First we had Boykin, then the Abu Ghraib guards, mixed in with few other "bad apples" in Cuba and Afghanistan, but overall, the argument goes, there’s no better ambassadors for the Cause of Freedom than our men and women in the US Armed Forces.
Overall, perhaps, that’s true, but we’d do well to start weeding out the bad apples and soon. Take Lt. Gen. James Mattis…please:
Mattis, a former commander of the First Marine Division known for his "off the cuff" remarks, talked about operations in Afghanistan, saying, "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil … you know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
Mattis made the comments Tuesday at a panel discussion in San Diego attended by 200 defense personnel and experts. Apparently, the commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Michael Hagee, has "counseled" Mattis on why he might want to chose his words more carefully. Personally, if that’s not immediately obvious to him, I don’t want him commanding our troops.
Boykin is still in the administration, in the Defense department, isn’t he?
The guy is obviously a “feminazi”.
Hey, at least his heart’s in the Right place.
Anything, that get’s the soul to kill in the name of democracy.
“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil … you know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”
At the risk of losing my liberal credentials, I find it hard to disagree with what the good general said, although I realize why he shouldn’t have said it.
Chuchundra,
so the punishment for oppression is death without trial, just a bullte to the head?
“bullte” is gibberish for “bullet”
Edward,
I didn’t know you speak gibberish! Can you come over some time and translate for my 2 year old?
wieey d bbee waa pu-purre, Dantheman
So ‘manhood’ is some quality that can be lost incrementally by slapping around women, and once that is gone, the other men whose job it is to protect women can kill these ex-men not just without guilt, but with enjoyment.
Not a surprising bit of gender construction, but a disturbing one on several levels. And while the underlying intentions may be commendable, they’re mixed up with a whole lot of ugly.
Chuchundra,
I have/had friends who like to pick on white kids, becuase he knows they will end up growing up to be racist
…he may have a point, but he is wrong.
Some also believe most white people (even of the liberal sort) have a Klansman in their heart (history seems to prove them right, so they will say) so they got what’s coming.
My creditials within certain communities are questioned because I find the logic…questionable.
so the punishment for oppression is death without trial, just a bullte to the head?
No, if you read his remarks, it’s clear that the general was talking about the people we were fighting – not detainees, but rather the guys with kalashnikovs and rocket launchers shooting at us. He’s not talking about walking around executing people, he’s talking (crudely, boorishly, stupidly) about fighting in a war and killing hostile troops.
st,
so he wuz being poetical?
st,
you got all that from
from that you get rocket launchers and kalashniwhatevers? The only action he’s reporting is slapping women. Which is not to argue these were princes among men, but you’re projecting just a bit here, no?
Er, no, I got it from the linked article, which quoted his statement as beginning with:
Clearly (at least to me) he’s talking about fighting the enemy, not robotically lurching around capping prisoners for “punishment.” And I don’t think I am projecting when I suggest that the Taliban troops we fought in Afghanistan had Kalashnikovs (AK-47’s) and rocket launchers. In fact, given that Mattis’ remarks contain no indication that he is talking about seizing people and “punishing” them for “opression” with a “bullet to the head,” I think that the one projecting here might be you.
Not that you don’t have good reason to, given our treatment of Afghan prisoners, and not that the general’s remarks weren’t utterly repellant; I’m just saying that I disagree with your reading of them.
Guess I’ll have to toss my lefty-lib credentials on the hap alongside Chuchundra. The Taliban’s grotesque abuse of women would not have been possible without the enthusiastic obedience of Afghanistan’s men.
I agree, the General could have exercised more politesse in his phrasing.
…on the heap alongside Chuchundra’s. Not hap. Heap.
Oy.
fair enough…I did extend Chuchundra’s conclusion a bit for effect.
I in know way assume Mattis was implying that murdering innocent passersby was fun, but I can’t see defending his statement either.
So, when can I get to slap around some pasty fat white dudes.
America’s sytematic racism would not have been possible without the enthusiastic obedience of America’s men.
Semi-off topic: Here is the final result of the Gonzales vote. 60 for, 36 against.
