Mike,
I don't disagree that people make unsubstantiated judgments on a whole host of factors. What I disagree with is making comparisons between one's occupation (and choices) and one's race. Goesh's statement, maybe accurate, was not precise.
And the 5$ movie tickets were at theaters outside Ft. Sill.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
and I acknowledge that occurs with some. Most who serve, though do not really accept that and fairly quickly come up with their own reasons for serving -- or not (and most of those get out). Members of different tribes always suspect and tend to dismiss non-members, goes with the human condition.
The issue, I think, is whether and how firmly tribal identity is accepted and espoused as opposed to particular accepted belief models, then it becomes a case of defending the tribe against all others. Regardless of logic...
That applies to Academics and Military people. Or Cops, Butchers, Pashtuns, Anishinabe and the local Chapter of the GLBTHS -- any grouping of people. Even religious and pacifist groups.
Oh -- and people are not precise...
Wow, I just read all the posts here everyone left after visiting that military science professor Okay, to Marc, I think I'm finally learning how to see in color Seeing in black and white is inconvienent. If there is one thing the UC system in California is good at, its mental masturbation, LOL, especially those of us on North Campus in the liberal arts. We are all theory, flying off in the mental realms of imagination all day long People on the South end of campus who are more applied, or in the hard sciences, really do seem more in touch with reality. A friend of mine who does engineering says to me "Of course your absent minded, you live on north campus, lol."
And to the anthropologists lurking here, hello.
Okay, visiting the military science professor. I will admit what was echoed by someone previously, people in uniform who tend to embody fighting have this effect on (liberal) academics, lol. I just experienced it. I was really nervous visiting him at first, cause I thought as a civilian, he would force me to get on a Black Hawk, or airplane and make me jump out in a parachute. I know he's taken an oath to upload and defend the constitution, especially to protect us civilians, but the uniform is scary, lol. I think I'd be less afraid of a fire fighter cause as a civilian I would be more used to them.
Even in the military science department, the ROTC cadets were entirely different from the rest of the civilian students at my school. When the assistant professor came in, they froze in posture and replied, "Yes, sir!" and "No, sir!" to the professor/army captain. I found this to be an interesting anthropological experience, studying the ROTC department. I felt alienated at first, odd that they behaved so rigidly, but after a few minutes the people there were friendly. There was an honestly about them in how they described the annoying people who hand out fliers. One of them said, "Yes, that is annoying, they act like **%$#."
I was really intimidated by the professor at first, but then he welcomed me to the department and told me to finish my lunch. However, when I was talking to him in his office, no one dared interupt him. Someone wrote down something with a post-it note and slapped it on his desk in a way that seemed very kinetic. After about 10 minutes, when he looked up information about civilian jobs in the military, I felt comfortable, he was very nice, upright and helpful. I gave him information about the art history department, since one of his cadets coming in will be majoring in art history.
Although it was really intimidating at first, I'm glad that I met him and I hope the information that I shared with him helped him as well. After meeting with him, I talked to this other undergraduate girl about my experience meeting with that professor. She said, "There's something about military guys that makes them very sexy, something about that uniform and their toughness makes them attractive. But they are also really scary cause they use guns."
I agreed with her. Also what she said echoed what was said earlier in this thread, that service personnel in uniform embody fighting/violence, which can be very scary to academics or those unfamiliar with it. But I learned that even people in uniform, when they are out of uniform, they become ordinary people with families, who have the same worries and problems as the rest of us Anyhow, this was an interesting experience. I'll try not to be scared of guys in uniform who are supposed to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Naomi
It is interesting and refreshing to get your point of view on this. For those of us who have been associated with the military for decades, it is instructive to read how other people, who have not perceive "us".
It's also cool to see an unassociated academic type take an interest. Make sure to avoid becoming a "fan"; as most of the dogma against military personnel is incorrect, there are some systematic issues with the military and the majority of people who serve in it.
I know I didn't sign up for either a pedestal or a halo, and when I get issued them by a "fan" it makes me extremely uncomfortable.
is really good. I second the motion.
