach to the higher ideals and aspirations of mankind. And in and of itself, that is not a bad thing. It speaks toward the potential greatness of man (as ordained and willed by our Creator) that we subscribe to this. But to do so with the naivete (many would say foolishness, and they won't get an argument from me) of say, a Jimmy Carter, without acknowledging and preparing for the ever present threat of mankind's darker side. Like it or not, every country which through outright acts of appeasement, or sacrificing all for the sake of peace has, in very short order, disappeared from the face of the earth.

The fact is in order to remain strong there must be warriors. Whether fully manned, operational, and at the ready....or if possible, ready to forgo their civilian occupations and assume, again fully capable and ready, capable of defending and or guarding this country and it's national interests.

Or to quote Daniel Webster--

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."

Then there is General Douglas MacArthur

"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation."

There is a thread in all the above quotes...as to what a warrior is. They are the ones who willingly answer their countries call, and to the best of their abilities carry out their duties as assigned. They may have entered any given branch of service for any number of reasons (and those are many and varied). But when called to arms they do not shirk their oaths, but turn smartly and carry out "the plan of the day". Some fight for pride (personal, or for the "Unit"), some because the oath they took is paramount to all other commitments. Others for the blood of the warrior, strong in their family heritage, which coursing through their veins. There are those who simply believe there is nothing more important then to be there to cover their buddies back. I would imagine all would find at least some part of the last post personally resonates in their mind. And all could find common ground with any of the quotes above.

Kipling Said It Best

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer, The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here." The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

Yes, Kipling said it well and proper. When the wolf is at the door, the public at large looks to those in uniform to do what must be done to alleviate the threat. Though in the last 30 to 40 years there has been an ever larger group of folks who seek to offer the wolf kind hearts and coronets in the naive belief the wolf was nothing more then emotionally disturbed or acting on the after effects of an abused childhood. When in reality, the wolf seeks nothing more then a full belly and domination of its territory...but I digress.

And when the threat is removed then we need to rid ourselves of the "burden" of a well armed, trained, and flexible military. (We have made the world a safer place, and because we have dealt with the "enemy", we never need fear again. Thus we have no further need of them, cause it will NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.) This line of thought happened after both World Wars, the collapse of the USSR, (And even before that, during Carters poor excuse of a presidency as well, cause we just needed to learn how to get along with everyone don't 'cha know.)

Now I don't support the line of thinking in the last paragraph. John Stuart Mill says it best

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

But it would seem at least half of this great country would blithely ignore the ugly truth of human nature. That given the chance there are still far too many out there who would absorb this nation, indeed, our very civilization, bend it or break it to their will, needs or desires. Without "Tommy" at the ready, this is an all to real likelihood. Roughly a century ago, Kipling recognized this. He noted how the civilian populace would just as soon forget the warrior in times of good fortune and with no wolf at their gate. But when the fangs fast approached and the pack has blood in its eyes....why they rallied around "Tommy" he will protect us!. What the fail to see is Tommy and his ilk spring from their very loins. If you denigrate the office Tommy holds you will find fewer and fewer to accept the mantle as the years go by. 'Til there are no more "Tommy's" to be had (or hardly enough). If we chose to ignore the message of Kipling's poem and the thoughts of Mill above we forget at our peril.

Hazing (part 2)

As mentioned in my last post, hazing has made it back in the news. The last post dealt with how the media was reporting this. Now let's address "hazing" itself.

No, I am not saying returning to, or allowing hazing to be part of our military culture, is going to solve all our services internal problems. What I am saying is:

We have allowed our traditions/rites of passage to be watered down to the point of being meaningless bits of "feel good" paper, vice what they were originally intended to be. We have robbed our current (and future) service members a chance at truly being part of said traditions. Be it crossing the equator, the Arctic circle, advancing in rate, or becoming a Chief Petty Officer vice "an E-7/8/9 (You old time "initiated" Chiefs out there "know" what I mean by that.). By making events no longer meaningful, in ways the human spirit can understand, and remember, as being a true milestone instead of a speedbump. ("I will never forget, and cherish the real meaning of this moment", vice, "I have a certificate here somewhere")

The bonding which comes from the "fun" times, the shared apprehension of polliwogs....the camaraderie of being a shellback. These selective, and traditional, rites of passage, go long ways in promoting "esprit de corps". Handing out a piece of paper during morning quarters is *not* the same thing. The same goes for being a blue nose, or the "tacking on" a "crow" or set of chevrons.

