Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Eggplant Squire
Aug 14, 2003


Oops wrong thread.

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Apr 2, 2014

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

KomradeX
Oct 29, 2011

I don't think this is really a terrible editorial, but for lack of a better place for discussion

[Url] http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/my_white_liberal_frenemies_when_twitter_exchanges_reveal_untrustworthy_allies/?source=newsletter[/url]

While she is right that there are plenty of liberals who ate racist or just dismissive of minorities opinions I think #CancelColbert is shaky ground to build that on.

MisterBadIdea
Oct 9, 2012

Anything?

KomradeX posted:

I don't think this is really a terrible editorial, but for lack of a better place for discussion

[Url] http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/my_white_liberal_frenemies_when_twitter_exchanges_reveal_untrustworthy_allies/?source=newsletter[/url]

While she is right that there are plenty of liberals who ate racist or just dismissive of minorities opinions I think #CancelColbert is shaky ground to build that on.

No, I think that's a pretty terrible article, even though the broader point about how liberals can be dismissive of minority opinions is undeniably true. But in this specific case, she doesn't actually put forth an argument, attempt to persuade anybody or back up her point with anecdotes or experiences or reasoning. She just asserts her correctness as if by birthright. Compare it to Ta-Nehisi Coates, who absolutely puts in the legwork for his articles that this writer utterly refuses to.

Mo_Steel
Mar 7, 2008

Let's Clock Into The Sunset Together

Fun Shoe

KomradeX posted:

I don't think this is really a terrible editorial, but for lack of a better place for discussion

[Url] http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/my_white_liberal_frenemies_when_twitter_exchanges_reveal_untrustworthy_allies/?source=newsletter[/url]

While she is right that there are plenty of liberals who ate racist or just dismissive of minorities opinions I think #CancelColbert is shaky ground to build that on.

The Ching Chong Ding Dong character isn't mocking asian people it's mocking racists. I don't know how anyone could so completely not comprehend a bit, it's not that nuanced of a commentary to require much active examination to understand. :confused:

It's making fun of people like the girl at the start of this video who make casual racist statements by showcasing their ignorance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zulEMWj3sVA

Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Apr 2, 2014

cafel
Mar 29, 2010

This post is hurting the economy!

Mo_Steel posted:

The Ching Chong Ding Dong character isn't mocking asian people it's mocking racists. I don't know how anyone could so completely not comprehend a bit, it's not that nuanced of a commentary to require much active examination to understand. :confused:

It's making fun of people like the girl at the start of this video who make casual racist statements by showcasing their ignorance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zulEMWj3sVA

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. It's true that in this case it was straight up satire, but Colbert has previously been caught doing his fake Asian accent as a straight up joke when he thought he wasn't in the public eye. Honestly as an Asian American I haven't been that put out over either event, but I can see how people would be bothered by references to it. And while my thinking on the original issue doesn't line up with a lot of the people upset over this, I can definitely understand being miffed at the response of a bunch of liberal white people trying to rather forcefully explain to you that this time being bothered by a racial issue isn't correct since this time it's one of the good guys.

My biggest problem with the editorial is the endorsement for #CancelColbert as a tactical move to increase attention. If people are calling for removal over things even they see as minor with no real intention to provoke official action, what are would you do if you found out something legit racist, like Asian writers were being kept out of the Colbert Report staff? You're already calling for the shows cancellation, what new level do you go to to show that this time the behavior really is unacceptable.

Mr. Funny Pants
Apr 9, 2001

cafel posted:

It's true that in this case it was straight up satire, but Colbert has previously been caught doing his fake Asian accent as a straight up joke when he thought he wasn't in the public eye.

You were kidding, right? The "intercepted satellite feed" was a bit. It was another example of the Colbert character being an insensitive imbecile.

samurai slowdown
Jun 11, 2006

POWER UP

KomradeX posted:

I don't think this is really a terrible editorial, but for lack of a better place for discussion

[Url] http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/my_white_liberal_frenemies_when_twitter_exchanges_reveal_untrustworthy_allies/?source=newsletter[/url]

While she is right that there are plenty of liberals who ate racist or just dismissive of minorities opinions I think #CancelColbert is shaky ground to build that on.

