Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..: May 11, 2008

by Denizens on May 17, 2008 | General Commentary

Calling for Prayers and Positive Thoughts

Sarah is the kind of wife a good warfighter dreams of having waiting for him back home--strong, loyal, responsible, flexible, loving and unspeakably proud of her husband and the profession he has chosen... A warrior wife.

Less than a year ago, far later than what they had planned for, she was finally pregnant. She lost the baby at about six weeks, though she didn't know until later.

Just over a week ago, her husband deployed to Iraq. Last weekend, she found out she was pregnant again. It wasn't part of their plan, but they rejoiced across the miles.

The other day, she got some very bad news [three separate links].

Yesterday, it got worse.

Love, prayers, good thoughts... whatever you've got, please send it out on her behalf. Even strong and independent warrior wives need help at times.

Of course we'll hit up the pertenant PTB on this, Fuzzy.

But, and I don't feel comfortable saying this at her site but you might be able to in time work this in sotto voce, having had two sisters go thru this sometimes it is for the best. My oldest sister took all the drugs possible and six months of bedrest to keep a pregnancy that didn't want to. THe result: a kid who suffers tremendously from a, literal, hole in his heart and ears; mental retardation; is unable to speak intelligbly; has severe mood control problems; will always have to be supervised for the rest of his life while understanding and enjoying so little of it. I've watched that kid suffer from day one, and, you know, maybe it wasn't worth it. I love my nephew, but, damn, I can't say satisfying my sister's want for a child was worth what he has to live with for her to get it. It might be for the best. sad, but true.

On the other hand, the younger of my two older sisters did the same and has a perfectly normal daughter.

Best be: stay calm and don't surrender to the hormones, trust the docs because they've got the detached objectivity necessary to make smart decisions, and believe in The Plan. He knows better than we.

But, yeah, hitting up the Lord and His Host is getting done.

posted by ry on May 17, 2008 6:03 PM

Ry, thanks for the perspective. Of course a healthy baby is the definite goal, no matter how long it takes us to get there. And I know that pregnancies that end early end for a reason.

Thanks to everyone here who's thinking of us...

posted by Sarah on May 17, 2008 6:08 PM

Oh Sarah..... I am so, so sorry. Been there, done that a couple of times myself. It never gets easier. Time goes by, but it never gets easier from one time to the next.

You and your dear, dear husband are in my thoughts and prayers. You've got an incredible circle of 'net friends to lean on, and being a military wife, you're made of some strong stuff, but this is going to be hard.

It's ok to withdraw, to mourn, to be angry and sad all at the same time. Things do happen for a reason, even though we may never know that reason. It could be, like Ry said, the baby just wasn't forming correctly. Maybe God has other plans, like waiting until your husband can be by your side to enjoy the entire pregnancy. We don't know, but we do know how wonderful you are, and how much you are liked and loved all over this world.

Hugs, prayers and thoughts inbound.

posted by AFSister on May 17, 2008 6:44 PM

Sarah, damn, I was trying to not have that pushed on you right now. I'm not a total callous slob after all. I was hoping Fuzz could drop it in at a more appropriate time in a more tactful manner. She's better at it than me. Sorry, I was really hoping to keep you from seeing that right now. Not what you need to hear. But what do I expect for a public square? Sometimes I'm a total idiot instead of just mostly. Sorry.

But, yeah. My oldest sister's husband(AFSis can tell you how useful he is, should've killed him when I had the chance) wasn't there either. Best bet is to stay calm, Sarah. Keep your head, homegirl. Staying calm is best for you and the baby at this point. Hard. Real hard. I've been there for both my sisters, and I have an idea of what it looks like from the male side. So just hang in there. don't get into the nightmare scenarios. It isn't healthy.

