I’m gonna tell you a story about a couple of groups of people.
News people – especially newspaper people – subscribe to the American ideal of what journalism is, and what journalists are. Part of the culture involves seeing journalism as an almost monastic calling, with a higher codes and rituals and an impenetrable argot that separates them from baser callings. Among good reporters, it’s a mission; among lesser ones, it’s an affectation. It’s neither good nor bad.
I grew up with a foot in that world; I was a news reporter, on and (mostly) off from age 16 into my late twenties. I did my level best to stay detached and stay as close to “objective” as I could (even during my stint in the news department at ulter-liberal KFAI, of all places), where I am happy to relate that nobody ever guessed from my reporting that I had any politics at all.
And then there’s the other world; the more plebeian, less-lofty world of radio, especially the part of radio outside of the few remaining serious commercial radio newsrooms. The world of stunts, dirty tricks, “punking” the competition with gleeful abandon; the world that spawned Howard Stern and Scott Shannon and Opie and Anthony, for better or worse. A world where an extra couple of hundred listeners tuning in for an extra fifteen minutes can mean the difference between having a great job and filing for unemployment yet again. It’s a nasty, brutish, deeply dysfunctional world where arrested adolescents romp and play routinely on the dark side of the ethical moon. And damn, when it’s fun, it’s fun!
Blogs are somewhere between the two, and way outside ’em to boot. A blog reflects its writers, pretty much; you can tell Powerline is a bunch of lawyers with scrappy streaks, that The Sheila Variations is written by an eclectic with ADD, that Captain’s Quarters’ Ed Morrissey is a mild-mannered guy with an incisive rhetorical left hook and a Rainman-like command of facts. And you can probably tell that this blog is the product of a guy who wears a bunch of hats; diarist, would-be-eclectic, amateur pundit-via-rhetorical-pugilist.
Anyway.
Last week, when the “Punk the Monitor” scheme got hatched, I asked myself – “is this a good idea?” to mock, to “punk”, such a request?
Jeff Fecke left a comment yesterday:
Mitch–
Thank you for your interest, but I have no comment at this time.
Sincerely,
Jeff Fecke
P.S. Oh, wow, look how easy that was!
Oh, wow, but that’s not the whole story.
If it were, say, Tim O’Brien or Nick Coleman or Lori Sturdevant writing to me, that’s what I’d do. Because they’re biased hacks who are out to attack the politics I personally espouse, and will use any info I provide to that end – but they’re the establishment, and everyone knows what they’re about. No surprises there.
And if Eric Black or MPR or most mainstream reporters sent an email, it’d be another story; most of them take “detachment” fairly seriously.
But the Minnesota Monitor is an inherently deceitful enterprise, a propaganda organ funded (lavishly, by blog standards) by liberals with deep pockets whose mission is to win elections and regain control of this nation. Which would be fine – if they were open and honest about their goals, motivations and support, so that the unwitting could make up their own mind. Nobody reads Powerline or Captain’s Quarters or this blog for that matter and comes away thinking there’s any attempt at neutrality (although I do try to be fair).
As such, the Minnesota Monitor – like the Huffington Post or the Young Turks – deserves overt mockery – which, by the way, is the type of thing Fecke himself serves up at conservatives in non-Monitor blogging (you be the judge!), but expects everyone else to turn off when he puts on his “junior reporter” hat. It’d be like me doing this overtly partisan blog five days a week, and then walking into the Patriot studio and demanding that everyone treat me as a non-biased, open-minded objective person – nobody would buy it, and I’d get mocked for trying (and deserve it!).
Why, it’s almost as if, if you don’t want someone to interview you, you can decline to be interviewed. And you can even do so without being a jerk. And you don’t have to “punk” anyone.
Jerk?
Mommy? Is that you?
Jeff is right. “Punking” the monitor is an act of free will.
And declining “interviews” would certainly be a good idea – I know I would. Ignoring the Monitor completely would be a fine plan, actually. Most people do!
But mocking, pranking, “punking” is a perfectly fine way to express a different opinion; that we do not respect The Monitor; we see the “junior journalist” badge, but we’re not buying it (for good reasons that have more to do with journalistic credibility than ideology); that we are competing for hearts, minds, funny bones, votes, and the nodding realization at the end of the day that “these guys are reliable”.
But hey, that’s what you do when you’re an adult.
No, Jeff, it’s what you do when you respect the requestor.