Democrats voting yes:
Nelson (Nebraska)
Landrieu (LA)
Lieberman (CT)
Pryor (AR)
Salazar (CO)
Democrats abstaining:
4, but I can’t figure out which 4 yet.
Republicans voting no:
0Republicans abstaining:
0Independents: Jeffords voted no.
et tu CaseyL?
At what point does killing someone ever cease to be a horror…perhaps a necessary horror, but still a horror?
At what point does it cross over into being “fun”?
We’re still talking about killing people here. By projecting all the sins of the Taliban onto each of the Afghanistan fighters who we’ve killed, you might eventually just convince yourself they deserved to die like mangy varmits, but that’s still one evolutionary step away, I hope, from enjoying the act.
Lieberman’s a waste of space
Did you see him kiss Bush after the SOTU?
Sorry, slight error:
Add Bill Nelson of Florida to “Democrats voting yes.” One of the abstentions was a Republican; three were Democrats. Still not sure who they were. I’m curious about the Republican, whether s/he didn’t want to vote yes or they had a cold or something. Probably the latter.
Edward, while you may find this incomprehensible, many soldiers, especially those who have made a career of the military, enjoy combat and may even consider it “fun”. As for me, I prefer a work environment where the possibility of gunplay is as low as possible.
I’d also like to echo some of the comments upthread that my support for Gen. Mattis’s statements is based on the assumption that he’s talking solely about combat situations with armed fighters. If he was referring to shooting detainees or other non-combatants, I withdraw my support.
So, for the soldier, “You got to get it up, somehow.” Applies.
I am always hearing about WW2 vets who come back and try and not discuss all the Nazis and Japs they had to kill. Well, at least the soldiers in Europe seemed to be a bit more stoic when it came to “rapping” about killing.
Where did those soldiers go?
“I am always hearing about WW2 vets who come back and try and not discuss all the Nazis and Japs they had to kill.”
They exist. The people who celebrate their combat stories also exist. There is more than one type of person in the world and they react to things in more than one type of way.
Edward, while you may find this incomprehensible, many soldiers, especially those who have made a career of the military, enjoy combat and may even consider it “fun”.
Incomprehensible? No.
I can imagine that with the adrenelin pumping, the thrill of killing someone, and thereby hieghtening one’s own sensation of being totally alive, is quite addictive. But even in combat, to actually enjoy killing another human being, you must first believe you have a license to consider them somehow nonhuman, merely a target that pops and squirts red liquid when hit. It’s comprehensible, but then so is the fact that many folks who are in combat have a very difficult time readjusting to the noncomat world. I suspect those who enjoy it most have the most difficulty adjusting.
At the very least it shouldn’t be encouraged.
Killing seems a bit intimate.
Usually, when I hear men (and some women) bragging/pontificating about intimate things, I always wonder what could be motivating such behavior.
guilt? small egos?
Do soldiers who kill white people become more philisophical and stoic? While those who kill non-whites find the absurd humor in killing?
men are absurd things.
Neodude,
“So, when can I get to slap around some pasty fat white dudes.
America’s sytematic racism would not have been possible without the enthusiastic obedience of America’s men.”
I’m pretty sure that war was already fought… and it didn’t involve alot slapping, but actual killing.
“Where did those soldiers go?”
I know some first hand…
“to actually enjoy killing another human being, you must first believe you have a license to consider them somehow nonhuman”
Nah. The point of discussing the slapping was specifically to make the enemy human, but bad humans.
There was a great deal of discussion of Achilles in the blogosphere a while back, and whether or not he was heroic. Achilles did not consider his opponents less than human or necessarily dishonorable, but he enjoyed killing them anyway. I have no objection to a certain kind of soldier enjoying his work, and in fact, would be uncomfortable with marines who had constant crises of conscience.
Edward may want soldiers who think like cops, firing the weapon a necessary evil, to be avoided if possible. This ain’t a warrior. I would suggest we make the Army into cops, occupying and pacifying populations with carrots and sticks. And expand the Marines with the clear mission of blowing stuff up and killing people real good.
