Why young people should join the military

Every morning and afternoon I have the privilege of walking past the recruiter station for all services. Seeing the bright shiny faces of young folks about to, or in the midst of a very important decision process in their short lives. Something I wish I had done as a young man. I am doing it backwards and although there are some things that are better for me than for a young buck, I would recommend doing it the old fashioned way if you can…as a young man. I joined the military (reserves) AFTER September 11 at the age of 38.

I had a career, discipline, wisdom and patriotism. Most recruits are lacking in all those categories. I know I was a mess at that age. But if you are not, I highly recommend you pursue the military option for a start of your adult life.

At 40 I developed high blood pressure (genetics) and have had several other health problems that were absent as a young man, but there are a lot of lessons the military could have taught me in a hurry if I had been ready for it. All of the medical issues are pretty much under control, but nevertheless it is a constant reminder of my age and even though I love the military, I can’t see myself doing this for another 14 years just to get a retirement check.

I am pretty sure, this deployment is my last hurrah as my enlistment is up at the end of this year. I could change my mind, but I doubt it.

I encourage young people to take a few years out of their life to serve, the benefits you get out of it far outweigh the risks in most cases. Of course you could be called on to give the ultimate sacrifice, and that is a little scary but if you are able to deal with that reality, the rest is almost always positive, even the bad experiences.

Here are a few of the things you learn in the military in just a few short years that in many cases take decades, and some people never learn.

These are generalizations, and of course there are exceptions. I’ve met several young Airmen (not a slam on the AF, but take that for what it’s worth), who never learned this stuff but if you allow the experience to mold you, you come out way ahead of anyone else your age, in this age of selfishness.

If you are already joining up or thinking about it, read What the Recruiter Never Told You by Rod Powers. Recruiters are salesman, and they will sometimes lie just to get the sale. You need to know that going in and if you don’t get what you want, keep trying.

1. Discipline, getting up to go to work every day even when you don’t feel good. How many people in this world quit their jobs when they get mad, or call in sick when they have a cold. A military trained person is a much more valuable employee just for the reason that they show up every day, hopefully on time. A military trained person isn’t looking for the perfect job, they are thankful to have one.

2. Learning to work with jerks. Learning to work with people who only think about themselves is a lesson we all have to learn. In the military you learn how to get along with people you don’t necessarily like….and you learn to stick it out, soon they will be gone and perhaps someone better will take their place. You also learn to work with really smart people too!
   

3. Personal Hygiene. The military is a stickler for this, you learn that people will judge you by how you look, smell and act. Regardless of whether you think that’s fair or not.

4. Personal Responsibility. You are responsible for you, regardless if it’s someone else’s fault you are in that position.

5. Learning to deal with bureaucracy….nuff said, great life skill.

Much more (hundreds more), feel free to comment.

Cross Posted at the Daily Blogster

300 is pretty much the sweetest movie ever made

LOL @ this video:

More men should be like Spartans…strong, courageous and 90% naked.

Best Posts

PPH asks: Party, Person, or Platform?

---

Reason #1,305,478 I abandoned the history profession: gender quotas for American Historical Association panels

Another governor weighs in on Churchill

 

The Post:

Gov. Bill Ritter on Tuesday added his voice to the Ward Churchill case, joining his predecessor in calling for the firing of the University of Colorado ethnic studies professor.

Boy, that right-wing conspiracy is really branching out.

Ritter made his comments after news broke over the Memorial Day weekend that Hank Brown, the university's president, had drafted a letter recommending the firing of Churchill for "repeated and deliberate academic deception."

The previous governor, Republican Bill Owens, called on CU to get rid of Churchill in 2005, soon after a controversial essay came to light. Ritter, a Democrat, weighed in Tuesday, saying that Churchill had damaged the university's reputation and should be dismissed.

"The character of his conduct is different than those things that are protected by the First Amendment, and I really do think in an academic institution, we need to pay attention to what we're telling our kids and what our professors are writing about," Ritter said after a bill-signing ceremony in Glenwood Springs.

Ritter stressed that the authority to fire Churchill rests entirely with the Board of Regents, but he agrees with Brown's recommendation for that action.

"I've thought that for a long, long time, based on all his comments and … problems surrounding his writing," Ritter said. "I thought it was black and white for the university."

Churchill's lawyer, David Lane, said his client will file a lawsuit contending his First Amendment rights have been violated.

"Well, the only people I'm interested in weighing in is a jury after a full-blown court trial," Lane said.

He blasted both Owens and Ritter for taking a stance on Churchill's fate.