Cheers
JohnT
Hey Naomi, your recent saga gives me a chance to tell a "I don't know, but I've been told" story - told by JMM's mom.
When my dad got to come home for a bit before he shipped over for his Euro vacation, my mom and I met him at the railway station. So, we ran up to dad and mom said, Let's hug daddy. At that, JMM (then betwixt 1 & 2) yelled That's not my daddy - and ran under one of the benches.
I suppose it was the uniform - and also that he of the porcelain skin was several shades darker after baking some months in the Texas sun (the recessive French-Canadian, especially the Canadian, genes came to the fore).
All was not lost - mom and dad managed to talk me out from under the bench - and family life went on.
And, of course, JMM had to have his uniform - which mom made (see attached). So, your life experience with the military, or sans military, has everything to do with your perception of the person in uniform.
Still, re this:
I've not found guys in uniform either sexy or scary - Is there something wrong with me ?"There's something about military guys that makes them very sexy, something about that uniform and their toughness makes them attractive. But they are also really scary cause they use guns."
Naomi, very interesting thread, filling the need for a better civilian-military interface. Thanks for wading (diving) in.
Why am I doing this at 0900 on a day off - I could be sleeping.
"Okay, visiting the military science professor. I will admit what was echoed by someone previously, people in uniform who tend to embody fighting have this effect on (liberal) academics, lol. I just experienced it. I was really nervous visiting him at first, cause I thought as a civilian, he would force me to get on a Black Hawk, or airplane and make me jump out in a parachute." (Naomi)
I take it there was a helicopter near the building its rotors sending a lethal, ominous wind in all directions, forcing the student body to cower, cringe and whimper .........? I am totally flabergasted at this
Like the old crack:
He: "Do I scare you?"
She: "No!"
He: "Would you like me to?"
In my undergraduate days (a few years back), I was older than my classmates as I had served five years enlisted in the Coast Guard, but was taking the Army's money to pay for college. I met a young woman from one of the pacifist political groups at a party. When she found out that I was in ROTC and the National Guard, she loudly berated me, insisting that I was a cold-blooded killing machine. Before the party was over, she invited me to her room for the night. I didn't take her up on this as, even if she had been sober, she was clearly as neurotic as a shaved monkey.
Years later...
One of my brothers married his second wife in the UC Berkley faculty club, where he, a Engineering PhD candidate and his English PhD candidate bride were attending school. I had my dress blues with me, and a different brother (I have three brothers, this one is the other soldier) and I briefly discussed our options for attire. We felt that uniforms in the UC Berkley faculty club would go over like flatulence in a mosque, especially given that the first description of our new sister-in-law included the phrase "peace activist". So we went with civilian attire.
About a year later at my wedding, my brother and I were both wearing uniforms as were several of the guests and the chaplain performing the ceremony (Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard in uniforms, former Navy and more Army and Air Force in civilian attire among the guests). During the reception, the English professor scampers up to us and says "You look so good in your uniforms! Why didn't you wear them to MY wedding?". God bless him, my brother had the presence of mind to look her in the eye and say "We didn't want to do anything to distract attention from your special day." (Note: I'm a commissioned officer and my brother is [and was at the time] a senior non-commissioned officer, and did an excellent job of what NCOs are supposed to do, keeping me out of trouble.)
Last edited by Van; 05-08-2009 at 05:43 PM. Reason: grammar, format, and a lack of coffee
I never cease to be amazed at the prejudices held about the military. If one were to hold similar prejudices against just about any other group (aside from investment bankers, lawyers, or politicians) then one would be labelled a bigot or racist.
A fellow law student, upon learning that I used to be in the Army, asked me, "are you going to do pro bono work for veterans?"