That’s what, say, Michael Brodkorb did the two times I asked him for comment–and the two times he’s asked me for comment.
Michael works in politics, and must maintain relatinships with all sorts of people. I do not.
You and Aplikowski are less mature than Brodkorb. I mean, if that was me, I’d be really embarrassed. But hey, whatevs.
And I’d be embarassed if I was busted passing clairvoyance off as “reporting”, and even more so if I ever used the word “whatevs” (or “Pwn3d” or “hacktacular” or “whatevah”) in a sentence.
Tomato, tomahto.
Now have your people get back to me on those 13 questions, OK?
And add this one; how did the bloggers who now work for Minnesota Monitor react when the giggly fratboys at MN Publius “punked” Kennedy Vs. The Machine by squatting on their old blogspot space?
You set Minnesota Monitor up with a false charge of hypocrisy to justify your own bad behavior. Fecke readily acknowledged in your comment section that he is a liberal and that Minnesota Monitor is a liberal enterprise. I dropped by to see for myself. (The site is kind of boring, of course, because Minnesota is boring. You people seem to like it, though, so who is Angryclown to judge?) Its political orientation is no secret. They’re a bunch of liberals who think Bush sucks and that Washington and St. Paul should be run by Democrats. Where’s the conspiracy? Not exactly the da Vinci Code here.
to justify your own bad behavior.
I disagree; the behavior was not bad.
Not exactly the da Vinci Code here.
And it’s a good thing, because if that “Amelie” chick from DVC were writing for the Monitor, my political beliefs might start to wobble.
Man, is she hot or what? I’d let her sit on *my* Vespa.
I think we could all be better people, if we just had our own “Code of Ethics” to ignore.
Angryclown Johnson is right! A cursory glance at Minnesota Monitor reveals its’ political leanings right away…where’s the “deceit”? I’m afraid this is going to end (or has already ended) badly, not unlike your Blogswarm the Obvious campaign from last year.
Perhaps we’ll see reams of Excel spreadsheets showing that 93% of Minnesota Monitor stories cast Bush as dangerously incompetent (as compared with only 89.5% for FOX “News” and 86% for Barbara Bush’s diary.)
The only mistake Fecke made was acting in Good Faith and expecting it in return.
I learned an awful lot about the Right side of the Local Blogosphere this week.
Flash
Fecke can’t act in Good Faith. That is the WHOLE FRICKIN POINT!
“where’s the “deceit”?”
Ask them how they are funded.
Re the blogswarm/excel sheets: Same basic idea! A group misleadingly presenting itself (in the case of Growth for Justice as “bipartisan”, in the case of MinMon as “objective fair journalists”), getting called on it.
How are you funded, Master of Bation?
Assclown belched: “You set Minnesota Monitor up with a false charge of hypocrisy to justify your own bad behavior.”
Huh. Evidently MiniMoni’s stories ring true when assclown detects them reverberating off his colon walls on the way up to his ears.
That’s really odd, because they sound like bullshit to everyone else when heard through the open air.
Maybe the shit that has accumulated in Assclown’s ears through time somehow has a nulling effect on Feckless’s spoken bullshit….-1 +1 =0.
If Joe Liberal gives an interview on the Hugh Hewitt show and spews a bunch of dishonest ultra-left wing garbage that he doesn’t really believe in an attempt to punk Hewitt, then crows about it “HAW HAW, I SURE GOT HIM GOOD” then who really looks like the ass? My vote is for Joe. Now imagine that Joe goes on a tear saying the joke was done to prove that Hewitt is antagonistic towards Democrats, which is ALL THE MORE OUTRAGEOUS because Hewitt identifies himself as “objective” (which Hewitt announces regularly on his show, BTW). I suspect most people would tell Joe, in small words so he could understand, that yes we know Mr. Hewitt is rather conservative as do most people despite his claims which normal folks just chalk up to the usual partisan bullshit to be found on both sides of the spectrum and perhaps, Joe, you should know that willful dishonesty is a bad thing and that you need to go have a nice lie-down somewhere.
“How are you funded, Master of Bation?”
Tips!
Actually that’s not completely honest. My google ads have generated $25.30 so far this year. How much until I can call my self a journalist?
“(which Hewitt announces regularly on his show, BTW).”
On the contrary, Hewitt regularly rails against the idea of anyone doing news or political commentary calling his or her self objective. Hewitt is a partisan republican and has said so several times that I’m aware of. “Objective”, of course does not mean the same thing thing as truthful or honest, or even non-partisan.