There was a long joke I saw about a chicken crossing the road in Iraq, and all the funny responses various factions made to the chicken. It ended with the Marines:”Sir, the chicken is dead.”
The Democratic who didn’t vote were: Baucus of Montana, Conrad of North Dakota, Inouye of Hawaii. The Republican who didn’t vote was: Conrad Burns of Montana.
Edward–Nah, I just read the transcripts and watch the Daily Show coverage of Bush’s speech, I don’t need the tsuris. Lieberman is Lieberman. Though actively endorsing part of the memos was a bit much.
The only vote that really surprise me are Lincoln Chafee and to a lesser extent Olympia Snowe.
I am prouder to be a Democrat today than in recent memory or than the vote totals might suggest. It was not your typical Senate debate. Most of them really put themselves on the line out there, and did it in an eloquent and honorable way. It’s a shame the press coverage is so pathetic.
And it’s clear, now, why Reid and Durbin didn’t call for a filibuste I’ve barely heard of the guy. I’m guessing it was r. Durbin pretty obviously wanted to. The votes weren’t there, and this was probably not the vote to push the wuss caucus to the wall on–that’s going to be the social security bill and eventually the Supreme Court (not necessarily Rehnquist.)
But they clearly care about this. Unless Durbin, Reid, Reed, Dodd, Kennedy, Obama, Feingold, Levin, and Leahy are excellent actors, they will not be forgetting this issue anytime soon. All of the leadership voted no. All of the likely 2008 primary candidates voted no. And some of the less prominent people–Tim Johnson and Blanche Lincoln from very Red States, Jeff Bingaman, an obscure guy from the state that I think has the highest hispanic population.
It’s not that I think he’ll be worse than Ashcroft. He’ll probably be better. What I’m concerned with is the message it sends, that there are close to no political consequences at all for this.
I have tried for as long as possible to convince myself this was not a partisan issue–that the Democrats weren’t raising the issue either, and that some of the Republicans were doing the right thing or could be convinced to. Joementum aside, both halves of that sentence became false today. I suspect McCain, Graham, Warner, Dole (of the Red Cross for God’s sake), Specter, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Lugar, Hagel could be counted on to vote the right way on a bill. But Dennis Hastert could be counted on not to allow a vote on such a bill, and Hastert, DeLay and Frist could be counted to strip it out in a conference committee if the administration asked him too. And we can forget about ever getting a real Congressional investigation. In the short run it’s pretty hopeless. In the long run, it’s far from that. The Democrats have showed up. That’s the first step.
I’m pretty sure that war was already fought… and it didn’t involve alot slapping, but actual killing.
The American South did not have to suffer like Germans, after WW2. As a matter of fact, the systematic racism became another nightmare. Could you imagine Germans being allowed to impose Jim Crow on non-Arayans after WW2?
“I’ve barely heard of the guy. I’m guessing it was” was supposed to be deleted from the first paragraph but mysteriously migrated to the fifth instead.
Wow, so this is what it’s like to be over on the other side of the fence at ObWings, hanging out with Sebastian and Stan and — OhMyGod — smlook.
Seriously, Edward, I think you’re projecting your own psychology on to combat soldiers and I think that’s a mistake.
I’ve held back on this, but at the risk of piling on Edward, whose heart is in the right place, while I have no problem with criticizing and reprimanding a Lt. Gen. for publically saying something impolitic and which someone far below his pay-scale needs to know is inappropriate to say in public, I do agree that soldiers talk like soldiers, and expecting them to do otherwise, at least amongst themselves, is rather idiotic.
We train soldiers to kill. As eagerly as possible, albeit, of course, with necessary judgment and strict attention to the rules of war. It all flows from that, and either you accept that (and possibly learn about it; I think it’s a good thing for civilians to learn as much of the truth as possible about war and warring) or you declare for pacificism. There really isn’t much of a sensible ground in-between; only denial.
Getting all a-flutter about soldiers talking tough simply speaks to the divide between military culture and most civilians, who exercise their privilege to be far from the military, and far from knowledge of it, and in most cases, far even from familiarity with anyone in the military.
Vaguely apropos, I offer this article by William James.