I asked him, "you mean like a veteran's discount for any clients who are veterans?" I had no idea what he was talking about. Upon further discussion, I found that he was under the impression that most veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have mental and medical issues that rarely get addressed or resolved and that they have a difficult time reintegrating into society, no job skills, minimal education, and often need legal assistance to force the bureaucracy to help them get jobs, medical help, counseling, et cetera. It was eye-opening, to say the least. I went on to open his eyes, as well, explaining the media's tendency to only report the sensational (whether it be about the Army, Hollywood, or anything else in life) and using the olympic-intramural analogy to explain to him the errors in his assumptions.
Hey Schmedlap,
Your's has been a good experience re: VA, etc. (my inference from your posts); but that is not always the case. Sometimes (IMO, too often the case) it is necessary to use "legal assistance to force the bureaucracy".
As to such legal assistance, two main things should be kept in mind:
1. VA law (and military benefits law, in general) are very specialized fields - in short, e.g., JMM is not competent to handle VA claims. Period.
2. The USG, in its infinite wisdom (that crack is only half-sarcastic, since some constraints are needed), has placed hurdles in the path of legal representation of veterans - some going back to the civil war.
Most often, service officers from the various veterans organizations are the best choice to render assistance. The vets orgs are also often the best shot at getting on-line assistance.
My own choice has been Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA; associate life member since near its inception, mem # 1xxx), which has several guides, etc., on vets benefits:
Benefits Guides on PTSD & Agent Orange.
Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents 2009. VA Guide is here.
VVA's Guide on PTSD has a section on Lawyers:
The VA regs on agents and attorneys are here.Lawyers
There are limits on when you can pay a lawyer to help you with a VA claim. Generally, you can hire a lawyer only after the BVA has decided your claim. Many lawyers work on a contingency basis that means you do not have to pay them a fee up front. If you do not win benefits, you will not have to pay a fee. Some private lawyers and some legal aid or legal services offices provide representation free of charge at all stages of a VA claim.
There is an organization of attorneys who regularly practice before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (which has jurisdiction over BVA decisions). Its members are available to represent you at the Court. For a list of these attorneys contact: the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA)
If no private practitioners are willing to represent you at the Court, it might be possible to obtain pro bono representation through the Veterans Pro Bono Consortium. The Court will send you information about this opportunity if you file an appeal there.
No suggestions by me as to what (if any) pro bono legal work Schmedlap should do. You know my thoughts about the relative worth of good infantry officers vs good lawyers.[*]
But, the combo (law + infantry) has worked in the past - e.g., Caesar and Giap to name two.
Bonne chance.
Mike
-------------------------
[*] PS: for the benefit of others. JMM position: We need good infantry officers more than we need good lawyers.
Last edited by jmm99; 05-09-2009 at 07:40 PM. Reason: add PS
JMM,
I've seen some bureaucratic foolishness. For example, I know of a Soldier who lost two limbs, nearly lost a third, and some paper pusher wanted to give him something absurd, like 10% disability. About 15 very angry Officers and NCOs, to include some surly field grades, paid a visit to that office to explain why this was unacceptable. Things changed quickly.
Nonetheless, that is good info that I was not aware of. When a chain of command fails to do what I observed, I'm sure the paperwork and legality gets really stupid, really quickly.
However, my source of befuddlement with this fellow mentioned in the previous post was one of degree. Had I asked him, "what percentage of veterans have these issues?" I suspect that he would have said, "70 or 80 percent?" He seemed truly surprised when I told him that most veterans don't have those medical/mental problems and, among those who do, most do not encounter the bureaucratic nightmares that he referred to.
agree with your analysis of a common misperception by folks who are not familiar with active or former serving types. So, the misperception that a majority of Vietnam vets were C-4 packages awaiting a fuse to be lit - as per the Rambo series, etc., ad infinitum, ad nausium.
Truth being that even the "nut cases" (full VA disability) are scarcely Rambo. E.g., close friend (combat medic attached to 1CAV), after his first full shrink and group sessions, was told he had severe problems. He told the shrink (in effect): What'd mean, I've stayed married to the same woman; ran a successful business, been a school principal; and have had to self-medicate some, but I'm on an even keel. The shrink said: That's what I mean. You're in total denial and have repressed everything. You're nuttier than a fruitcake.