"They're both politicians, and they will say whatever will get them the most votes," Lane said.

Weldon Lodwick, chairman of the university's privilege and tenure committee, which had recommended that Churchill be suspended for one year without pay and demoted, said he receives five to 10 opinions each week from those with strongly held views.

"I get two types of phone calls or e-mails," Lodwick said. "One is you're a son of a gun if you do fire him. The other is that you're scum of the earth if you don't fire him."

Son of a gun? That sounds like Ben Whitmer!

The Society of American Law Teachers wrote a letter arguing against a firing. The local chapter of the American Association of University Professors also has given support.

"It's emblematic of bigger issues," said Margaret LeCompte, a CU education professor and president of the Boulder chapter of the American Association of University Professors. "It's not just about Ward Churchill."

She views the Churchill case as a key precedent that could lead to curtailing academic freedoms and part of a larger effort to make "faculty more amenable to fresher and more conservative political correctness."

"Fresher and more conservative political correctness"? Is she talking about salad or academia?

Others are less supportive of Churchill.

"I think it's important to emphasize that academic freedom also means academic responsibility, and it is not just anything goes," said Anne Neal, president of the Washington, D.C.-based American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which applauded the news that Brown wants Churchill fired.

Lodwick said five other dismissal cases have been reviewed by the committee since 2002, and only two of those actually went before the regents for firing. Of those five, one case still is active and under consideration, Lodwick said.

He said only the Churchill case prompted a firestorm of controversy.

Imagine that. By the way, here's ACTA's statement on Brown's recommendation to fire Churchill.

Update: In the Rocky, CU sociology professor and Churchill apparatchik Tom Mayer shakes his tiny fist in defiance:

"I'm interested not only in winning a court case but making people understand the injustice and how it's possible to take a person who's a pariah, and to find things to cover the fact that you're trying to get rid of a person you regard as a pain, and to find some kind of academic excuse for doing so," Mayer said. . . .

Mayer concedes that Churchill can be abrasive but calls him "a very important and creative scholar." Dismissing Churchill would be a blow to academic freedom, he said.

Mayer recognizes that few fellow faculty members share his views on Churchill. Only six joined him in signing an April 23 letter protesting an investigative report that upheld the misconduct charges against Churchill.

Update II: PB notes that even the Churchill-sympathetic Post has come out for his firing.

Update III: Oops, forgot to mention that there's another counter-claim of research misconduct against the Churchill committee. Most of the names will be familiar to Churchill watchers (also via PB).

posted by jgm

 

How to get a job…the Mexican way!

One tin soldier

 

In an otherwise boring thread at the Camera on this story, a commenter calls Churchill's upcoming lawsuit, " The Trial of Billy Jerk."

Well, I thought it was funny.

Update: See how the movie poster shows Laughlin releasing an eagle or whatever it is in that spiritual way only Indians can pull off? If that doesn't remind you of Ward Churchill . . .

Update II: Actually Ward's probably never been in the woods in his life, let alone "listened to rivers" like his anarcho-primitivist pal Derrick Jensen. Man wouldn't even fit in a canoe.

Update III: Coinkidink City: The Trial of Billy Jack was filmed in part (scroll down) at Bandelier National Monument.

posted by jgm

 

What will they think of next?

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands – A Dutch reality show that claims to be trying to draw attention to a shortage of organ donors said Tuesday it would go ahead with a program in which a terminally ill woman will choose a contestant to receive one of her kidneys.

The program, “Big Donor Show,” has been attacked as unethical and tasteless. One member of the Dutch parliament suggested the government should block Friday’s broadcast.

A spokeswoman for BNN said that there could be no guarantees the donation would actually be made, “but the intention is” Lisa’s donation would be carried out before she died.

Read more here.

Too bad she’s not donating an arm, otherwise they could call the show:

The Big Doner Show, Giving Other’s a Hand.

Hoo hoo!

CU prez Brown: Fire Churchill

 

The Daily Camera:

University of Colorado President Hank Brown has recommended in a report addressed to the CU Board of Regents that embattled ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill be dismissed from the faculty.

In the 10-page confidential report, which is addressed to Board of Regents Chair Patricia Hayes, Brown states that it is "my determination that Professor Churchill should be dismissed for cause as a result of his misconduct."

The report, dated Friday, includes a number of reasons why Brown believes the controversial professor should be sacked.

Chief among them is "conduct which falls below the minimum standards of professional integrity."

The president said in an interview late Sunday that his report, which has not been officially released, must still go back to the Privilege and Tenure Committee at CU for a last review before being sent back to him for final approval.