It was on shaky ground because the "activist" behind it is a profoundly ill person that has latched on to various social justice causes. I don't understand how you can openly be internet BFFs with Michelle Malkin who, aside from writing a book supporting Japanese internment in order to make the case for Muslim internment, has contributed articles to loving VDARE since 2002, and have any credibility as an anti-racist activist. She's like the second coming of Hugo Schwyzer. :psyduck:

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

Yeah if I tweeted #theskyisblue and Michelle Malkin agreed with me, I would reconsider my position on the subject...and probably apologize publicly to the Japanese communit just to be sure.

MaxxBot
Oct 6, 2003

you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!
This spat between Michelle Malkin and Colbert reminds me of when John Hawkins got mad at Alex Baldwin after he made a bunch of homophobic remarks. Normally that would be laudable but here is John Hawkins writing on the subject of homosexuality.

quote:

If you're gay, you're not allowed to act on it. If that seems harsh or unfair to you, well, sorry, but you'll have to take it up with God. It's His rule.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." -- Leviticus 18:22

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah could tell you how serious God is about that -- if there were any of them left.

Hawkins seemed oddly unconcerned about homophobia before this specific case, as if there were something different, hmmmm.

cafel
Mar 29, 2010

This post is hurting the economy!

Mr. Funny Pants posted:

You were kidding, right? The "intercepted satellite feed" was a bit. It was another example of the Colbert character being an insensitive imbecile.

Huh, watched the clip all the way through and it was a bit different than how I had remembered. Thought it had a more serious and apologetic tone. Of course the last time I saw it was over eight years ago, guess my memory of my early teen years is starting to go, I have a false memory of there being some controversy over the whole thing, but googling it doesn't bring up anything. The current furor makes even less sense then.

Mr. Funny Pants
Apr 9, 2001

cafel posted:

Huh, watched the clip all the way through and it was a bit different than how I had remembered. Thought it had a more serious and apologetic tone. Of course the last time I saw it was over eight years ago, guess my memory of my early teen years is starting to go, I have a false memory of there being some controversy over the whole thing, but googling it doesn't bring up anything. The current furor makes even less sense then.

No problem. My memory is shot beyond belief.

Entropic
Feb 21, 2007

patriarchy sucks
Is there even a furor? I thought it was just a few nobodies on blogs trying to stir poo poo up. I haven't heard anything about this from real news sources. I wouldn't have known about it if not for this thread.

Blarghalt
May 19, 2010

I have a hypothesis that the real Michelle Malkin has been dead for over a decade, and now some alien that doesn't quite understand human social customs is trying to impersonate her.

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth

Entropic posted:

Is there even a furor? I thought it was just a few nobodies on blogs trying to stir poo poo up. I haven't heard anything about this from real news sources. I wouldn't have known about it if not for this thread.

No, it's basically Malkin and a twitter activist who has a long history of being a joke banging the drum.

kik2dagroin
Mar 23, 2007

Use the anger. Use it.

CHARLES G. KOCH posted:

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.
...
Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.
...
Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
...
Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.

If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I'm dedicated to fighting for that vision. I'm convinced most Americans believe it's worth fighting for, too.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...od%3Dhp_opinion
Every citizen has the right to donate the cost of two teacher's salaries to the political process, just like me! What wealth inequality?

Blarghalt
May 19, 2010

Reminder that the Koch Brothers' daddy was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society.

Pththya-lyi
Nov 8, 2009

THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

Blarghalt posted:

Reminder that the Koch Brothers' daddy was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society.

And that he made his fortune drilling oil for the Soviet Union after the big American companies tried to sue him out of business.

KomradeX
Oct 29, 2011

MisterBadIdea posted:

No, I think that's a pretty terrible article, even though the broader point about how liberals can be dismissive of minority opinions is undeniably true. But in this specific case, she doesn't actually put forth an argument, attempt to persuade anybody or back up her point with anecdotes or experiences or reasoning. She just asserts her correctness as if by birthright. Compare it to Ta-Nehisi Coates, who absolutely puts in the legwork for his articles that this writer utterly refuses to.

Ta-Nehisi Coates has been getting a lot of talk on the forums lately, I have to look up some of his work.