BUt, yeah, you got friends out this way asking for favors. Big Ones.

posted by ry on May 17, 2008 7:55 PM

Ry, no apology needed at all. We don't know each other, but others might vouch for the fact that I'm pretty matter-of-fact anyway. You don't need to sugarcoat it for me :) We're still hoping for the best, bracing for the worst. Either way, I always take comfort in knowing that people have lived through far worse hardships than we've ever known and come out on top. We will too.

posted by Sarah on May 17, 2008 8:34 PM

Sarah, you're an Army wife. Which means yer tough, but can always use the help.

I'll ask for the help.

The only thing stronger than the soldiers are the ones who wait for them to return.

People just don't get that, sometimes.

But having been a waiter, and having caused someone to wait - I know you are up to this, and your soldier... well, he's going to be tough, too.

Whatever we can do, you have but to ask - and I say that only because I've discovered I can't mind read worth a damn. Especially after 3 Castle 'ritas.

posted by John of Argghhh! on May 17, 2008 8:43 PM

Sarah,

You are in my and my wife's prayers. I can't tell you why these things happen, just that they do. I hope and pray your wishes are answered, and I thank God that there are people like you that love and support our soldiers with their whole being.

Best wishes, prayers, and our love.

Alan & Shirley Briley
(Former sniper, grunt, para... current ER nurse..., and long distance friend.)

posted by Alan Briley, RN on May 18, 2008 7:21 AM

Thank you for all your kind words. It means so much to me.
I'll make sure FbL keeps you posted.

posted by Sarah on May 18, 2008 8:22 PM

by FbL on May 17, 2008 | Something for the Soul

H&I Fires* 16 May 2008

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

Time to add a new caveat, because from email it's not clear to some folks (mind you, if you don't read this it won't matter...) Being an open post, people (collectively, the Denizens) other than I post in the H&I. They sign their work (most of the time) - keep that in mind when you want to flame someone in email please - if it doesn't say "The Armorer" or "John" then I didn't write it! And honestly - if you don't like something said or posted... leave a comment, and hash it out (within the context of The Rulez which are clearly posted on the comment form, I would add).

********************************

Got an email last night from a loyal reader and frequent commenter:

John, I cannot believe that you missed mentioning New Market Day, VMI, and lost Union artillery.
Hunter
VMI, 1980

I responded:

I know a *lot* of stuff. I don't know *everything*. That's why I have readers. And post email addys. Who let VMI down - the guy who went to Mizzou... or the guy who went to VMI? My money is that the Tiger is in fine shape. The Keydet on the other hand...

One reason this blog is popular with Canadians is because CAPT H started feeding me Canadian stuff, which drew in Alan, and Damian, and the Flea. Especially at those times when the bill-paying job requires more than 8-hours-a-day attention, I rely on you guys to make keeping the content fresh, varied, and interesting... so, if I *miss* something - well, it's either because in my mind, I did that two years ago, or... *you* didn't tell me about it.

So *don't* find yourself in this situation:

Yah, yah. I ...forgot...until this afternoon when I got home and looked at my print of Lovell's painting and the penny dropped. If you late post it, the credit for the painting is courtesy of the VMI museum. Which, in itself, is well worth visiting. That and the four cannon in front, known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they spoke the Gospel of the Confederacy.
Hunter

...getting snarked on the blog while I still give you your New Market plug!

Image courtesy of the VMI Museum, Lexington, VA.

Click the painting for the story of New Market. -the Armorer

*********************************

Speaking of anniversaries - May 16, 1943 - The Dambusters Raid. Even if you don't care about the anniversary - the picture with the article is worth the click. H/t, JimC Okay, that's it for the nonce, I have to get to the airport. -the Armorer

********************************

The Canadian government unveiled our own homegrown Victoria Cross today.

