Evidently some Air Force Chaplain received a Bronze Star for creating a power point on how to sympathize with Muslims. If this is true, and I'm not clear on the facts, its a horrible disgrace of an honorable medal.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/13/air-force-chaplain-awarded-prestigious-bronze-star-for-powerpoint-teaching-about-proper-disposal-handling-of-islamic-texts/
I think that medals are given out like candy these days. I think they are almost used as a recruiting tool in some way. Its like we want to give people golden stars when they wipe their ass. I know of a few instances where Marines were given recognition when it was not earned. I consider this, as with allowing homosexuals in the military, another means of watering down the military.
The VFW has been doing their part in trying to make military medals as legitimate as possible. Their is a new medal called "The Distinguished Warfare Medal". It has something to do with cyber war and drone warfare. The VFW, along with other veterans organizations, has expressed their grievances with the government that the medal should not be placed above certain heroic combat medals (which it currently is).
http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Events/Articles/2013-Articles/VFW-Leads-Effort-with-Other-VSO/MSOs,-Asks-President-Obama-to-Lower-Drone-Medal-Ranking/
I don't deserve many medals. I certainly deserve something, but I would feel like a bag of ass if I was given a
Purple Heart for a tummy ache.
Those guys in the picture look like Army, not Air Force. No PDA in the Air Force.
ReplyDeleteI think 95% of military members would agree with you ToeJamm. I'll be the guy who received the Bronze Star feels like a bag of ass. That's why I wouldn't want to be in the VFW. For the same reason. If someone asked me where I served, well, I'd have to leave the room.
Those soldiers are kinda cute. Great recruiting poster.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't trying to imply that those dudes were in the Air Force. I just thought it was a good picture to illustrate how our military as a whole is being hurt by the things I mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI totally understand why you wouldn't want to be accepted in the VFW. However, it is funny because the vets I spoke with begrudgingly hold to the stiff admission requirements. I'm sure they would love some more like-minded individuals to join. Everyone understands the importance of holding to the requirements though.
The American military is done. Gays can now serve openly, women can be in combat roles and the greatest threat according to a navy admiral is global warming and the navy is using "green energy fuels" and many other things. The effect of having gays openly serving and women in combat has the effect of weakening our military. Which is no doubt as to why these policies are championed by our ruler.
ReplyDeleteThe national guard is getting ready for civil unrest.
You can see a portent of things to come in Cyprus: private wealth is being confiscated by taxing bank deposits as part of the bail out agreement. Before all is said and done, you will be lucky to have 50% of your wealth remaining after the economic crisis hits.
For better or for worse, the Federal government uses the military to kick start its social policies. It thinks the right thing to do is use the military for gays and women the same way it used it to integrate blacks back in the 40s and 50s. A lot of people thought that was wrong, but in the long run, it's been a good thing I think. I'm not saying what they're doing now is right; I actually think both the gays and women in combat roles are wrong. But, it's not the first time the government has done this kind of thing.
ReplyDeleteThe Greeks managed to build a world empire with an army that buggers each other. I've heard a lot that Afghan culture does that too, and they're fearless fighters, regardless of their competence. So, the jury is out I'd say, though again, I'm playing devil's advocate here, I don't think it's right.
Being gay and black are two completely different issues. Integerating blacks in the military is completely differnt than integrating homosexuals. Allowing gays to serve in the military is wrong and will have very negative consequences for our nation and military.
ReplyDeleteThe Greeks and more specifically the Spartans can not be compared to militaries of today. The Spartans took childeren that were 6 or 7 years old from their mother and were raised to be wariors having to endure exterme hardship where a lot of them died. Also homosexuality was not as taboo in Greece as it is today so that there was a lot less problems in terms of unit cohesion. Also Greek and Roman civilazations are not around today. Part of this has to do with homosexuality. For example I watched some show on the history channel talking about some emperor that was gay and refused to have a kid with his wife. This led to bad things for Rome at that time. Look at the Wiki leaks dude and how being a homosexual led to him doing what he did.