As for #cancelColbert, I think that the author highlights twitter activism, which is a really awful platform to have debates on, since 140 characters is not a lot of space to say something of any merit on complex subject. Also how the gently caress can you be friends with Michelle Malkin and be outraged at what Colbert said highlighting how stupid/racist the owner of the Redskins is.

VideoTapir
Oct 18, 2005

He'll tire eventually.

kik2dagroin posted:

Every citizen has the right to donate the cost of two teacher's salaries to the political process, just like me! What wealth inequality?

Anyone can buy OCP stock! What could be more democratic than that?

DAD LOST MY IPOD
Feb 3, 2012

Fats Dominar is on the case


MisterBadIdea posted:

No, I think that's a pretty terrible article, even though the broader point about how liberals can be dismissive of minority opinions is undeniably true. But in this specific case, she doesn't actually put forth an argument, attempt to persuade anybody or back up her point with anecdotes or experiences or reasoning. She just asserts her correctness as if by birthright. Compare it to Ta-Nehisi Coates, who absolutely puts in the legwork for his articles that this writer utterly refuses to.

I'm fairly disappointed in Coates, who I have respected as an activist, getting on the Suey Park train. Park is an absolutely horrible, irredeemable person with a prove track record of prioritizing self-promotion over real activism. I think there is a tendency to reflexively support activists of color who are on the receiving end of racist hate, but the problem here is that while Suey Park deserves none of the racist hate she's getting, that doesn't undermine the legitimate criticism of her actions. She is 100% deserving of the non-racist criticism she's gotten and by simply responding to the racist stuff she's painting all of her detractors with the same brush, which conveniently obviates her responsibility to address legitimate beef people have with her campaign.

Just because assholes are criticizing you doesn't make you right, or make all of your opponents wrong. Otherwise I could spend five minutes on the Assata Shakur forums and permanently undermine the arguments of every Black activist in America.

MisterBadIdea
Oct 9, 2012

Anything?

DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:

I'm fairly disappointed in Coates, who I have respected as an activist, getting on the Suey Park train.

He did? Where?

The Warszawa
Jun 6, 2005

Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:

I'm fairly disappointed in Coates, who I have respected as an activist, getting on the Suey Park train. Park is an absolutely horrible, irredeemable person with a prove track record of prioritizing self-promotion over real activism. I think there is a tendency to reflexively support activists of color who are on the receiving end of racist hate, but the problem here is that while Suey Park deserves none of the racist hate she's getting, that doesn't undermine the legitimate criticism of her actions. She is 100% deserving of the non-racist criticism she's gotten and by simply responding to the racist stuff she's painting all of her detractors with the same brush, which conveniently obviates her responsibility to address legitimate beef people have with her campaign.

Just because assholes are criticizing you doesn't make you right, or make all of your opponents wrong. Otherwise I could spend five minutes on the Assata Shakur forums and permanently undermine the arguments of every Black activist in America.

Can you link to this? I can't find anything in his Atlantic archive about it but that doesn't mean he didn't mention it. He has spent most of the last week or so schooling the gently caress out of Chait, though.

Frog Act
Feb 10, 2012



This incredibly awful editorial was in my newspaper today entitled - "Billionaires - ya gotta love em!"

quote:

WASHINGTON — Rush Limbaugh can relax. The popular “demon of the right” has been replaced at least through the midterms by the Koch brothers, Charles and David.
Who?

Exactly. Though cable and online news junkies know the names, the vast majority of Americans probably have no idea who the Kochs are. They’re about to find out.
For the uninitiated, the brothers are libertarian billionaires whose vast industries in petroleum, asphalt, natural gas liquids, coal and ethanol employ 60,000 people. More to the point, they are spending gobs of their own money to sway politics toward free-market principles and away from current government expansionist trends.
For this, they have been targeted by Democrats, who are not exactly penniless when it comes to advancing their own politicians and policies. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke down all barriers to protocol recently when he called the Kochs “un-American.”

Charles Koch, in an op/ed in The Wall Street Journal, responded by calling Democrats “collectivists.”
“Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents,” wrote Koch. “They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society — and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.”
Billionaires — ya gotta love ’em.
But they’re so much easier to hate.