Predator said,
“Fecke can’t act in Good Faith. That is the WHOLE FRICKIN POINT!”
Let’s review what happened.
Fecke sends Aplikowski an email describing exactly what he is doing, why he is doing it and asks if Aplikowski would be interested in contributing.
Here it is. Taken directly from Residual Farce’s own blog.
On Apr 30, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Jeff Fecke wrote:
Andy–
I’m writing because I’m wondering if you might possibly be interested in being interviewed for a piece I’m working on regarding the anti-Carey faction within the GOP. I think that there’s an interesting story there, and I’d like to get your side of it if you’re interested in talking.
After some back and forth via email, Aplikowski delivers his responses and the deceptive, malicious Fecke delivers a piece about… the anti-Carey faction within the GOP. Horror of horrors. Fecke you bastard. How dare you actually do exactly what you told Andy you were going to do.
Fecke even apparently gave Aplikowski a review copy before posting the finished piece. Wow. What a deceptive prick this Jeff Fecke must be.
Fecke made 2 mistakes. His first was that he assumed that a little band of chortling party brown shirts were actually a legitimate source to go for a story about opposing party politics. His second was being naïve and gullible enough to actually believe that there could be some mature dialogue between Minnesota Monitor and the Northern Alliance Ego Brigade.
Note to Fecke; I hope for your own sake that you get it. These guys really can’t stand you and that’s not going to change no matter how many times you play the cute but badly beaten little puppy.
As usual, the ever-dishonest Doug leaves out what came before to make his point, taking only that which serves him, leaving out the entire five-year run-up to this point.
How about reviewing some of what garnered such disrespect, like the John Kline incident? To review, Fecke showed up unprepared for technological difficulties; he was unable to liveblog because the wifi was turned off. This is how he recalled the incident:
“Minnesota Monitor had intended to liveblog the event. Unfortunately, while some conservative bloggers were allowed internet access, Kline staffers informed this reporter that I would not be able to take advantage of internet access that had been offered me after inquiry with the Lakeville school district.”
Wrong. The conservative bloggers weren’t allowed access either; Michael Brodkorb used his own air card to liveblog while the rest simply took notes and posted later.
He also used clairvoyance to discern that “the Kline camp went into this meeting terrified of…something. I’m not sure what.” Reporters doing actual journalism report facts…you know, who, what, when, where, why, how. They tell the story for those of us that weren’t there. Here’s the question: should anyone take seriously someone who regularly blogs insightful commentary such as:
“Why Does Bush Hate The Troops?
Article says administration trying to solve vets health care crisis.
Oh yeah. That’ll work.”
The reason you don’t review such past history, Doug, is because you know doing so will tear your argument like a trailer house in a tornado.
Oh yeah, Yossarian was completely right in the other thread: get a recording device and do some footwork by doing a live interview instead of lazily sending an e-mail full of questions. Nick Coleman may be a partisan hack, but at least he does live interviews at the source.
And I call a Godwins Law loss for Doug with the “chortling party brown shirts” Remark.
But new let a lack of understanding of the facts get in the way of a good smear , eh Doug?
Chaosfish-
What’s more, the SA leadership was homosexual, through and through. Hate speech! Hate speech!
Paul said,
“The reason you don’t review such past history, Doug, is because you know doing so will tear your argument like a trailer house in a tornado.”
Wrong. The reason I wouldn’t review such past history is that I would rather comment on the actions of Mitch and Andy in this whole sordid little affair rather than on Jeff Fecke who deserves a lot of the criticism thrown his way.
If you want me to criticize Fecke’s actions, i’ll do it just as soon as Mitch or someone else from the MOB gets around to criticizing Aplikowski for claiming the reason he couldn’t join the military is because he “exceed the height to weight ratio for the US Marines” and instead chose to stay behind on the home front to protect the troops from being “criticized and demoralized”.
G.I. Aplikowski – Real American Hero. By Hasbro
If you want me to criticize Fecke’s writing i’ll do it as soon as someone criticizes Andy for writing that “One of this countries darkest days was the Viet Nam era”.
Good Lord. If you held each other to the same standards that you hold liberals you’d have the Northern Alliance monthly newsletter. Rush Limbaugh would be syndicated in 17 cities across the United States and FOX News would be broadcasting on uhf channel 74.