Does anybody believe Mattis ignored his being an officer and a gentleman, thus some peoples unease?
I know getting hookers is also, very much a part of war, yet I would find it unseemly if a gentleman were to be bragging how they “got so much tail, in Iraq, especially since everyone said it was going to be hard, being Islamic and all.”
An officer and a gentleman would know there is a time and place, so my mom used to tell me.
Lieberman’s a waste of space
Maybe he just has a political philosophy that while consistent,just doesn’t coincide with yours. If he’s a ‘waste of space’ so are a good %age of the posters here.
(Wait, did I just say that %^?)
Edward, I am sorry to disappoint you with my callous attitude towards Afghani soldiers.
But when the Taliban executed women, they made it a spectator sport, in stadiums, filled with chanting, cheering men. That’s not an image I’m going to forget in a hurry.
And when the Taliban decreed that women were forbidden to learn, to teach, to work – to do anything, really – and women were literally going insane from the privation, it was the men who informed on their wives, sisters, daughters, and mothers; it was the men who enforced those decrees, and turned their wives, etc., over to the Religious Police. I’m not going to forget that in a hurry, either.
“Does anybody believe Mattis ignored his being an officer and a gentleman….”
I had sort of blurred over the particular when I wrote my last post, by the way, that he’s not just a soldier, he’s not Army, he’s a frigging Marine.
So what I said before, quadrupled. I’m only surprised he didn’t discuss the joys of ripping [bleep, bleep, bleep] heads off and drinking [bleep] blood before it gets [bleeping] cold. Or words more to that effect. Then he might have used strong language.
He was one of the lead stories on at least one of the network evening newscasts that I flipped through earlier, by the way.
“And when the Taliban decreed that women were forbidden to learn, to teach, to work – to do anything, really – and women were literally going insane from the privation, it was the men who informed on their wives, sisters, daughters, and mothers; it was the men who enforced those decrees, and turned their wives, etc., over to the Religious Police. I’m not going to forget that in a hurry, either.”
And so it is with grimness and determination and moral surety that you should execute the perpetrators if that becomes necessary. ‘Fun’ doesn’t really do much honor to the history of oppression in Afghanistan, does it? That said, whatever floats his boat, as long as he’s only killing people it is in his purvey to kill.
Purview, of course. He can also purvey whatever he wants.
I laughed out loud when I read Mattis comments. There’s the rub. Nobody with three stars should ever make people laugh while on duty.
Lieberman’s a waste of space
Edward could you expand on this observation. How did McCain vote? Is John a waste of space too?
As for generals who speak their mind and the relationship to leadership, George Patton comes to mind. Just saying!
Getting all a-flutter about soldiers talking tough simply speaks to the divide between military culture and most civilians, who exercise their privilege to be far from the military, and far from knowledge of it, and in most cases, far even from familiarity with anyone in the military.
I think that this gap has grown quite a bit in that past 2-3 decades. Many liberal campuses don’t have ROTC programs, so the possibility of the armed forces being leavened with people from liberal environments has greatly decreased. With the guard sold as a college entry program, it was inevitable that this disjunction increase. This is not to insult people entering the guard, just to suggest that forces have conspired to make the military not be a cross section of our country. I think it is also revealing the culture gap between regular army units and guard units. When a guard unit is placed in a situation like Abu Grahib, the absence of unit cohesion and full training make problems inevitable. The William James link (thanks mc!) makes a similar point.
George Will (whose son is a Marine), IIRC, would often rail about the addition of women to the armed forces as ‘blunting the sharp point of the spear’ or some such nonsense like that around the time of the Balkans, I think. Yet from my viewpoint, what has to happen is that military forces need to repurpose themselves to become peacekeepers (insert your snark about Kucinich here) However, the institutional memory is going to mitigate against that.
I am sure that someone will rush up and talk about the military’s duty to defend the country, blah blah blah, but that age seems to be fading away. In fact, I think that Sadaam’s invasion of Kuwait could be seen as the last gasp of that kind of territorial imperative. In fact, if the shift to a smaller, more agile military (which should have been part of the peace dividend) had been accompanied by this sort of philosophical repurposing, I think that we would not be in the mess that we are in right now. However, I am not sure how such a repurposing could have been done.