Looking at it on the recruit level. (And those who won't admit to some form of hazing being part of recruit training, are only lying to themselves.) You were told when you went to boot camp, or basic training, if your recruiter was worth his salt...that they were going to push you hard physically and mentally . Why? If nothing else, it thinned out the ranks of those who could not handle the pressure....better to find this out now, before placing this person in a real life or death situation. On the other side of the coin....once you made it through said crucible, you began to have a much clearer picture of yourself and what you were capable of, perhaps for the first time in your life. If a few harsh words were tossed in your direction, physical demands were placed upon you, that made no sense but were to be carried out because the wrath of your Company Commander/DI was not something you wanted to bring down upon yourself or your shipmates/future Marines. All this could be construed as "hazing". All of it was part of "the rite of passage" going from "recruit" to Marine, Sailor, Soldier, or Airman. It was needed to produce the best product possible. Producing the largest percentage possible of people able to function when a SHTF moment happened.

Yes, there are some outstanding people in our services now. But from what I have been reading...there is also a lot of deadwood out there...perhaps more then in previous generations. In this day and age of declining numbers of folks willing to serve their country, it is more important then ever we get rid of the deadwood as early as possible. "Hazing", at least in recruit training, was a tool which helped in this process. "Hazing", in the fleet, squadron, company, or division, allows for the bonds forged at the beginning of ones time in service to be tempered, to be made even stronger.

I say...enough with the PC/social engineering...bring it back.

Hazing (part 1)

I read two articles, both talking about the same thing. Hazing in the military, specifically the Navy. Both are from accredited news sources. But notice what a difference omitting select information puts on the immediacy of the stories. And (in the case of the second article) gives a better idea as to why and Admiral had to address this.

The first comes from AP

The second from "The Virginian-Pilot"

The AP article leaves out important information. Such as, these incidents have apparently gone on over a two year time frame. This takes some of the sting out of it. AP making it appear all this happened in the same time frame. (Much like a frat hazing...or perhaps the Sailors having the same kind of attitude those in the NG had at Abu Ghraib?) The AP article does not mention (and to be fair, does not directly imply that their were females "hazed". But knowing there are females on many ships these days, it leaves that an open ended question...and perhaps speculation (for bringing back memories of "tailhook"?) again, sins of omission.

It can be argued there is a time and place for what can be called hazing. And the Virginian Pilot article, being much more detailed in it's quotes from the Admiral, in my mind, seek to promote this kind of discussion(good for them!).

The bottom line. Hats off to Jack Dorsey and the Virginian-Pilot. In providing all information needed to get a full flavor as to what was going on. Yes, it smacks of political correctness (ie: Hazing is NOT NICE...heck, let's face it, it's just plain NAUGHTY!), though the comments, especially those by Presiding Admiral Nowakowski, smack of being the end result of decades long social engineering.

Eddie Albert 1906-2005

WLS Radio reported (via ABC news wires) Eddie Albert has died at the age of 99. Albert was a Lt(jg) in the Navy, and a haled from my home state of Illinois (born 1906, in Rock Island Illinois). It is interesting to note-like many from his generation- he chose to take an active part in fighting the Axis during WWII, unlike some of those from the next generation of actors (see previous post). Albert, by then well into his thirties, answered the call instead of avoiding it, or protesting. Better then 40 years after the fact, he was awarded the Bronze Star for his actions.

From the Navy News Service archives:

During the Battle of Tarawa on Nov.
21, 1943, LTJG Edward A. Heimberger, boat officer on board
attack transport USS Sheridan (APA 51), pulled Marines from
the beaches and surf to waiting personnel on USS Schroeder
(DD 501).
For this, actor LTJG "Eddie Albert" Heimberger was
awarded the Bronze Star with Combat Distinguishing Device,
presented during ceremonies held Oct. 13 at the U.S. Navy
Memorial in Washington, DC.
The citation, presented by Secretary of the Navy John
H. Dalton, states that Heimberger "was responsible for
leading certain elements of the amphibious assault craft to
their designated landing sites on the beach. In the midst of
one of the bloodiest battles of the war, LTJG Heimberger
organized and initiated the removal of both the dead and
wounded from the lagoon. He gathered three other landing
craft to assist in the effort which resulted in saving many
lives."
More than 40 Marines and soldiers, both the dead and
wounded, were recovered as a result of his actions,
witnessed by Sailors on the Schroeder who took the rescued
on board.