“And you can probably tell that this blog is the product of a guy who wears a bunch of hats; diarist, would-be-eclectic, amateur pundit-via-rhetorical-pugilist.”
You forgot “verbosely hyperactive”. As in “…the product of a verbosely hyperactive guy…”. It’s one of your charms, Mitch. That and the frequent rhetorical bitch-slaps you give Doug.
Wow Doug . In one 24 hour period you go down for the big loss on Godwins law and the Chickenhawk meme.
Doug ,Election observer and liberal hack and now, new and improved recycler of losing tropes!
Chaosfish,
I could care less if G. I. Aplikowski joins the service or not. What I commented on is his pathetic excuses for NOT joining the service.
Mitch at least can argue that he’s on the other side of 40, has 2 bad knees and is raising 2 kids as a single parent.
Aplikowski’s only excuse seems to be that he is apparently incapable of abstaining from the jelly filled at his little Republican events.
If a liberal would have belched out the sorry excuse that Aplikowski did, you would have been all over it like oil on Swiftee.
We’ve got real soldiers serving oversees. Aplikowski should be embarrassed for trying to hold his partisan hackery up as some sort of military operation.
Gotta love the ChickenHawk argument. It allows the anti-war crowd to hide their own cowardice behind a veneer of moral defiance, while at the same time deeming those who support war as cowards. It’s really the most useful, though moronic, argumentative tool at their disposal.
Gotta love the “i’d serve if it weren’t for my ____________ condition” boast. It allows the play dress up pro-war crowd to hide their own cowardice behind a veneer of macho pretentiousness.
Gotta love the “I’d stop being a contentious dick if it weren’t for my personality” post. It allows the frustrated anti-war crowd to pretend they have some actual relevance while maintaining a veneer of macho pretentiousness.
Gotta love the “gotta love” comments. They’re the best.
The reason I wouldn’t review such past history is that I would rather comment on the actions of Mitch and Andy in this whole sordid little affair rather than on Jeff Fecke who deserves a lot of the criticism thrown his way.
Thanks for proving my point, Doug.
What I commented on is his pathetic excuses for NOT joining the service.
Gotta love the “i’d serve if it weren’t for my ____________ condition” boast. It allows the play dress up pro-war crowd to hide their own cowardice behind a veneer of macho pretentiousness.
You want to play the Chickenhawk game all the way, Doug?
Then “you may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic.”
You also shouldn’t talk about being an election observer unless you are willing to actually be one yourself.
“Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.”
The material in quotes is from Bill Whittle at Eject! Eject! Eject! You should really start reading him and learn something.
He also says this:
“If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military.
Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military?
That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don’t agree with that.
I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation’s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.
Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.”
So according to you, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should stay out of and STFU about military affairs, since they never served themselves.
If you want me to criticize Fecke’s actions
I didn’t say for you to criticize Fecke’s actions. But to leave out such background material to your argument is patently dishonest, and you know it, Doug.
Part of debating is to bring up your opponent’s points yourself and refute them, not fail to mention them and hope they neglect to mention such issues.
That should close the tag. Sorry, folks.
Yossarian, Indeed. They amount to a Catch 22, if you think about it.
Strawmen and irrelevent points Paul.
I said nothing about Andy being a “chickenhawk”.
I said he’s full of crap and his excuse that he would have joined if it weren’t for his unfortunate height to weight ratio problem is bullshit.
He’s young enough and he can go on a fricken diet if he really wants to serve. And it the Marines weight restriction are a problem, he can call the Army.
Got it Paul? I’m not using any “chickenhawk” argument. I’m calling Andy out for his pathetic lie.
Can you give us a list of acceptable reasons for not joining the marines, Doug? We wouldn’t want to actually make up our own minds about something like that. And where does Bill Clinton’s excuse go on that on that list of yours anyway?
I don’t really know who the person in question so this response is based entirely on what I’ve read here:
I think the entire point is “Because I didn’t want to” or “Because there were other things I wanted to do more” would have been more honest.
Its kind of like in the movies when the girl turns down the date with the loser because she “had to wash her hair” or something. Its bullshit. He didn’t join because he didn’t want to (or conceivably, for some other reason that he didn’t wish to share. perhaps he’s gay or has an embarrassing disease…).
If he had shit vision or flat feet or shot hearing or brittle bones or any legitimate physical reason for not joining, those wouldn’t stink of dishonesty.