LJ: Yet from my viewpoint, what has to happen is that military forces need to repurpose themselves to become peacekeepers (insert your snark about Kucinich here)… I am sure that someone will rush up and talk about the military’s duty to defend the country, blah blah blah, but that age seems to be fading away.
In my darker moments, I think we’re just between world wars. The reason I agree with your sentiment here is that, for the foreseeable future at least, a) the US itself need fear no conventional invasion; b) as you said, that kind of territorial imperative is on the decline. The reason I’m wary of it is that “on the decline” does not, in any fashion, mean “on the way out”; it just means that that particular motif is at a low ebb at this point in history, with a specter (perhaps inevitable) of waxing ascendant in the future again.
Anarch
Geez, you’re a cheery fellow. But you have a very good point, I’m sad to say.
Marines are the ultimate killers, but they still have a keen sense for “time and place.”
Since it was a conference of his peers, there may have been high comfort level.
Edward could you expand on this observation. How did McCain vote? Is John a waste of space too?
I can’t answer for Ed (nor would I presume). But McCain sold out his principles for party loyalty. Bad, but not the worst crime. Of any Senator, he knows what he voted for.
Lieberman, on the other hand, should be out of the party precisely because he did not sell out his principles. Remember this is the Senator that approved of Abu Ghrab. The Democratic Party has no place for people who will cross party lines to support torture.
And I haven’t even gotten to Gonzales’ views on executive powers during wartime. His client is no longer the president. He is now the chief attorney for the United States. And if there is a conflict of interest, I have no doubt where his loyalties lie.
lj,
In fact, I think that Sadaam’s invasion of Kuwait could be seen as the last gasp of that kind of territorial imperative.
are you sure you don’t mean the US’s invasion of Iraq?
PS. If you enjoy killing people you are not warrior, you are a psychopath.
Neodude
“An officer and a gentleman would know there is a time and place, so my mom used to tell me.”
I think that’s the whole point of his “counseling”.
PS. If you enjoy killing people you are not warrior, you are a psychopath.
DQ
I just want to make sure that you are using the generic ‘you’ here. I would also like to know why you are appending this in your comment to me.
Wow…..Absolutely gobsmacked. How can anyone defend “it’s fun to shoot them”. I just don’t understand. Americans claim to set the morals for the world, well that bar has just been set very, very low.
Like a number of posters here I’m baffled — and a bit frightened — by the ability of thinking people to applaud with this man said. We’ve transitioned cleanly from ‘fear of a faceless enemy’ to ‘demonization of a people’ to ‘deriving personal pleasure and satisfaction from the murder of a human being.’
A close friend of mine is in the marines. He is a certifiable hardass, a man I am proud to see protecting our country. But the things he’s had to do in his three tours of the country haunt him and weigh on him daily.
It’s a tragedy that he has had to take these things on. To see him become a sociopath would be an even greater tragedy.
Seriously, Edward, I think you’re projecting your own psychology on to combat soldiers and I think that’s a mistake.
Psychology? No. Morality.
fun – n. activities that are enjoyable or amusing
By defintion then, one would assume that people not only look forward to “fun” but will participate in fun actitivies as often as they can.
Folks can tie in all the “but they were very bad men” agruments they want here (and without trials, we’re really just guessing who they were and why they were fighting us), but the fact remains that a US Lt. General indicated that he finds ending other peoples’ lives enjoyable or amusing.
I find that absolutely barbaric.
Taking pride in your work is one thing. A prison guard who straps a convicted murderer onto the lethal injection table can hold his head high and say he’s only doing his job, but to imagine he would join his buddies later at a bar and hoot and holler about how much fun it was, IMO, is sick.
I don’t mind our Marines being efficient killing machines. I do mind them having so little regard for human life they see killing other people as sport.
I’d rather they see it as a necessary evil and show respect for “life” by not bragging about how they enjoy ending it.
Military people, and especially Marines, talk like this privately. Gary Farber’s comment nails it. Completely changing the culture of the American military is the only “counseling” that will have an effect. I’d say there are much more important issues to be upset about.