In order to understand why homosexaulity is bad for society, you have to look past the surface of the issue and abstract. What do you see when you look at x^2=2xy-y^2>=0. Most just look at the surface and see what is before their eyes. When you abstract you can see that we are talking about the area of a square with x^2 and 2 times the area of a rectangle with sides x and y and the area of a square with side y. It is greater than or equal to zero because (x-y)^2 is where this equation came from. Abstract more and you get a very important principle in mathematics. IT is the same with homosexuality and society.
If you want a heads up now that homosexuality is not accepted, INCEST and having sex with childern is the what homosexuality used to be in terms of cultural taboos. There was already a movie that explored incest, and I had a family member watching some T.V. show that was talking about incest asking do you like it. The net effect of this is the destruction of our culture and civilization that is based on the traditional family unit. This is exactly why homosexuality, incest, and other disgusting things are promoted by those that want to "fundamentally transform America". Ten years from now, Bud-D will be saying that incest and other disgusting things are okay and that this will be integrated into the military. No problem just like integrating blacks and women.
(x-y)^2=x^2-2xy+y^2>=0 to be correct.
ReplyDeleteHey, no math on RTP&GG!
ReplyDelete00139X, as I said above, I am in agreement with you. I am explaining what the government is doing and that it's been done before, I'm not attempting to justify using the military as a social experiment. I strongly oppose it.
However, to play the devil's advocate again, the Roman Empire lasted close to 600 years as a significant player/empire. That's pretty darn good in spite of the decadence. A person could fairly argue that it lasted a good 300 years in its decadent phase. That's a pretty long time. Maybe the US will last that long.
That math thing illustrates abstraction. Why is it greater than or equal to 0. The area of a square is side squared, s^2, and the area of a rectangle is length times width, lw. Do you see that anywhere in the equation.
ReplyDeleteHow long did the Roman empire last as a republic. It lasted around 300 years in decline. Is that a state to be desired. Life wasn't all that great in its decline. You had emperors like nero and caligula.
"A great civilization is not conquered from without, until it has destroyed itself from within. The essential causes of Rome's decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars." Will Durante, "The Story Of Civilization III, Epilogue, 1944.
Incest and and other things are going to be the new gay. If you accept homosexuality, you will be accepting this other stuff in the next decade.
"http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/01/07/don_t_pooh_pooh_the_left_s_push_to_normalize_pedophilia
There is an effort underway to normalize pedophilia. Yep. And it has two aspects to it. One is that sex with children doesn't hurt them. Kids like it, and so do adults, and there's nothing wrong with it. It is something... I want to take you back. I want you to remember the first time, wherever you were, that you heard about gay marriage, and I want you to try to recall your reaction -- your first gut reaction -- when you heard that some activists or somebody was trying to promote the notion of gay marriage. What was your initial reaction? Aw, come on. It'll never happen. That's silly. What are you talking about?"
There is a movement on to normalize pedophilia, and I guarantee you your reaction to that is probably much the same as your reaction when you first heard about gay marriage. What has happened to gay marriage? It's become normal -- and in fact, with certain people in certain demographics it's the most important issue in terms of who they vote for. So don't pooh-pooh. There's a movement to normalize pedophilia. Don't pooh-pooh it. The people behind it are serious, and you know the left as well as I do. They glom onto something and they don't let go."
You have to draw the line somewhere and and stand on principles or you end up accepting trash like this.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure we all understand the math question. I think you are starting to toot your own horn.
ReplyDelete00139X, your point about how long Rome lasted as a republic is an interesting one, a point which I may touch on in a post I'm working on right now. Off the top of my head, I don't know how long Rome was a republic, but what I do know is that the Republic ended when Julius Caesar came back from his conquest of Gaul (France) and sort of forced his way into emperorship. Most people know what the Roman empire looked like at its height: basically the entire Mediterranean, plus Gaul, Spain, Romania, and what is now England. Do you know what it looked like when it was a Republic, ie before Julius Caesar began his conquests? Basically Italy. So, in terms of what most people think of as greatness, Rome both attained almost all of its greatness and lost it in its Imperial, decadent phase.
ReplyDeleteThe Romans viewed the Germanic tribes they were primarily up against (after they had conquered the Celts in Gaul and England) as noble savages, sort of like how we look at the Indians. Simple, brave, honorable people. We all know how that simple honorability worked out for the Indians. The decadent Romans couldn't conquer the Germanic tribes, but they could hold them off for hundreds of years.