If he just said he didn’t wish to be in the military, that wouldn’t stink of dishonesty. Saying he couldn’t join because he exceed the height to weight ratio for the US Marines does.
Btw, my math is a bit rusty, but wouldn’t exceeding the height to weight ratio mean he is too skinny, not too chubby?
Phaedrus- why would someone who’s queer NOT want to join the marines? Too much showering with naked guys?
Doug calling someone out for being pathetic is like angryclown calling someone out for being sarcastic.
Terry said,
“Can you give us a list of acceptable reasons for not joining the marines, Doug?”
No Terry but here’s a thought if you do decide not to join… Try saying something honest like, “I’m not interested in making a career in the Military”.
Or how about,
“I don’t have the physical and mental discipline to do what those guys do.”
Does that work for you Terry?
Just for kicks Terry, stop by and actually read the tripe that Aplikowsi actually writes.
Here’s a great sample.
“I will do what I can to make sure the will of the people is not corrupted by ideologues.”
Funny. The will of the people is to get the hell out of Iraq but it is a group of ideologues with half baked plan and no strategy for success that are keeping us there.
phaedrus said,
“wouldn’t exceeding the height to weight ratio mean he is too skinny, not too chubby?”
Not necessarily. In height / weight standards charts they give a minimum accepted value for your height, the average and a maximum accepted value.
I took it to mean he exceeded the maximum accepted value.
Got it Paul? I’m not using any “chickenhawk” argument. I’m calling Andy out for his pathetic lie.
If it walks like a chickenhawk, screeches like a chickenhawk, flies like a chickenhawk, it’s a chickenhawk, Doug. Here is your reason for crticizing Andy: Anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. Why do I say that? Because you wrote this:
I said he’s full of crap and his excuse that he would have joined if it weren’t for his unfortunate height to weight ratio problem is bullshit.
He’s young enough and he can go on a fricken diet if he really wants to serve. And it the Marines weight restriction are a problem, he can call the Army.
That approach reads like just what Bill Whittle described:
“This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger.”
That is precisely what you are doing, Doug. You have turned this thread that is an illustration of why Jeff Fecke is not respected as a reporter (journalistic credibility) to an attack on Mitch and Andy. You are attacking the messenger, not the message.
So my points are strawmen and irrelevant? You just proved them by writing:
Funny. The will of the people is to get the hell out of Iraq but it is a group of ideologues with half baked plan and no strategy for success that are keeping us there.
Reread this:
“If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military.”
You are criticizing Andy for what you call his ‘pathetic excuse’ not to join the military, you critcize his writing about it, therefore you are travelling the chickenhawk path, no matter how much you deny it. Got it, Doug?
Since you are travelling that path, you should shut the fuck up about anything you aren’t doing as a day job. Carried out to its logical conclusion Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should also STFU about the war, since they never served themselves.
Oh and how about addressing Terry last question: “Where does Bill Clinton’s excuse go on that on that list of yours anyway?” Come up with an answer, Doug, or you will prove my points once again.
Doug, how about reading all the way to the end of a post?
How about reading this for the first time:
If you want me to criticize Fecke’s actions
I didn’t say for you to criticize Fecke’s actions. But to leave out such background material to your argument is patently dishonest, and you know it, Doug.
Part of debating is to bring up your opponent’s points yourself and refute them, not fail to mention them and hope they neglect to mention such issues.
I had to hit on this again:
Funny. The will of the people is to get the hell out of Iraq but it is a group of ideologues with half baked plan and no strategy for success that are keeping us there.
Okay Doug, show a single example where appeasement – giving in to an aggressive adversary in the hope that it will convince them to become peaceful themselves – has provided any lasting peace or security.
Name one honest one, from any point in history.
Paul, get this through your thick head. I’m not debating you and I’ll detail the reason in a minute. I’m pointing out the absurdity of attacking Fecke for claiming to be something he’s not while giving a free pass to your brethren for doing the same thing.
As for your constant whining about debate protocol, I said,
”The will of the people is to get the hell out of Iraq but it is a group of ideologues with half baked plan and no strategy for success that are keeping us there.”
You respond with,
”Okay Doug, show a single example where appeasement – giving in to an aggressive adversary in the hope that it will convince them to become peaceful themselves – has provided any lasting peace or security.”
Let’s review YOUR rules that you endlessly regurgitate shall we?
”Part of debating is to bring up your opponent’s points yourself and refute them, not fail to mention them and hope they neglect to mention such issues.”