Edward – I hear what you are saying, which is why I said above that the remarks were repellant; they were clumsy, loudmouthed braggadocio in a public place from someone who should have known better. In a public forum, such sentiments are easily read as an aggrandizement of murder.
But. The idea that our soldiers must be solemn, rueful professionals reluctantly doing an ugly duty really ignores the fundamental military (and especially Marine) culture of kicking ass. Just look at some of the unofficial unit mottos you find sharpied onto flak jackets and helmets: “Peace is our profession – mass murder is just a hobby” (Marines), “Don’t run, you’ll just die tired” (Army snipers). It’s a real part of the way our military thinks, and does not necessarily reflect, as suggested above, that the speaker is a psychopath. Barbaric? Er, yeah, but all war is fundamentally barbaric. The marines I have known, from the WWII, Vietnam, and modern era, would have laughed at the General’s remarks, as the crowd he was speaking to did.
Oh, and as to “piling on” Edward, I’m not worried about that. AFAICT, Edward can take us all on typing lefthanded, while finishing his pancakes with his right.
Managing the vote in Mosul
BY DIONNE SEARCEY
NEWSDAY STAFF CORRESPONDENT
February 4, 2005
MOSUL, Iraq — Penned in Arabic across the helmet of a guard inside a polling station Sunday were the words “My God, Allah.” Without as much as a second glance, voters in the crowded school courtyard queued past the soldier, who wore a brown speckled Iraqi military uniform and a scarf that covered his blond moustache.
He was a U.S. Marine.
{{{rest of story available at link…no offense, Knot My Hair, but we ask folks not reprint an entire article if a link’s avilable to save on disk space. Ed.}}}
Hey, when these guys come back home, are we still going to let them kill bad people? Cause it’s so much fun and all, and hey, they’re really good at it.
We might have to expand our definition of ‘bad people’ just a bit, though, in order to have an adequate supply…
Mostly this just sums up, in a single incident, why having Marines, our premier heavy shock troops, trying to perform police functions in an occupied country is a really, really bad idea.
Mostly this just sums up, in a single incident, why having Marines, our premier heavy shock troops, trying to perform police functions in an occupied country is a really, really bad idea.
Amen.
I think it’s perfectly fine to view war as a video game. Kill ’em all for extra points, boys!
nice even assessment, st, thanks.
My baby brother was a Marine. My older brother and father both Sailors. My grandfathers and uncles Soldiers, my step-brother an Airman, and on and on and on and on. (We’re working class…we’re recruited quite actively.) So, I have some clue what military mentality is like. I would still be horrified if any of my relatives confided in me that they enjoyed killing people. My cousin (ex-soldier) who lost part of his hand in the first Iraq war, remains a very gentle man. That war was not “fun” for him. He won’t say if he killed anyone and I wouldn’t pressure him to. An ex-boyfriend of mine (of three years) was a British Marine (stationed in Northern Ireland in the 80’s and fought in the Falklands and elsewhere) and I know he’s killed people. He’s got severe PTSD and scares the bejesus out of most people.
I’m not taking a stand on this from some point of abstract moral objection. Encouraging the culture of kicking-ass might be good in as much as it helps us win wars, but when someone forgets himself and brings that culture into the noncombat civilian world, it’s the right thing to do to slap his knuckles hard. That kind of attitude minus discipline is dangerous.
edward,
you are such a conservative.
AFAICT, Edward can take us all on typing lefthanded, while finishing his pancakes with his right.
That is the single worst euphemism I’ve ever heard.
What do you have against pancakes?
So, is Edward left-handed?
🙂
Lieberman’s a waste of space
Did you see him kiss Bush after the SOTU?
Actually, I didn’t watch the SOTU, watched a tape of AI instead. But then kos posted this link, and I had to look, and ack! My eyes! They burn! They burn!
Mostly this just sums up, in a single incident, why having Marines, our premier heavy shock troops, trying to perform police functions in an occupied country is a really, really bad idea.