Thus, Democrats are trying to make the Koch brothers the new face of the Republican Party. Conveniently, the name Koch is pronounced the same as that other capitalist goliath, Coke.
Appointing a person — or a pair of brothers — as the human face of the “enemy” is not a novel idea. During a previous election cycle, the Obama administration identified Limbaugh as the true leader of the Republican Party. This was an easy sell as many Republicans genuflected to Limbaugh, even apologizing when they might have offended him.
And Limbaugh, whose grandiosity needs no buffing, was all too willing to accept service on the credential. The more the left hates Limbaugh, the richer he gets. Oh, please, Mr. Democrat, hate my guts some more.
Mr. Limbaugh, take your bow, it’s Koch time.

The doubling down on the Kochs has been in play for some months, advanced by frequent mentions among liberal commentators who, though perhaps not as influential as Limbaugh, have large followings. But Reid’s McCarthyesque name-calling took hell to the devil. It was not only cringe-inducing but also profoundly sad. One would hope the leader of the Senate Democrats might have better rhetorical devices at his intellectual disposal.
Reid suffers no remorse and fired back that he was delighted if people now knew who those un-Americans are. The more who despise the Kochs, the better. The Kochs aren’t just leaders of the Republican Party, as Democrats are proposing; they are the face of the Haves. To dislike the Kochs is to dislike the wealthy in general.

This is really the heart of the Democratic proposition. As the midterm elections take shape around the debate about income inequality, the Kochs personify the uncaring-est of the 1 percenters. Before November comes and goes, the Kochs may as well have been tarred and feathered and made to ride backward on a mule down Pennsylvania Avenue.
One needn’t support the brothers’ preference for unfettered markets or their willingness to fund positions that might favor them. Plenty of conservatives disagree with their support for tea party insurgents and their climate-change skepticism.
Allowing the super-wealthy to disproportionately influence political outcomes may indeed be bad for the democratic process — and that’s of legitimate concern to all. But one’s eyes should be wide open when people are singled out as un-American. What’s next? A Senate committee investigating such un-American activities as advocating free-market principles or pursuing capitalist endeavors?

Of course, I’m kidding. That could never happen here, except it sort of already has. When Reid called the Kochs un-American, a powerful government official fired a shot across the bow of two private citizens who have acted within the law while contributing wealth to the economy through employment.
Yes, it was bad when right-wingers called Obama un-American, but Obama is the most powerful man in the world and the rabble is just that. Reid owes the Kochs — and the American people — an apology.

Just literally slopping on the Koch brothers knob the whole time. This sets a new low in official editorials.

Mineaiki
Nov 20, 2013

DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:

I'm fairly disappointed in Coates, who I have respected as an activist, getting on the Suey Park train. Park is an absolutely horrible, irredeemable person with a prove track record of prioritizing self-promotion over real activism. I think there is a tendency to reflexively support activists of color who are on the receiving end of racist hate, but the problem here is that while Suey Park deserves none of the racist hate she's getting, that doesn't undermine the legitimate criticism of her actions. She is 100% deserving of the non-racist criticism she's gotten and by simply responding to the racist stuff she's painting all of her detractors with the same brush, which conveniently obviates her responsibility to address legitimate beef people have with her campaign.

Just because assholes are criticizing you doesn't make you right, or make all of your opponents wrong. Otherwise I could spend five minutes on the Assata Shakur forums and permanently undermine the arguments of every Black activist in America.

The other thing is that it's way easier to target liberals for your social justice fury, legitimate or not, than it is to target actual racists and conservatives. Of course liberals can be racist, and need to be called out when they are, but that's not what I'm talking about. Shame-based "social justice" is easy as all hell because you can guilt liberals and make snarky comments instead of addressing what they actually believe, which is what you have to do with conservatives and actual racists. Your average Republican dogwhistle racist like Paul Ryan doesn't give a poo poo if you tell all your tumblr/twitter friends that he's problematic or if you call him a shitlord on the internet. You actually have to put some effort into explaining why what he's saying is not just lovely, but wrong, and why no one should listen to him.

