H&I* Fires, 16 MAR 2007

Why is Haliburton moving to Dubai suspicious anyway.......doesn't everyone want to move to Dubai? Olberman is just jealous. I know I am.

www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007120545,00.html#nogo

Well, just because I want to use the word this way, consider yourself "chid". As for the substance of the remarks - hmmmmm. Like it or not, there *is* a distinction between we and they. Not as stark as portrayed, certainly, and far more multivariate than brevity allows for. And, certainly, when the non-military types have to deal with us military types in distaff situations, many are surprised at how normal we are. But there is still a difference. How would you suggest we address it, or characterize it?

"...and so I defer to all you all..." Now Sanger, you've been in Texas long enuff to know the proper usage is 'all y'all'... heh

Actually I like it because it does present much of the problem in relations and difference between the two segements. 1) Those who take to the profession of arms are not run-o'-the-mill. Never have been down thru history(Prussia and Sparta being really oddball societies, and even then it wasn't the majority that served.). It represents that quite well. 2) It does show the estrangement/contempt, in general, that both camps have and feel for each other.(I point to some rather choice writing on Sgt. B's request for help). 3) It also shows, at times depending on usage, respect for both by the opposing camp. 4) The complaint of the jackalopes misusing it seems hollow. Look at the reportage(the alcohol piece in the NYT the other day for example). They don't need this to do their dirty work. They're doing a might fine job of maligning the military without it. It's lingo only used at Argghhh!. I've not seen it used elsewhere, anywhere. 5) For me. I would've been a terrible soldier. I'm think skinned, at times arrogant, mercurial of temperment, posses quick reflexes but unable to not flinch, and intellectually vain(often). I don't fantasize about being in. it would've sucked for me and those around me. If I'd served under any of those who were here you'da hated me and had a million deragatory nicknames for me. But I certainly respect those who found a way to overcome their own faults and be part of Big Green(or whatever Service they did time with). They aren't like me and simply saying 'Soldier' doesn't come close to expressing the difference. So I say, take some of the advice that's been hurled at me by different Denizens at one time or another: suck it up and don't be so namby pamby sensitive about it.

I'm with Sanger, from the other side of it. I haven't liked it since it started out here. The whole idea that because I never wore a uniform, I can never truly relate to those who do is absurd. My ex-husband wore the uniform of an Army MP and chased AWOLS through up-state NY. He never saw combat. Where does he fall in your scale? Cops, firefighters and other first responders who never enlisted in the military....where do they fall in your scale? My favorite Naval Consort carries the physical and mental scars of multiple conflicts dating back nearly 40 years. Yet he thinks our minds are the halves of one whole. As far as the "suck it up" comment, I would like to repsond but every thing I've typed for the last five minutes has been rude or belligerent. So just know that I do not care for the cavalier way it's being tossed around out here. SangerM has raised a valid point (I would say that even if I disagreed) and doesn't deserve the flip attitude.

"Suck it up" is flip. Sanger's arguement can't be flawed because he is stating that the term, as it's being used, makes him feel a certain way. No one gets to point out a flaw in that, it's just arrogant. My questions about where people fit in on the scale were rhetorical. I was trying to point out that all these lines in the sand don't move us forward. I didn't say there wasn't kinship. Anytime you use terms this way (You served - here's your label.....you didn't - here's your label) it has the potential to isolate, to widen the divide. That's what's happening here. Sanger and I have told you that we don't like how this makes us feel. We've both kept our mouths shut and sucked it up for a while.....now we're saying enough. For my part, I don't see what I'm doing here if I'm going to constantly be reminded that I don't quite fit in.

Thank you John....on both counts. For the record.....I never said there wasn't a difference. If there wasn't a difference military service wouldn't be criteria for entrance into "The Rotation". (WK, FbL, SWWBO, the SB gang et al? Can I get an amen?

So let me get this straight: it makes you feel bad so it should never be done even though it is a useful rhetorical and sociological tool? Then I expect people to jump all up and down over stuff like this:

I was pretty good at it, which made me not so good at being among people who get their feelings hurt too easily by people like me who don't shellac their commentaries enough (Ry is an example).

Or this:

Other people feel less... well, just "less," around former and current mil folks.