Believe it or not, there has been quite a bit of controversy surrounding our military honours over the past thirty-some-odd years, and so this is something of a seminal moment:

In 1972 the Canadian honours system was overhauled and the Victoria Cross was omitted from the official list of Honours. The debate about whether to reinstate the Victoria Cross raged throughout the late 1970s and 1980s. The Prime Minister of the time, Pierre Trudeau, regularly dodged questions about the award, stating "that only Canadians should receive Canadian decorations."
Three years after his appointment as Prime Minister in 1984, Brian Mulroney set up a committee to look into the creation of a Canadian Victoria Cross as part of a new set of military honours. Although the committee did not recommend the Victoria Cross, pressure from lobbying groups such as the Monarchist League of Canada and the Royal Canadian Legion forced the plans to be amended. In 1991, a Private Member's Bill received all-party support in the House of Commons, following which the Victoria Cross, along with other Canadian military valour decorations, were formally requested on December 31, 1992, by Mulroney. The request was approved by the issue of Letters Patent by Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada, on February 2, 1993. The other awards approved were the Star of Military Valour and the Medal of Military Valour. Upon the creation of the awards, coined the Modern Honours of Canada, the Canadian honours system was no longer dependent on the British.

As the military relies upon tradition more than most other segments of society, this move away from our British heritage while still maintaining a connection to that heritage has been a tricky one. Hence the words on the Canadian VC changing from the British "For Valour" to a Latin "Pro Valore." You see, by putting the inscription in Latin, it's more inclusive of the Quebecois and other Canadians of non-British heritage, or so the argument goes. That would also be why there are fleur-de-lis on the crown.

As you might suspect, this seems a little silly to me. But sometimes compromise is required, and at least we have a VC out of that compromise.

One area where I will give designers of the new medal credit for creativity and respect to our heritage is in the composition of the alloy used:

...because of the significance of the Victoria Cross to Canadians, the decoration should reflect the past, the present and the future of the country. The planning group recommended that the decoration be made from a mixture of three types of metals: the specific gunmetal used in the production of British Victoria Crosses; metal from an historically significant Canadian source, specifically a medal minted in 1867 in commemoration of the Confederation of Canada; and, finally, metals from all regions of Canada from coast to coast to coast.

For those interested in a more detailed account, including pictures of the metals used, the design artwork, and the casting process, this pdf file is for you. - Damian

********************************

On Monday morning I will be interviewing the American 1SG of the Iraqi NCO Academy (he was there from the beginning and stepped down in preparation for the 3rd ID's redeployment just this week). I plan to get into as much detail as possible about the Academy's development/changes in its five months of existence, the curriculum, activties, and students. Any suggested questions or topics left in the comments below would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! - FbL

********************************

In Dallas waiting for the final leg of the flight home checking email. Here's an unusual casualty announcement:

DoD Identifies Army Casualty

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Sgt. John K. Daggett, 21, of Phoenix, Ariz., died May 15 in Halifax, Canada, of wounds suffered May 1 in Baghdad, Iraq, when a rocket-propelled grenade struck his vehicle. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

Soldier from Phoenix, assigned to the 25th's 2BCT in Hawaii, is wounded in Baghdad, and dies... in Halifax, Canada.

Well, I can't honor them all individually, but this one, well, now is the time at Castle Argghhh! when we dance: In Memoriam. -the Armorer

*********************************
From the Gateway Pundit - Congressman James McGovern, D-Mass) in cahoots with FARC? This will be fun to watch play out, in a sad way, regardless of the truth. H/t, JimC -the Armorer

by Denizens on May 16, 2008 | General Commentary

Peggy Noonan today.

From the WSJ:

The Bush White House, faced with the series of losses from 2005 through '08, has long claimed the problem is Republicans on the Hill and running for office. They have scandals, bad personalities, don't stand for anything. That's why Republicans are losing: because they're losers.
All true enough!

But this week a House Republican said publicly what many say privately, that there is another truth. "Members and pundits . . . fail to understand the deep seated antipathy toward the president, the war, gas prices, the economy, foreclosures," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia in a 20-page memo to House GOP leaders.