When you normalize the opposite—easy, cheap, snarky criticism of your own allies for the sake your ego—you're going to find yourself swamped with opportunists who realize that they can make decent money/get a lot of attention by putting in only marginally more effort than everyone else.

VideoTapir
Oct 18, 2005

He'll tire eventually.
via Terminal Lance:


Bold the whole thing, holy SHIIIIIIIT

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140409/NEWS05/304090064

quote:

Sgt. Maj. of the Marine Corps Barrett: Less pay raises discipline

House Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing On Ha
Sgt. Maj. of the Marine Corps Micheal Barrett says Marines don't spend much time thinking about compensation and benefits. 'They don't want an easy life,' he told lawmakers Wednesday. 'They want to be tougher people.' (Mark Wilson / Getty Images)

By Leo Shane III
Staff Writer

Lower pay and slimmed-down benefits will make Marines more disciplined and less wasteful, according to the Corps’ top enlisted Marine.

In comments before a Senate Armed Services Committee panel on Wednesday, Sgt. Maj. of the Marine Corps Micheal Barrett dismissed lawmaker concerns that proposed compensation trims in the Pentagon’s fiscal 2015 budget proposal would hurt troops’ morale or desire to serve.

“Marines don’t run around asking about compensation, retirement modernization,” he said. “That’s not on their mind. As I talk to thousands of audiences, they want to know into whose neck do we put a boot next.

“They want to know about what new equipment are we getting, are we continuing to modernize. Just because the budget sucks, does that mean we’re not going to get our new gear?”

Barrett’s comments came in contrast to his counterparts in the other services, who conceded to senators that lower pay raises, scaled-back commissary offerings and smaller housing stipends would be problematic for many servicemembers.

Instead, Barrett argued that the lower quality of life would be beneficial to Marines.

“I truly believe it will raise discipline,” he said. “You’ll have better spending habits. You won’t be so wasteful.”

Both Barrett and the other leaders emphasized that without changes in compensation, force readiness will suffer. Pentagon leaders have said that they need to trim a host of benefits and family assistance efforts to ensure that training and equipment modernization funds aren’t compromised.

“In my 33 years, we’ve never had a better quality of life,” Barrett said. “We’ve never had it so good. If we don’t get ahold of slowing the growth, we will become an entitlement-based, a health care provider-based Corps, and not a war fighting organization.”

So far, that’s been a tough sell for Congress.

On Wednesday, several senators said they objected to any changes in troops’ pay and benefits until after the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission offers its recommendations on overhauling the system. Their report is set for early 2015.

Lawmakers are expected to begin marking up their versions of the fiscal 2015 defense budget next month.

When asked whether a smaller compensation package could be seen as a broken promise by servicemembers, Barrett said few Marines use pay and benefits as a factor in enlisting.

“They don’t want an easy life,” he said. “They want to be tougher people. They want the pride of belonging, being something bigger than themselves.”

I want to know about this guy's deployment history: is he a career desk jockey, or did he suffer a traumatic brain injury? I don't think there are any other possibilities.

The marines I knew when I was in the military kind of took it as a point of we're-tougher-than-you pride that their facilities suck. That doesn't mean they want it all to suck more. I'm from Alaska and we take full advantage of our "you don't know what cold is" bragging rights, that doesn't mean we want it to get colder.

VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Apr 10, 2014

Pope Guilty
Nov 6, 2006

The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

VideoTapir posted:

via Terminal Lance:

Bold the whole thing, holy SHIIIIIIIT


I want to know about this guy's deployment history: is he a career desk jockey, or did he suffer a traumatic brain injury? I don't think there are any other possibilities.

The marines I knew when I was in the military kind of took it as a point of we're-tougher-than-you pride that their facilities suck. That doesn't mean they want it all to suck more. I'm from Alaska and we take full advantage of our "you don't know what cold is" bragging rights, that doesn't mean we want it to get colder.

You know, the vets I've known have been pretty unanimous in disliking being painted as bloodthirsty psychopaths who care less about getting paid decently than about getting to kill people. I'm curious as to who thought giving this guy a mic was a good idea.

VideoTapir
Oct 18, 2005

He'll tire eventually.
Once I realized how crazy this guy was I had to check the date on the article. I was thinking "no way this guy is real."