None of you did. So get off my back. And yes, i do realize that it was done in support of a fellow Denizen and not intended, or I hope it wasn't, as a slight. but it shows exactly the same sentiment, openly and vigorously, as Normal does. AFAIK nobody complained about that. So why this? What's different about it? I don't know how many times someone has found a clever way to call non-military males 'un-men' and nancy boys. oh, but now were supposed to worry about making military and ex-military people fell different in a way that has a negative connotation. My bad. It isn't just one person doing it, I have done it too, nor is it always conveyed with a sense of comradeship either as it is often flat out mean; and has been at times personal. So get off my back about it. I use something as shorthand to describe a phenomenon as opposed to intentionally insulting. Not intentionally insulting and something, like the f word, that has a million and one meanings dependent on usage running from a status put on a pedestal to out right hatred, unlike some of the naked and uncloaked derisive sentiments trafficed around here. And now we're supposed to worry about this one because it offends a few people when we haven't cared about how other terms might have offended civilians who are lurkers and passers by for several years? I find it odd that even though I have ersatz family, since my real one sucks, and loved ones both in and out of uniform too that some of you all are assuming that just because I say something you find distasteful that I'm like another crowd that knows little and have to be reminded of things. Like alot of the other Normals and Soldiers around here I sit someplace between the camps. In another category with its own benefits and its own problems. It might also help to see that I also mentioned the training element as well. Guess what. The groups already exist and the problems exist. Whether the term is used or not. Regardless of how you feel about it There's terms and phrases used profusely around here that do the same damn thing. Are we to declare a moratorium on ALL of them then, or just the ones particular Denizens don't like? Contempt of soldiers or civilians doesn't need new terms. 'America is at the mall.' Multiple messages, but inherently contemptuous of civilians who aren't gung-ho about the war. But with Normals we have something that is different. But it offends sometimes. So let's ban it. In truth, I find this is a rather fair weather complaint seeing how often people around here have expressed differeing levels of disdain for Normals/Civilians in many different forms and many different threads. Now that there's something that reminds you of it and makes you feel bad about it there's a problem? The term is a better descriptor because of how it incorporates all of the different feelings and emotions involved. Kinda like the f word being able to convey a hundred different things. as I've laid out afore. It's useful. It makes us all look at the differences and think about how we strengthen the divide or not. Unless Armorer tells me not to I'll continue to use it for exactly these reasons. My appologies to Sgt. B. I was trying to think of people who weren't involved in this to use in examples to keep it from inflaming the anger of participants. No slight intended. Yes, sometimes when John uses it I'm offended. Other times not. It serves a larger purpose. So unless directed to I'll continue to use it. Not because I like sticking it to anyone, but because it does things simply saying civilian can never do.

3) It also shows, at times depending on usage, respect for both by the opposing camp. How is that mutually respectful? I honestly don’t see where you’re coming from me, as it seems to by definition imply abnormality in “non-normals.” Yet, I realize there is something very different, something that will always color the friendship between John and I, because I haven't been in. True. It would also color your friendship with a man who spent a life as a priest, as it colors my friendships with those who didn’t grow up as “Pastor’s Kids.” Seriously, so what? Why is this such a big deal? (I’m asking with an honest desire to know) Btw, I don’t see anybody attempting to develop a “rule” that we cant use that term; they’re just expressing their discomfort with it. As Sanger said, he’ll defer to the rest. As to your quotes from comments to Sgt B, I didn’t see it as being a labeling of ALL civilians in most cases. And to say that some civilians feel “less” around mil types is simply to observe a phenomenon, not to say it is good or correct. I don't know how many times someone has found a clever way to call non-military males 'un-men' and nancy boys. oh, but now were supposed to worry about making military and ex-military people fell different in a way that has a negative connotation. My bad. You know, maybe I just need to stop, because you’re talking about things I just don’t see around here. But then you say things like… Contempt of soldiers or civilians doesn't need new terms. 'America is at the mall.' Multiple messages, but inherently contemptuous of civilians who aren't gung-ho about the war. Maybe I misunderstood, but I always thought that didn’t refer to all civilians, merely those who choose to put their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that we’re at war. And it’s more about willful ignorance than lack of support (gung ho). Maybe I’m being a Pollyanna, but I see the kind of rejections/divisions implied in the use of “normal” to be exceptions rather than rules. But that again, I’m always amazed at peoples’ inability to give each other the benefit of the doubt… In truth, I find this is a rather fair weather complaint seeing how often people around here have expressed differeing levels of disdain for Normals/Civilians in many different forms and many different threads. I have to say that I have not seen among the regulars around here anything approaching broad disdain for civilians that wasn’t answered with a “wait a sec.” For segments of civilians? Yes, and often well-deserved. As to your last line, Ry. I don’t see how that is true. Civilian is a neutral word that is entirely context-dependent, and so contains a vast potential of meanings. Why is it then a better choice to use a word that is inherently derogatory to the “other?”

FbL - Great comments. Well thought out and clearly expressed. Ry - Knock yourself out. I'm going to pester the Armorer until I get some popcorn too......since I know I can't get a hug or a dance.......

Well, phoeey. I just dropped that off here the other day, and went back to getting ready for the graduation, etc. Sorry to have avoided this, it was not intentional, I just got wrapped up in the end of the trail looming... As I wrote, it's a small thing. I dislike it. ok. No big deal, but I decided I'm not going to even read anything that covers this anymore. let alone comment on it. I am not trying to push, this is personal and it just sets wrong for me, but it wouldn't be the first time I'm off the beaten path, eh? But, I'm DONE. Presented my thesis Friday, got all grades by Friday night, had graduation yeaterday (guest speaker is Head of Unicef, he was 6 yrs old and living in Hiroshima when we dropped a bomb on it... very interesting fellow). Am in D.C. right now, waiting on room to be ready. Gonna be a nice week. More soon.