One of my little areas of interest, but it points out that, in spite of all our worries about where our society is going (and I share them with you) a society can still be very strong in its decadent phase for a long time.
Toeface, I don't you understand the point of that math thing.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by decadent? It depends how you define greatness: as either a free nation that champions individual rights or a powerful nation state that is all powerful controlling large amounts of territory and its people. It seems you are defining Romans greatness with conquering and controlling large amounts of territory.
"One of my little areas of interest, but it points out that, in spite of all our worries about where our society is going (and I share them with you) a society can still be very strong in its decadent phase for a long time." The question is what does it exist as? A society that champions individual liberty or exists under a powerful government.
Extrapolating Roman's conquest of vast swaths of land to today and the implications that that has on us today, is America going to go out and conqueror the world in this nuclear age? I am sure that if a world government were to attempt to enslave the population of the world it could become a very powerful society and create some wonderful technological wonders for awhile, but I would not equate that with greatness in terms of being good for people. External conquest can offset a nation's internal decay for awhile.
I guess the equation you presented seemed fairly obvious. Maybe I read it wrong. It seems to me that it is greater than or equal to zero because no matter what value I give X or Y, the value will be equal to or greater than zero. That part seems obvious. What I don't get is how you apply it to sociology.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of it was to demonstrate abstraction: "the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances". With homosexuality all you see is what is before you eyes: two people of the same sex want to marry each other holding hands and have gay sex and wanting to be able to marry. It is hard to see how homosexuality has any connection to society or the downfall of that society. It seems outlandish to draw this connection. It makes no sense. How does homosexuality affect me or society? It is just two gay people doing their own thing, and what does it matter if society allows gay marriage. To see how the widespread acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage effects society and our nation you have to abstract. This is where the math example comes in: it will help you to see what it is you need to do or the mental dexterity required to see the connection between these two issues. You have to study the math things and think about it for a long time.
ReplyDeleteI got the math example from the beginning of a proof of the isoperimetric inequality which says, amoung other things, that if you are given a fixed amount of material with to make a fence and you want to enclose the largest amount of area with this fixed amount of materials what shape do you make it. It starts with (x+y)^2 or (x-y)^2, I cant remember which one since the online book at my school's library was deleted when they changed to a new system. Why are those two things greater than or equal to zero? Because x^2 is greater than or equal to zero. You might remember that from remedial math.(x+y)^2 which equals x^2+2xy+y^2 is squared also. These two things look different than x^2. That is one point that helps you to see abstraction. You would have to factor x^2+2xy+y^2 to (x+y)^2 and realize that it is squared just like x^2 to see that it is >=0. Sometimes you have to look at what is hidden and not focus only on what is before your eyes. X^2+2xy+y^2>=0 can be made to look like x^2>= 2xy+y^2 by rearranging it. Now there are two ways of looking at math: analytically and geometrically. x^2>= 2xy+y^2 just looks like a bunch of letters and numbers. To help make some sense of it you have to abstract. The area of a square is side squared, s^2, and the area of a rectangle is length times width, lw. Now s, l ,w are variables that can be any positive real number: 1, 2, 3...: you can just arbitrarily decide to restrict the values of x, y to any positive numbers. So do you see s, l , w in x^2>= 2xy+y^2. If you just look at what is before your eyes, you won't see it. This is where abstraction comes in. What is x, y? Variables. X could just as well be the side of a square and also the width of a rectangle and y could be the length of the rectangle since the values for x and y were restricted to positive numbers, you can't have negative length. So x^2>= 2xy+y^2 could be interpreted geometrically as the area of a square with side x is >= to two times the area of a rectangle with length y and width x plus the area of a square with side y.
One must overcome this argument to say women shouldn't be in combat roles:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guns.com/2013/03/22/girls-of-the-israeli-defense-forces-37-photos/
"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
ReplyDeleteSome of those women are ugly, but there are a few good ones. The Soviet Union had women in combat roles. I think they called it the comfort brigade or comfort unit.
My only argument on why gays and homosexuals shouldn't be allowed in the military is because it is not economical and having them doesn't make us any more effective.