"It is a draft of my thinking that is for the review of the Privilege and Tenure Committee," Brown said. "If they wish, they can make additional comments to me and then I'll take action."

That could take another 15 days.

Brown, who said he was not at liberty to discuss what was in the report as long as the investigation into Churchill's status was ongoing, did not indicate whether feedback from the committee would have any effect on the recommendation he made in the May 25 report.

The CU regents are charged with making the final decision on Churchill's fate — a vote that is likely to happen sometime this summer. . . .

David Lane, Churchill's attorney, called the university's investigation into Churchill's scholarship "retaliation" for comments the professor wrote six years ago comparing those killed in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, to Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann.

"All of this is retaliation for his First Amendment protected speech," Lane said. "The entire deal, from A to Z."

He said both he and his client "totally expected" Brown's recommendation.

Totally, man.

"Hank Brown is a politician and he will do what politicians do," Lane said Sunday. "The right thing has nothing to do with anything. It's whether politically it's in his interest."

He pledged to take Churchill's case to state or federal court if the regents oust him.

"We're done with kangaroo court; we're getting ready for real court," Lane said.

Two regents who were reached Sunday, including Hayes, said they hadn't yet seen Brown's report.

Despite Brown's characterization of the report as not yet finalized, it is filled with detailed analysis by Brown of prior academic committee reports regarding Churchill and the president's reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with their conclusions.

He wrote that the Privilege and Tenure Committee "erred" in finding two instances where Churchill's alleged academic misconduct did not fall below the minimum standards of professional integrity.

He called Churchill's violations of CU's academic standards "severe."

And he wrote that Churchill's rights to free expression have nothing to do with the charges of fabrication and plagiarism he faces.

"The record demonstrates that the committees took extraordinary care to consider only the allegations of research misconduct and were not motivated by any desire to punish Professor Churchill for exercising his First Amendment rights," Brown wrote.

"Each expressly acknowledged the essential purpose of academic freedom and free speech in the University setting, but recognized that academic freedom does not protect fraudulent scholarship."

Update: If the Camera has the report, which they apparently do, why didn't they publish it?

Update II: Leaked on Memorial Day, eh? What is it, the second slowest news day of the year after Christmas?

Update III: Churchill has David Lane, but who will CU have representing it in Churchill's lawsuit? Will they use their own counsel, or can they go outside? Whoever it is, I hope they're adept at clearing away obfuscation, because that's what this case will be about. I suggest a combination of Louis Nizer and Daniel Petrocelli.

Update IV: The Post (update: it's an AP story) quotes the ever-measured Chutch:

"I've got more faith in almost anything (than in the university process)," he said. "A random group of homeless people under a bridge would be far more intellectually sound and principled than anything I've encountered at the university so far." Churchill said the faculty committee that conducted the primary investigation of his work was loaded against him, and that the university ignored his suggestions for specific scholars with a background in ethnic studies to be members of the panel.

He wanted to name the people who would judge his scholarship, and they ignored him? Ya Basta! And notice, Churchill doesn't mention trying to get anybody specific off the panel, as Charley Arthur claims he did with committee chair Mimi Wesson.

Update V: PB links to the happy-go-lucky but anonymous cat-beaters at the Ward Churchill Solidarity Network, who have Churchill's alleged response to Hank Brown's as yet unpublished recommendation to the regents to fire him.

Update VI: Oops, here's Hank's letter to the regents. And Churchill lawyer David Lane's letter to Brown protesting the "denial" of Churchill's due process, both now linked at the original Daily Camera story.

Update VII: Sounds good to me. Brown spends a fair amount of time defending the process CU followed, pointing out several times that Churchill had ample chance to present his case and to have his objections to the process heard.

Brown also notes that "more than 25 faculty members, both from within and outside the university community, evaluated the allegations against Churchill. Each faculty member, without exception, determined that Professor Churchill engaged in deliberate and repeated research misconduct."

Churchill's response seems quite weak, he said vaguely (I'm far too full of putrefying ruminant at the moment to be anything but vague. Sorry.).

posted by jgm

 

CU prez Brown: Fire Churchill

 

The Daily Camera:

University of Colorado President Hank Brown has recommended in a report addressed to the CU Board of Regents that embattled ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill be dismissed from the faculty.

In the 10-page confidential report, which is addressed to Board of Regents Chair Patricia Hayes, Brown states that it is "my determination that Professor Churchill should be dismissed for cause as a result of his misconduct."