Did ya refute my points Paul?
What debate technique is defined by taking your opponents points and respond with an attempt to build a strawman?
What’s that technique called? Do enlighten us.
Hey, just to amuse me, could you go ahead and elaborate a bit on the scientific method. I haven’t seen that pompous, bombastic, self-indulgent lecture is a while.
“I haven’t seen that pompous, bombastic, self-indulgent lecture is a while.”
Hey, just scroll up and read almost any of the posts from this Doug guy… 🙂
Doug: “Bombast for me, but not for thee”.
Doug-
I have seen Apilowski’s blog. That’s why I’m not defending him. Attacking your self-righteous understanding of who does & does not have the moral authority to take part in a public policy debate is easier than defending Apilowski’s words.
Terry said,
“Attacking your self-righteous understanding of who does & does not have the moral authority to take part in a public policy debate”
Whatever Terry. I never said G. I. Aplikowki didn’t have the right to take part in debate. I said that his excuse for not being able to serve in the military is hollow and his attempt at elevating running a partisan blog to serving a legitimate military function is laughable.
his attempt at elevating running a partisan blog to serving a legitimate military function is laughable
or would be, if that were in any what what he did.
Terry Said:
Phaedrus- why would someone who’s queer NOT want to join the marines?
Whoops, didn’t mean to start yet another tangential thread. Sorry.
The military is not currently very “gay friendly”.
I believe that many people drawn towards the Marines do so because there is a sense that the Marines are the branch with the highest standards of honor. It is a challenging enough path to take – it would be that much harder to do so when one of the top uniformed commanders of the armed forces has openly stated that you are immoral.
There are many stories of people getting kicked out (dishonorable discharge I believe) when it is discovered that they are gay. Oddly, it seems that arabic linguists have been disproportionately impacted by this policy. That is potentially an interesting psych/soc research topic there (why the high correlation between military service, speaking arabic and being gay?) but rather unfortunate these days.
Terry Said:
“Too much showering with naked guys?”
Oh come on. I would expect that a professional soldier would be disciplined enough to avoid creating a situation where one’s fellow soldiers felt ill at ease around them – at least on base.
To make another reference to Starship Troopers, I think that the co-ed showers was an interesting implication of social evolution but even (especially?) there, I think that sexualizing that setting in any way would meet with severe repercussions.
As it is, in our society, if I were a gay man in a room full of naked marines, I’d be rather concerned that my “interest” might show itself. There are much safer and more productive places for a gay man to see rooms full of naked men than a marine shower.
In a more tolerant society, it would still be unwelcome. In our society, it would be downright dangerous.
(Incidentally, regarding Starship Troopers, I’d be fairly comfortable with full citizenship and voting privileges being dependent on serving your country for a period of time – as long as the service options included a significant number of non-violent “civil service” paths.)
Doug Said:
Not necessarily. In height / weight standards charts they give a minimum accepted value for your height, the average and a maximum accepted value.
I took it to mean he exceeded the maximum accepted value.
Hm, I guess I read it differently. In general, if a ratio is exceeded, it means the numerator was too great in relation to the denominator.
So, a “height to weight ratio” would mean that you divide the height by the weight and get a number. If that number is too high, it would mean that you are too tall for your weight – too skinny. If the number is too low, it would mean that you are too short for your weight – too chubby/stocky.
For instance, at 69 inches and 158 lbs, my height to weight ratio is 0.43 which is in the zone. If I only weighed 98 lbs, that ratio would be 0.70 – a higher number and potentially exeeding the acceptable range of ratios. If I was 300 lbs, the ratio would be 0.23 – a lower number and likely not meeting the acceptable range of ratios.
Of course, it could easily be that the person in question misstated and simply meant “didn’t fall within the range of acceptable height to weight ratios” or something like that.
Mitch said,
“or would be, if that were in any what what he did.”
Oh I realize that’s not what he does but it is what he infers when he says,
Residual Forces
The name- I am using the defense department version.
residual forces- (DOD) Unexpended portions of the remaining United States forces that have an immediate combat potential for continued military operations, and that have been deliberately withheld from utilization.
You have every right and every reason to mock Jeff Fecke for implying that he is a journalist. I have every right and reason to mock G. I. Aplikowski for infering that he is an “Unexpended portions of the remaining United States forces that have an immediate combat potential for continued military operations, and that have been deliberately withheld from utilization.”