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a correlation between the economic and cultural decay of our country and the decline of traditional values to include the acceptance of homosexuality. That can't be argued against. But correlation doesn't imply causation. When you look at the matter on a deeper level using abstraction and not focusing on what is before your eyes or the concrete (that is what the math example is designed to illustrate), you can see that the decline of traditional values and the acceptance of homosexuality has been a major cause of the decay of our nation.
ReplyDeleteGay marriage, marriage between more than two people, incest, marriage between humans and animals, and many other crazy things will exist in the coming decades. The only limit to the craziness will be the collapse of our society. Once the definition of marriage is destroyed anything and everything will be accepted. The foundational institution of our society and societies throughout history is being systematically destroyed to the result of the destruction of our nation. When you read "The Communist Manifesto", you can see that Marx realized that the foundation of capitalism was the family and that this must be destroyed to bring down capitalism. This is why those that want to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" champion such things as gay marriage.
The fundamental transformation of our society will proceed full steam ahead. It is sad that there is no one or no political party to stand in the way of this. The republican party will accept homosexuality and gay marriage and conservatives have no real coherent defense of traditional marriage or values.
Even noted Tea Party hero Rand Paul appears to be OK with this.
ReplyDeleteYour points about destruction of the family are very important. But, again, though we may be small steps away from another Depression, we are not going to collapse.
Here is a bit of a response to your question about what I mean by 'great' when referring to the Roman Empire:
The point is, that, though everyone here, including me, keeps talking about collapse and disaster, based on collapse in morals, there is no reason to think that there is an immediate cause and effect. We are not soon going to be scrabbling in the gravel to try to raise crops because society has collapsed. And even with Obama and his ilk at the helm, America will be very strong for quite a while (probably not as long as the Roman EMPIRE though).
The Roman REPUBLIC would have been a sidenote in history if it had remained a republic. France would be speaking a version of German, and English would be more like modern German as well.
Like it or not, conquest of other nations is the only reason some nations become great. If our ancestors had not seized America from its aborigines, there would have been no America. If the Saxons hadn't conquered the Celts there would have been no England, no British Empire. And of course that can be said for every country in the world. No country is great just by having a nice political system, and nice political systems can actually hinder a country's ascent to greatness (see below a few paragraphs).
You talk about the American military as being done, when in fact there is no country or even group of countries in the world that can touch us, and that'll still be true even with gays and women in the front lines. We may not be as tough as we would otherwise be, but we'll still be able to easily defeat any other country in the world, if we desire to do so.
Will Durant talks about the fall of the Roman Empire, but there had to be an Empire there to begin with, and it required EMPERORs to make that happen. The Republic certainly could take care of itself, but was not inherently expansionist.
So, to your point about what I mean by ‘great’, yes it does mean having ‘global’ influence, and it does not necessarily mean it has a great form of government. That’s what is meant by ‘great’ in almost anybody’s estimation, when talking about countries. One of the main Germanic tribes the Roman EMPIRE was up against in the 1st century AD was the Marcomanni. They had no king, they elected chiefs to lead them when they were preparing to go to war. The difference between the richest and the poorest, in both quality of life and influence was relatively small (for any time period). Yet, the Marcomanni are not considered Great. The Roman Empire is considered Great. And the standard of living of the average citizen of the Roman empire was higher than the standard of living of the average Marcomanni (if standard of living is quantified by material goods).
None of this is to say that the Romans were freer than the Marcomanni. It was probably the reverse. But, that isn’t always the whole story in life. And that isn’t to say that I am not 100% in line with those that want to fight for a freer society in America. It's just that we've got a long way to fall before we're in deep trouble relative to any society in the history of the world.
Hopefully, we will be able to correct ourselves, though it's certainly hard to say that will happen before a great deal of pain is visited on us. Zimbabwe has survived as a brutal dictatorship, threatening no other ocuntry, for decades. This is what scares me.
This is a very rambling comment. Sorry.
Gay marriage will become a fact along with incest and sex between children and adults. Read this http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/common-sense/2013/mar/26/hooking-kids-sex-start-saturation-process-kinderga/
ReplyDeleteWhy are they trying to do this? This does have very significant consequences for our society over time.