That was many years ago - the shrink was right (and much of the repressed stuff was pretty bad). So, my friend could have sat on his ass and collected his checks (well-deserved). But, being a hard charger, he became and still is heavily involved in Vietnam vets stuff - so, he has earned his VA bucks at least twice over.
PS: He also has the PH for physical wounds; but those had less lingering effect than the mental stuff.
was written off the top of my head - and frankly anecdotal. The question of the severity and extent of mental problems in combat veterans has been a controversial topic since Vietnam. I've linked the VVA Guide above; the definition of PTSD accepted by that organization is here.
The April 2009 issue of Scientific American has an article on the subject, Soldiers' Stress: What Doctors Get Wrong about PTSD, with a number of links to related studies. A critique ("PTSD, Mental Health, and the Military: Problematic Reporting at Scientific American and ScienceBlogs") of that article is here; and an update ("Mental Health and the Combat Veteran: It's Not All PTSD") to the crtique is here.
All of this tends to be inside baseball for those who are following it. In any event the links above will give those in liberal academia (and elsewhere) an idea of what is going on in this area. The %s (in whatever view) are much lower than those of Schmedlap's hypothetical friend's 70-80%.
-------------------------
Another Vietnam vet related question is that of mortality. I read Phil Salois' Taps column in the VVA Veteran. I've noticed for some time that more obits were of people younger than I, than the same age or older. So, I went though the latest issue and added up the deaths by two age groups: 66 and over - 17; 65 and under - 46.
That does not square with mortality tables. Possibly, VVA members are an unhealthy bunch as compared to other Vietnam vets. Also possible is that there are many more VVA members in the younger cohort (e.g., if average age ca. 1968-1969 was 19, born ca. 1949-1950; that may be the answer). Something for a statistician to report on.
I don't know whether anyone in academia (liberal or otherwise) has looked at the comparable death rates of Vietnam vets vs their general cohorts.
In any event, these are issues with which academia (liberal or otherwise) does not have to personally deal.
Last edited by jmm99; 05-10-2009 at 06:06 PM.
AP at 0006 EDT, 12 May, seems the latest update to the stress clinic shooting - shooter is identified as a sergeant, 5 victims not identified; with some added details to earlier accounts.
What distinguishes that event, is it's relative rarity.
If Conventional Wisdom ran the world, armed combat vets would be slaughtering each other on a daily basis. (and not in the context of enemies, either)
Fortunately, it IS the exception, not the rule.
I know it will be spun by some. And others will over-emphasize the event, not for their personal or partisan gain, but because they are concerned about the soldiers' welfare. Hard to keep that kind of headline in balance.from 120mm
Fortunately, it IS the exception, not the rule.
Think we've strayed from liberal academia. Rec we start a new thread. Check out this topic over in the Dander Room @ Wired.
If I knew how to install a hyperlink, I would probably do it # here.
I'm not sure (as a liberal acedemic) I see quite the same bias against uniformed folks that others are reporting here. Then again, I'm in Canada, and we don't see many uniformed folks.
However, to recover the thread on a lighter note, a few years ago one of our PhD students--a USAF Captain at the time--applied for university Research Ethics Board clearance of his proposed PhD research. The Board, not surprisingly, asked for clarification of the relationship between his research and his military service, and the nature of his USAF funding, in order to determine the ownership and uses to which the research might be put.
A reassuring letter was requested from the Department of the Air Force, which duly sent this useful gem:
As you might imagine, this kind of language was rather less than reassuring to the members of the Research Ethics BoardThe Area Studies Advanced Program represents an EAF related initiative aimed at developing an expeditionary force capable of supporting a broad range of global military operations, from peacekeeping to major theater war (MTW).
(In the end he got the ethics clearance. Interestingly, his first topic was turned down not by the university but by the USAF--they considered it too dangerous to send an officer to the country in question on research, although our other graduate students routinely visit there!)
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Bookmarks