The report, dated Friday, includes a number of reasons why Brown believes the controversial professor should be sacked.

Chief among them is "conduct which falls below the minimum standards of professional integrity."

The president said in an interview late Sunday that his report, which has not been officially released, must still go back to the Privilege and Tenure Committee at CU for a last review before being sent back to him for final approval.

"It is a draft of my thinking that is for the review of the Privilege and Tenure Committee," Brown said. "If they wish, they can make additional comments to me and then I'll take action."

That could take another 15 days.

Brown, who said he was not at liberty to discuss what was in the report as long as the investigation into Churchill's status was ongoing, did not indicate whether feedback from the committee would have any effect on the recommendation he made in the May 25 report.

The CU regents are charged with making the final decision on Churchill's fate — a vote that is likely to happen sometime this summer. . . .

David Lane, Churchill's attorney, called the university's investigation into Churchill's scholarship "retaliation" for comments the professor wrote six years ago comparing those killed in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, to Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann.

"All of this is retaliation for his First Amendment protected speech," Lane said. "The entire deal, from A to Z."

He said both he and his client "totally expected" Brown's recommendation.

Totally, man.

"Hank Brown is a politician and he will do what politicians do," Lane said Sunday. "The right thing has nothing to do with anything. It's whether politically it's in his interest."

He pledged to take Churchill's case to state or federal court if the regents oust him.

"We're done with kangaroo court; we're getting ready for real court," Lane said.

Two regents who were reached Sunday, including Hayes, said they hadn't yet seen Brown's report.

Despite Brown's characterization of the report as not yet finalized, it is filled with detailed analysis by Brown of prior academic committee reports regarding Churchill and the president's reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with their conclusions.

He wrote that the Privilege and Tenure Committee "erred" in finding two instances where Churchill's alleged academic misconduct did not fall below the minimum standards of professional integrity.

He called Churchill's violations of CU's academic standards "severe."

And he wrote that Churchill's rights to free expression have nothing to do with the charges of fabrication and plagiarism he faces.

"The record demonstrates that the committees took extraordinary care to consider only the allegations of research misconduct and were not motivated by any desire to punish Professor Churchill for exercising his First Amendment rights," Brown wrote.

"Each expressly acknowledged the essential purpose of academic freedom and free speech in the University setting, but recognized that academic freedom does not protect fraudulent scholarship."

Update: If the Camera has the report, which they apparently do, why didn't they publish it?

Update II: Leaked on Memorial Day, eh? What is it, the second slowest news day of the year after Christmas?

Update III: Churchill has David Lane, but who will CU have representing it in Churchill's lawsuit? Will they use their own counsel, or can they go outside? Whoever it is, I hope they're adept at clearing away obfuscation, because that's what this case will be about. I suggest a combination of Louis Nizer and Daniel Petrocelli.

posted by jgm

 

Virginia ACLU President Pleads Guilty of Child Rape and Torture

Hmmm, lets review; What does the ACLU fight for? Porn access in library’s in the name of free speech for one. They fight against religious freedom, stamping out any mention of God’s standards among a myriad of other anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic suits. Except of course if you are Muslim. Let’s see where that kind of anti-God thinking eventually gets us shall we?

Have you heard anything about this in the MSM? Me neither but just imagine he was an evangelical Christian…….front page, above the fold, top of the news story.

A former president of the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is expected to plead guilty to criminal charges stemming from his arrest on child pornography possession charges, according to court records.

A judge in U.S. District Court in Alexandria scheduled a June 1 plea agreement hearing for Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, of Arlington. It was not clear what charges would be included in the plea agreement.

A grand jury indicted Rust-Tierney this month on one count each of receipt and possession of child pornography. A conviction at trial on both counts could have resulted in a prison sentence of 11 to 14 years, according to federal sentencing guidelines.

Rust-Tierney, who also coached Little League baseball in Arlington, has been in jail since his arrest. At pretrial hearings, two judges refused to grant bail, describing the pornography in question as some of the most sickening they had ever encountered.

Prosecutors said in court documents that Rust-Tierney spent nearly $1,000 between March 2005 and October 2006 on child pornography ordered over the Internet.

His lawyer did not return calls seeking comment.

Rust-Tierney was president of the ACLU’s Virginia chapter from 2002 through 2005, according to the organization’s newsletters. Court records state that Rust-Tierney had been working in the D.C. public defender’s office and that he served one year as president of Arlington Little League.

Hat tip to Stop the ACLU, Read the whole thing here. 

 

Cross Posted at the Daily Blogster