The party, Mr. Davis told me, is "an airplane flying right into a mountain." Analyses of its predicament reflect an "investment in the Bush presidency," but "the public has just moved so far past that." "Our leaders go up to the second floor of the White House and they get a case of White House-itis." Mr. Bush has left the party at a disadvantage in terms of communications: "He can't articulate. The only asset we have now is the big microphone, and he swallowed it." The party, said Mr. Davis, must admit its predicament, act independently of the White House, and force Democrats to define themselves. "They should have some ownership for what's going on. They control the budget. They pay no price. . . . Obama has all happy talk, but it's from 30,000 feet. Energy, immigration, what is he gonna do?"

Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined "brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership.

Heh. The President didn't squander the "hard-built paternity" of the last 40 years. The party just got complacent and lost their compass. They fell in love with the job, and failed to understand - it isn't *supposed* to be a job. It's a privilege, not an entitlement. Just as the Dems did when they got booted in the 90's. Just like Jim Ryun did when he got booted in 2006.

"We can't let them take our issues" (not quoting Peggy, just the person she's quoting) - well, *if* they'll vote the way we want on those issues, as Nancy Boyda has on many, but certainly not all, of mine - then, what's so bad about that? I thought getting the *issue* dealt with was the goal.

Silly me.

The Republicans have earned what they're about to receive.

But the reality is - it's about the judges. That's where the battles are lost and won, mostly, anymore - since the Congress has floundered from the intent of the Founders, meekly surrendering their authority to the Executive and the Judicial branches, in exchange for electoral butt-coverage to keep jobs that were never intended to be a living, and We, the People, let them get away with it... and the Progressives, seeing that they can't convince the great unwashed on the issues, but *can* seduce the Judiciary to advance their agenda... Mind you, I don't mind it when the Judges protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority - but I wish they'd be a lot less prescriptive at times, and just send the issues back to the legislatures for the answer - as I believe the Founders intended.

So, clothes-pin on my nose or not, especially since I think the Republicans are in serious danger of getting attrited in the Senate to the point of not being able to filibuster, it looks like the only place I can work to keep government checked is by voting for McCain.

Heh. The only thing more dangerous to liberty and prosperity than a veto/filibuster-proof Congress controlled by Republicans with a Republican President... is the Democrat-controlled equivalent.

But wait! When *Our Side* (whatever your side is) has total control, then we'll build Paradise!

No. Not true. What would happen is you would all be on the Bullet Train to Abilene.

And that is a recipe for disaster.

Governance, given it's power, should be hard, hard, work in infertile fields.

Well said wise one.

posted by JimC on May 16, 2008 10:44 AM

Give up on the idea of political parties. Build Coalitions of the Like-minded instead. Become a non-hiearchical, entrepreneurial, distributed swarm of attacking Irregular Culture Warriors, making life miserable for Cultural Marxists, and multi-culti carbon dispensationalist tranzies while providing aid and comfort to American Exceptionalists, rugged individualists, Constitutionalists, and the rest of the bitter clingers who have turned their backs on the Republican party but yet cannot abide what the Democrat Party has become.

Don’t vote for incumbents. Period.

posted by Cannoneer No. 4 on May 16, 2008 10:55 AM

Give up on the idea of political parties. Build Coalitions of the Like-minded instead. Become a non-hiearchical, entrepreneurial, distributed swarm of attacking Irregular Culture Warriors, making life miserable for Cultural Marxists, and multi-culti carbon dispensationalist tranzies while providing aid and comfort to American Exceptionalists, rugged individualists, Constitutionalists, and the rest of the bitter clingers who have turned their backs on the Republican party but yet cannot abide what the Democrat Party has become.

Don’t vote for incumbents. Period.

posted by Cannoneer No. 4 on May 16, 2008 11:01 AM

But my very favorite incumbent is a rugged Constitutionalist!

And she's *cute*...

Wish she was running for Mayor instead of Town Council.

posted by BillT on May 16, 2008 11:02 AM

"and Jesus said, 'will you leave me also." Simon Peter said, 'Lord, where shall we go? You alone have words of life."