As my friend said after his second tour in Iraq, “It’s like sending bricklayers to bake cakes. We shoot shit. That’s what we do.”
Joe Lieberman describes The Kiss:
“I was surprised,” the senator said later. “I extended my hand and he was good enough to give me a manly embrace.”
I’m sorry to do this to Moe’s googlebomb, but ninjas do not talk about “manly embraces”, nor do they do what Lieberman did yesterday or the night before. Harry Reid might have certain ninja-like qualities. Lieberman does not.
My nickname for Lieberman is based on a Daily Show sketch, where they were quizzing 3-year-olds on world events. They show him a picture of Bush, and ask who it is. “The pwesident.” A picture of Kerry: “I don’t know him.” A picture of Lieberman: “Grandma!”
So, is Edward left-handed
Perhaps he’s… ambidextrous.
Grandma!
That is most definitely his new name.
I extended my hand and he was good enough to give me a manly embrace.
So that’s what these crazy kids are callin’ it these days…
I just want to make sure that you are using the generic ‘you’ here. I would also like to know why you are appending this in your comment to me.
LJ,
It’s a purely generic you. I was just to lazy to create a separate comment!
Thanks for the response, DQ and sorry to be so sensitive.
Manufacturing a weak integrity argument to justify free speech violations…
It started in a federal Court in Pittsburgh and has moved quickly to Colorado Universtity and Iraq. It’s a stretch, but political hacks have besieged first amendment free speech protections.
They attempt to combine a provacative essay comparing victims of 911 with Nazi criminals and an emotionally charged General’s comments on war, questioning whether such is permissible when the comments may cause damaged to an institution’s integrity.
Why?
Because in a Pittsburgh federal court a well connected corporate crony has suggested the novice argument, and the legal question is waddling without any legal precedent in need of an activist court.
Thus the current unexplained campaign against “free speech” appears to be little more than a Madison Avenue scheme to control any discussion of the President’s desire to privatize higher education.
That is, a number of for-profit colleges have faced inquiries, lawsuits and other actions calling into question the way they inflate enrollment to mislead/increase the value of their parent company’s stock.
In the last year, the Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. In addition, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.
But in a Pittsburgh federal court there is a bigger can of worms.
Kaplan, Inc., is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. For-profit postsecondary education has turned the company around and individuals far more powerful than Martha Steward have made millions. However, there is a nominal “Watergate” styled federal court proceeding (scandal) involving campus “free speech,” that could expose the administration’s violation of public trust
In short, I provided the S.E.C., Department of Education, and federal courts information that appears to prove Kaplan inflated the Concord School of Law enrollment, telling investors that the “flagship” of its higher education division has as many as 600 to 1000 or more students.
I also provided evidence to prove apparent violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
However, in an attempt to protect important icons of the Washington and New York financial/political circle, hacks have been hired to stir a free speech controversy.
But even Stan Chess (En Passant http://lawtv.typepad.com/en_passant/2004/a_question_of_l.html) innocently questioned the obvious – a clear violation of the federal securities laws.
“Kaplan’s Concord School of Law says it’s one of the largest law schools in the country, yet for each administration only about 25 of its graduates sit for the bar exam. What happens to the hundreds of other students in each class?”
What are you willing to do?
“Colorado Universtity….”
Although this seems somewhat trollish, I’ll make the trivial point that I believe you are referring to the University of Colorado, here in Boulder, not Colorado State University, which is not. (Confusingly, the standard acronym for the University of Colorado is “CU,” not the logical “U of C” it should be; allegedly this is because of the “proximity” of the University of Colorado, some 850+ miles away, although the University of Chicago seems to manage without confusion, as do other schools with the same initials.)
I vote for Gen. Mattis. It is fun to kill your enemies. They’re trying to kill you. You get them first. It’s a good thing. What do you expect combat troops to do? Stop and shed a tear? Carry candles with them and light one for each kill? You’d love it if the general engaged in hypocrisy and mewled about how awful it is to take a human life but, regretably, as professional soldiers we must do our duty, etc., etc. Give me a break. Someone spills the guts of your buddies, you positively relish blowing them away. What the heck do you think combat is?