Ogmius815
Aug 25, 2005
centrism is a hell of a drug

And this guy is the most senior enlisted person in the Marine Corps...

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx
Fun Shoe

VideoTapir posted:

I want to know about this guy's deployment history: is he a career desk jockey, or did he suffer a traumatic brain injury? I don't think there are any other possibilities.

He's the top enlisted Marine, he spends all his time hanging out with Pentagon scum. Obviously he's learned to move seamlessly among them.

I really want to see what revolving door job he gets when he cashes out. If you can plead "cut my benefits!" with a straight face you are officially one useful motherfucker.

e: not to mention he's totally in touch with the budget of today's junior enlisted!

wiki posted:

The salary for SMMC is $7,609.50 per month

woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Apr 10, 2014

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich
I'm posting this article on the wall of everyone I know who posted those burgerflippers dont deserve min wage soldiers deserve min wage shitboxes.

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009



quote:

“In my 33 years, we’ve never had a better quality of life,” Barrett said. “We’ve never had it so good. If we don’t get ahold of slowing the growth, we will become an entitlement-based, a health care provider-based Corps, and not a war fighting organization.”

An entitlement-based, a health care provider-based Corps.

Orange Devil
Oct 1, 2010

Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!
Next thing you know, the US is invading countries left and right to improve their healthcare. We can't have that. Boots on necks people, boots on necks.

J.A.B.C.
Jul 2, 2007

There's no need to rush to be an adult.


SedanChair posted:

He's the top enlisted Marine, he spends all his time hanging out with Pentagon scum. Obviously he's learned to move seamlessly among them.

Not sure about him, but I know that SMA Chandler (Army counterpart for this guy) has several combat deployments under his belt. In today's Army combat deployments are looked at as a quality of leadership, so a lot of the Army's upper leadership have time in a combat zone in one way or another.

Then again, SMA Chandler isn't using pay cuts as a way to 'toughen up' Soldiers, so I'm not going to draw any conclusions on the SMMC.

quote:

e: not to mention he's totally in touch with the budget of today's junior enlisted!

USMC 2014 pay scale for SMMC is $7,196 per month, which leads to $86352 per year. This is before BAH, BAS, or any other special pays or deductions he gets for his current assignment. Those can add up, so he's probably pushing, if not over, six figures, not to count the specialized housing, security details, admin vehicles and other benefits incurred for his position.

On the other hand, a Sergeant makes $2,090, not counting pays and deductions, which is $25080 per year. At best, he may get close to $40,000 if he's married and in a high COLA/BAH area.

I know you were being sarcastic, I was just showing some figures to demonstrate just how out of touch he can be.

Mineaiki
Nov 20, 2013

VideoTapir posted:

I want to know about this guy's deployment history: is he a career desk jockey, or did he suffer a traumatic brain injury? I don't think there are any other possibilities.

He's got a wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micheal_Barrett

Important info:

quote:

In September 1987, Sergeant Major Barrett was assigned to 3rd Battalion 9th Marines at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, and trained as a Scout Sniper to serve as a platoon sergeant for the unit's STA platoon. As a staff sergeant, he was deployed to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for the Gulf War, earning a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with a valor device for engaging enemy mortar positions with his Barrett M82 sniper rifle in early 1991.

...

He was then selected as the sergeant major of 1st Marine Division in June 2009, and deployed to Afghanistan as the I Marine Expeditionary Force/Regional Command Southwest sergeant major in March 2010.

So as far as deployment goes, he's done some stuff. I'm not military but I assume that in the latter deployment he did desk work since he was a SgtMa. The article goes into to detail with his training and appointments prior to the Gulf War deployment. Looks like in general he was just a perfect member of the military and did everything he was told to do well. I guess that's to be expected, since he's the top NCO in the Marines now. I don't agree with him, but I don't think his opinions come from him being soft, but from him being utterly immersed in the military. This guy has lived and breathed USMC every second of his life since he was 17 years old. If there is a experience to be had in that branch, he has had it, since he's extremely well trained, really good at desk work, and saw combat. I think he's just thinking along the lines of "There are going to be cuts—fact. We can cut salaries, or we can cut other things, like modernized equipment, which as the USMC we are not exactly drowning in as it is. Therefore, we must cut salaries for the health of the USMC." He's sort of an ant in the colony right now (not to say he's stupid; he's clearly not), in that he's going to advocate for whatever he thinks will make the corps stronger. That doesn't mean he's right or that his idea will even be good for the USMC, but I think that's where he's coming from.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Mineaiki posted:

That doesn't mean he's right or that his idea will even be good for the USMC, but I think that's where he's coming from.