The Republican Party has lost its center. When given the opportunity to cling to words of life, we chose to leave, because it was too hard and too unpopular to stay and fight. We won't win another election in the next 20 years - Democrats will simply lose them. We have gone from victories being won on executable platforms to the nation growing tired of the incumbent and giving the other guys a turn. Not very encouraging. ML posted by Mike Lehnherr on May 16, 2008 11:03 AM

Yesterday, the House passed new GI Bill legislation that was supported by virtually every Veterans organization in the country.

Nancy Boyda, John's Rep (ACU rating 28.00), voted Yea

Mike Pence, my Rep(ACU rating 99.43) voted Nay

I wonder if Kansas would be interested in trading Rep Boyda for Rep Pence....and a Vice Presidential Candidate to be named later?

What frosts me is that I sat across the breakfast table on 1 April when Rep Pence promised his support........and I paid for the freaking breakfast......oh well, so much for my career as a lobyist.

posted by R Jewell on May 16, 2008 12:53 PM

Well, if Nancy wins the district this time around (I don't see Ryun unseating her, thus far) with more than 1% of margin, we'll see if she holds true to her record thus far.

posted by John of Argghhh! on May 16, 2008 2:56 PM

This is why I'd dearly love the following Constitutional Amendment:

"No member of the Federal Government, except the President and Vice-President, shall serve two consequitive terms in the same office. This Amendment places no further restrictions on term of service."

If someone's good enough they'll get the job back when the person who replaced them's term expires.

posted by KCSteve on May 16, 2008 3:09 PM

" ... Give up on the idea of political parties. Build Coalitions of the Like-minded instead. ..."

Do you know what happens when you do this?

You just get a bunch of smaller, single issue and special interest groups and their candidates - or really, just more and smaller parties narrowly focused on specific interests and issues. And with these multiple, smaller parties without the clout of larger national party organizations, you wind up with the need to build coalitions to gain majorities to pass or block legislation. These multiparty & coalition governments are inherently weak and unstable, especially where you have proportional representation electoral systems. We know this from watching multiparty, coalition governments in Europe like Italy, Belgium, Finald, France, and others.

I think our system has proved to be much more stable. We may grumble from time to time when we don't feel that either of the 2 national parties is really representing our interests, but basically the political pendulum stays somewhere in the middle because of the greater numbers of people who are more "moderate" and "independent", and cross over to vote for the other national party in major elections whenever the other party pulls too far to one side.

However, these people in the middle are usually less politically active than the more partisan ideologues on either side, usually fat and happy and not interested in being active in political issues. This is why, IMHO, the concept of a strong 3rd party composed of these voters is doomed from the start.

We usually only see a strong 3rd party when we see a major realignment, as we did when the Whigs died out and was supplanted by the Republican Party. These are usually temporary, thank goodness.

Why? Because as we see each time we have a strong 3rd party candidate, as in 1992 with Perot and with Nader in 2000, the vote of the electorate usually gets divided so much that no candidate gets a simple majority of the vote. Without this simple majority, there isn't a "national consensus", and these candidates usually wind up being very weak and ineffective.

This may be okay in some instances, under the philosophy that a weak leader or government can't intrude too much, but at other times it can render a them too weak to do what's necessary when crises occur or when legislation and action is sorely needed.

It may be time to have a realignment, but we are better with 2 strong national parties. In a country of 300 million with such a diverse and varied electorate, it's really the only way to aggregate, assimilate, and articulate the interests of this large polity. No single party or coalition is going to satisfy each of the interests and goals of an individual, and there will be times when we find ourselves in conflict with specific items in a party platform.

But by and large, I think most of us find that we identify and associate ourselves with the core ideology of one party or the other. Oh sure, there are exceptions to every rule, and some people are more neutral than others. But I think most of us either believe in Big Governnment or Individual Responsibility; Capitalism or Socialism; American Exceptionalism or We're Just Another Country; American Sovereignty/Military Strength or Subjugation to the UN Now!; America is generally a force for good or America is the root of the world's problems; etc etc.