For more "traditional information" about his acting career you can go to the IMDB listing for him here. Too bad a majority of today's actors and actresses don't have half the character and integrity that many of their seniors did.

Send Hanoi Jane a "Kiss"

Figuratively, of course!! Let her know how much you appreciate all she has said and done for the many Vietnam era vets, for the families of those who never returned from that Southeast Asian conflict. What's that you're saying?? She didn't do a damn thing for the vets...she was anti-war to the point of being a traitor?? .... As most of you know, seriously, this is not anything new. That she has, in recent years, been trying to put her own version out there, as opposed to what is really "the truth", is sad but not unexpected. This is a typical stock in trade reaction from the progressive/liberal side of the street, if you don't like history/your past, re-invent same.

You want to send a small, but clear signal you are not buying into her repackaged bs? Well funny you should ask, Russ Vaughn sent me a link to a San Diego "classic rock" radio station, which is running a poll (its on the right hand column as you look here. This should be a nice little tweek from all of us to the "Traitor who set the standard for all the others who followed (Kerry, M. Moore, etc). I am of the opinion, if they get enough response for this...it could effect the number of theaters who elect to show her film (Especially theaters near military installations, or military retiree communities.)

Anyhow go vote...an show one of Hollywood's finest, shinning examples of "morally bankrupt" how much you "support" her.(It's true...look in the encyclopedia...right next to "morally bankrupt actress" is a picture of Hanoi Jane.)

(And she is still truly unrepentant after all these years.....traitorous bitch!)

Btw, as of 11am this morning the "keep her movie out of theaters near military installations" was at 76%. Those who would support dried up old crones having their films shown were just a tad over 23%. And this was in the land of fruits, flakes, and nuts.....maybe there is hope for California yet.

UPDATE:

It seems as of Sunday Morning, the radio station has changed their poll. The Fonda question is history now. But as of 11:25pm, Saturday night those who would want her film not to be shown still had around 64% against those who would have no problem with it being shown at theaters near military installations 35%.

My solution to this concern is as follows. Once you are either doing a long stretch in a federal pen, or have been sent to "the great protest march in the sky", via the judicial use of "Kevorkian Joy Juice" ™ , because you have been found guilty of treasonit is terrifically hard to make any movies period...so end of concern. Your mileage may vary.

"Recruiting, The Media, And Reality" (Part Two)

This is a bit different than the last post. Though there are some similarities. The biggest being parental influence. And to a lesser extent, that of some medical professionals out there, who willingly follow the "flavor of the day" in treating those who seek answers to their (alleged) medical concerns.

I am talking about kids, asthma, and wanting to (eventually) join the uniformed services.

Eligibility Determinations and Waivers b. Medical Waiver

(1) In addition to the medical requirements for enlistment contained in the
Army Regulation 40-501 and the Manual of the Medical Department
Chapter 15), the following additional information is provided to determine
whether a request for a medical waiver should be submitted:

• Asthma. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) has granted
waiver authority for asthma in remission to CHBUMED. Prior to
submitting an asthma waiver request, ensure that the examining
physician has written in Block 25 of the DD Form 2807-1 the last date of
occurrence of symptoms of asthma, reactive airway disease, exercise
induced bronchospasm, wheezy bronchitis, asthmatic bronchitis, or any
pulmonary symptoms that may interfere with duties or restrict activities,
and the age of the applicant on that date.

(2) Refer applicants who report experiencing any of the following asthma
symptoms to CHBUMED via CNRC (Code 00M) for waiver consideration.

(a) Episodes documented in the medical record as asthma, reactive
airway disease, exercise-induced broncho-spasm, wheezy bronchitis,
or asthmatic bronchitis.
(b) Documented history of a cough, wheezing, or shortness of breath
generally lasting 6 months or longer.
(c) Complaints of any breathing problems that interfere with performance
of duty or restriction of activities.
(d) History of using an inhaler for any reason.
(e) Cases where a clear determination cannot be made on the above
symptoms.
(f) History of asthma or suspected history thereof, at any point the
applicant’s past medical history.