Yeah. He's not stupid, he's just ridiculously gung ho and tone deaf.

Mineaiki
Nov 20, 2013

Orange Devil posted:

Next thing you know, the US is invading countries left and right to improve their healthcare. We can't have that. Boots on necks people, boots on necks.

That's not really what he's getting at. I don't agree with him, but he's not wrong about the healthcare thing. The "entitlement" stuff sounds like his conservative political bias seeping through. Still, armies have traditionally recruited people who don't do well in regular society. There are a lot of people in the military who would do very poorly if they were ejected from it. Right now they're taken care of, fed and housed, and in return they do one of many jobs that the military will find for them and train them to do, while also paying them and taking care of them. The military will also take care of their families, scaling up as their families grow.

This is why failing or poor states can do so well recruiting men for their armies, or at least in keeping them in once their mandatory service period ends. The military provides a great deal of security, and for many that's a good enough reason to put oneself at risk. It isn't radically different in a wealthier state like the U.S., the only difference is that the people who are really capable of success here probably won't join. There will still be a ton of people in the military who would have otherwise been working at a gas station until they were 30.

What I think he's sort of getting at there is that he's afraid of that one role of the military, of it being a protector and provider for its own members, will expand faster than the military's role as a functioning exerciser of force. With the rapid technological advancement of weaponry, he's kind of right. The more we're able to kill people and accomplish objectives without boots on the ground, the less necessary all those men will be, and the more money we'll just be throwing away keeping them and their families provided for. In that sense, though, he should be advocating for cutting troop numbers, which is admittedly already happening, but not like it should. He wouldn't advocate for that though, because his entire life is the military and the military is the most important thing in the world according to his worldview. Less men = weaker military to him, much like any cut to the military's actual strength in his eyes. But paying the men less? That's alright since we're still strong.

Mineaiki
Nov 20, 2013

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Yeah. He's not stupid, he's just ridiculously gung ho and tone deaf.

You're making it sound like he's a career military man.

Eulogistics
Aug 30, 2012
If there is one branch of the military that doesn't need budget cuts, it's the Marines. Marines would wind up at Fort Bragg fairly frequently to beg for our extra parts so they could fix their equipment; I think they're running about as lean as they can be expected to.

If the defense budget needs to be trimmed (and we all know it does), I would agree with him that base pay is a much better place to take it from than to reduce services to servicememebers and familymembers like healthcare (it would be better still to just not fund some of the new experimental weapons that cost billions of dollars, but that's not being talked about here). Leave most of the important entitlements (I'm using this in the "military budget" sense, since it is a real term in military finance) that support families in place, and the single guys in the barracks can carpool and eat in the chow hall more often or something; that's what I did my first couple years in the army anyway.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

Ogmius815 posted:

And this guy is the most senior enlisted person in the Marine Corps...

Joke's on us. The whole point of creating the Sergeant Major of Every X rank in the first place was to give the enlisted soldiers an advocate in tne Pentagon and provide the top brass with the enlisted perspective.

Leave it to the Marines to get it exactly backwards :roflolmao:

No but seriously, he should take E-1 salary, no BAH so he can get in on that all-important thrift and discipline. Set the example for your troops Sergeant Major, you've got nothing to lose but the waste and sloth of a six-figure paycheck! :patriot:

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Eulogistics
Aug 30, 2012

VitalSigns posted:

Joke's on us. The whole point of creating the Sergeant Major of Every X rank in the first place was to give the enlisted soldiers an advocate in tne Pentagon and provide the top brass with the enlisted perspective.

It happens to every E-9: spend way too much time with senior people and you lose track of the people on the ground. This satire article is pretty spot-on.

  • Locked thread