There is a cause and effect relationship between the decay of our culture and the foundations of our civilization. History has shown this. Immediate as in a few years. No. But over time this has a profound effect on a nation. A systematic attack on the foundations of America and Western civilization has been talking place for half a century or more and especially since your generation. Its effects can be clearly seen by the current condition of America and the West. And yes they are on the verge of collapse. Most likely within a couple of decades. They will still exist, but not as free nations that value individual liberty. Like I tried to illustrate with the math problem, you have to be able to abstract and look at what is hidden.
I don't think anybody is talking about the collapse of society in the manner that you stated. When nations collapse it usually takes a very long time and doesn't happen over night. What I am talking about when discussing a collapse is a dramatic transformation of our way of life. You can see this happening in nations around the world that are in massive debt. In Cyprus savers just had a portion of their savings confiscated as part of a bailout/in that created the need to implement capital controls. This will devastate Cyprus's economy. In Argentina there are price controls on food items due to high inflation. In Venezuela, or one of those countries, they devalued their currency 40% so that over night so that people lost 40% of their wealth. You have riots over in Greece and other EU nations. You have in Europe, and to a lesser extent American, what the IMF calls a “lost generation” of youth that are growing up employed that will have severe implications for social cohesion. These are portents of things that are coming to America: there will be riots; you will be lucky to have 60% of the wealth that you currently have after this economic crisis and more like 0% as there will be wealth confiscation; there will be a short period where it will be hard to buy the most basic necessities of life as a result of the coming economic crisis; there will be a new global economy and order where America will no longer be the sole superpower; America will not be as wealthy or as power as it currently is: we won't be able to eat as much as we do today as it will be harder to obtain the basic necessities of life, our standard of living will be dramatically lowered-- it already is for millions of Americans; and there will be a major transformative global economic crisis that will change our way of life. Is this anything new in history? No. This has happened to nation after nation throughout history almost at regular predictable intervals. Our lives will be dramatically different and there will be a period of time maybe a couple of months or possibly a couple of years where the social fabric of society will be stretched beyond its limits. The U.S military and government are planning and training for this. This is why you need to have a couple months of food supply and the means to protect yourself and your family in this event. And on growing your own food, that could become a real possibility. You are seeing the rise of communes in Greece, I believe it was. I don't think things will get too bad, but the potential for that to happen certainly does exist.
Jim Rogers, a billionaire investor, noted that the saving class is being wiped out—people with savings accounts in America are currently earning a negative rate of interest, that means loosing money-- the world over and that we are in unprecedented times as far as monetary policy is concerned. “For the first time in recorded history, we have nearly every central bank printing money and trying to debase their currency. This has never happened before. How it’s going to work out, I don't know. It just depends on which one goes down the most and first, and they take turns. When one says a currency is going down, the question is against what? because they are all trying to debase themselves. It’s a peculiar time in world history.
ReplyDelete“Throughout our history – any country’s history – the people who save their money and invest for their future are the ones that you build an economy, a society, and a nation on.”
“In America, many people saved their money, put it aside, and didn’t buy four or five houses with no job and no money down. They did what most people would consider the right thing, and what historically has been the right thing. But now, unfortunately, those people are being wiped out, because they are getting 0% return, or virtually no return, on their savings and their investments. We’re wiping them out at the expense of people who went deeply into debt, people who did what most people would consider the wrong thing at the expense of people who did the right thing. This, long-term, has terrible consequences for any nation, any society, any economy.”
“If you go back in history, you'll see what happened to the Germans when they wiped out their savings class in the 1920s. It didn’t lead to good things down the road for Germany. It didn’t lead to good things for Italy, which did the same thing. There were plenty of countries where it wiped out the people who saved and invested for their future. It’s usually a serious, political reaction, desperation in some cases, and looking for a savior [Hitler] and easy answers is usually what happens when you destroy the people who save and invest for the future.”
I am not disagreeing with you about your point about the greatness of Rome. My point is that freedom in the Roman empire died when the republic died. That is what the decay of our culture is leading to: the death of America as it was founded and freedom along with it.
The U.S military is still the best and will likely remain that way for the next decade. But after this decade is up, America will no longer have the best military nor the world's sole superpower.
Well stated Bud-D. Interesting contrast.
ReplyDelete