The above was from the "Recruiting Manual (Enlisted)". This was an older copy (circa 2001) which was found via google and was a PDF file. There may have been changes since this was published, your best source of up-to-date information regarding eligibility is your recruiter! Talk with them.

But getting back to my original point. If all you have is mom's belief (or grandma's or Auntie Rottencrouch's) that you suffered from asthma, and you want to get in the service...bring medical documentation. The recruiter can not diagnose your symptoms, but they can (and will) submit your paperwork to the appropriate personnel for review or disposition, if you are sincere in wanting a career in the service. We had a case of an applicant who was active in the school track program, ran in marathons, but during the interview, claimed their doctor told them (No, I am not going to name names...sheesh) they had "Sports Asthma". ™ Well, they brought in the supporting paperwork (frankly, we found this one hard to believe), and by god, they *did* have it listed as such....claimed it hurt after running *x* number of miles....well, most folks I know, who do any running at all note it isn't a picnic (go figure). But again, let the doctors at the MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) and or the medical review board(s) make the call as to whether or not you can join...that's what they get paid the big bucks for. Your mom, aunt, or grandma, however much they love you, are not doctors (okay, there are doctors who are mothers, aunts, and grandmothers....put a sock in it you smart asses *grin*), and neither are the recruiters, but they know what avenues can be taken to address any medical concerns the potential enlistee may have, and in most cases, that is getting the paperwork submitted up the chain for review.

"Recruiting, The Media, And Reality" (Part One)

Militantpundit, over at Making Tomorrows Military Today, (a good man doing an often thankless job, and a very demanding one at that) has a couple of concerns. Having "toted the bag" a few years, myself, as a Navy Recruiter, I know where he is coming from. So thought I would speak about that profession, along with addressing some of his concerns from his post.

Let's start with the story about the son of a current anti-war protester. The following blockquote is from the father's web site, so there is a strong possibility it is biased, not only from a father's point of view (understandable, being a father myself, I can see how that would happen), but based on the overall content of his site, and his point of view, biased by his beliefs as well. (Also understandable, but considering he was a vet, and has to have had some sort of understanding about what and how a member of the armed services can speak to the press in or out of uniform, has been less then straight forward with his blog visitors and with his son.) But let's see the quote....

During this time, Drew [The son of the anti-war father, and a "nuke" in the Navy, on active duty--ed.] was home on leave. He met me at one of these vigils. He held a sign that read "Bring Our Troops Home." He wasn't in uniform.

While at the vigil, he answered a reporter's question about the war in Iraq. "I just don't agree with what we're doing right now," he said. "I don't think our guys should be dying in Iraq. But I'm not a pacifist. I'll do my part."

The reporter who interviewed my son worked for the Associated Press. The story he wrote ran nationally. The next day we received numerous phone calls from other journalists wanting to question this active-duty sailor who dared question the war. Drew declined all further requests for interviews. He never intended to cause a stir. His answer to the original question had been a simple, heartfelt reaction to the daily pictures of carnage that the embedded reporters were describing to the nation.

My son was prosecuted for his comments. The Navy charged him with violating Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Disloyal Statements. At his hearing, he was asked if he were a sympathizer with the enemy and whether he had considered acts of sabotage. To both of those questions he answered no. When asked if he regretted his comments, he also answered no. He was convicted and demoted.

Unless they changed the UCMJ Article 134 reads as follows:

§ 934. Art. 134. General article Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

And yes, looking further into the UCMJ, there is a specific charge of Disloyal Statements (item 72) under the Article 134. But there are lots of questions here:

1. Was the young man brought up on charges due to his statements to the press? Or was it something else (more) that he said? Based on what the father claims, this seems very flimsy for this kind of charge, and or to have the time spent on prosecuting same. (This is assuming it was a court-martial, vice Captain's Mast- the Navy's version of Office Hours for you non seafaring types) My guess is there is more then a couple of things going on here we don't know about.

2. What, if any, are the sons affiliations with the fathers anti-war organization(s)? This could be behind the charges being leveled at the son. If there wasn't enough evidence to tie the son into the groups, or if coercion (by the father) was used to get the son to follow along, the lesser charge of Disloyal Statements, may have been "a slap on the hand" (if done at Captain's Mast) to try and get him to realize his career in the Navy is in jeopardy if he continues to be a part of same....not to mention he is seriously messing with his chances to hold on to his security clearances...being a part of the nuclear team.