Personally, I think this is because of "Right Brain vs Left Brain" dominance in thought processing, which I think heavily influences our core political beliefs, and the fact that these 2 national parties mirror and oppose each other on most of these major issues, although because of the need to compromise there's often very little daylight between the actual policies that are implemented.

Overall, even though it's imperfect and there's always room for improvement, I think our system has served us well for more than 200 years.

posted by fdcol63 on May 16, 2008 3:22 PM

Which is why I don't vote the 3rd Party candidate, despite the carp I get from my old buddy Kevin, the Libertarian.

posted by John of Argghhh! on May 16, 2008 3:27 PM

Bring back Bobby Walpole!

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on May 16, 2008 4:16 PM

"...bullet train to Abilene."
John, I've been trying to explain the bus to people for years and have not been able to find those darn videos anywhere. Any suggestions?

Hunter

posted by Hunter on May 16, 2008 5:18 PM

Collectivism, Cultural Marxism, Transnational Progressivism, Post-Modernism, and Radical Environmentalism are welcomed much more warmly in one major party than in the other. The same could once be said for Patriotism, Constitutionalism, Federalism and Capitalism. One party has many members who believe that OUR country is a force for good in the world, and is worth defending, and honors our defenders. These members are kept on the plantation through fear of the party that has many members who believe that OUR country is the focus of evil in the modern world, that we deserve it when OUR cities are attacked and OUR countrymen are killed, and support our troops when they shoot their officers.

Vote for whoever scares you least, or brings you the most bacon, or hands out free cigarettes, or drives you to the polls, or whatever your personal criteria is. Your vote is less important than your money, time and commitment, which I would encourage you to be very stingy with, unless they EARN it.

I used to be a conservative. I consider myself Patriotic. I believe in American Exceptionalism. I think Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism and White Liberal Guilt and Postmodernism and Transnational Progressivism and Anthropomorphic Global Warming are all Bravo Sierra. That makes me an enemy of the Left.

Conservatives fight political warfare like the Maginot Line fought panzers. Conservatives think they've succeeded when they slow the rate of descent in the downward spiral but they rarely climb. Somebody has to fight the Culture War and the Cold Civil War.

Instead of being unenthusiastic, grudging, blackmailed supporters of lesser evils, why not work on becoming Strategic Citizens?

What we are talking about is creating a movement in which people are inspired by the ideals and a vision of the American Experiment to take action on their own, independent of any centralized control and guided by their ideals and values. The specific kinds of non-violent action available to us are many and varied. Any type of media, technology, activism, rhetorical technique and organizational form is there in the tool box. What I would like to see is a proliferation of dozens perhaps hundreds of organizations all promoting pro-liberty, pro-American ideals and working to counter the postmodernist left and Islamic fundamentalism.

posted by Cannoneer No. 4 on May 16, 2008 6:01 PM

"They fell in love with the job, and failed to understand - it isn't *supposed* to be a job."

A mission for a while, and then go home?

That much Noonan was right about. They never go home. The fat is too thick.

Almost never. Zell Miller did.

posted by Grim on May 17, 2008 5:07 PM

by John on May 16, 2008 | Politics

How To Get A Job

[Kat]

Megan McArdle on Advice that Should Be Unnecessary regarding this CNN article Interview Mistakes.

Here's the first few that immediately caught my attention and, before even reading the article, came to my mind (listen up military guys and gals, you'll want to make these top priority, believe it or not).

When hiring managers were asked to name the most common and damaging interview mistakes a candidate can make, 51 percent listed dressing inappropriately.

As a manager that has interviewed a few hundred folks, I have to say that the old line about "first impressions are lasting impressions" is true. If someone is going to interview for an office job, unless they tell you up front that it is a "casual work atmosphere", come dressed for "the office".

Sweat pants, jeans, hip hugging slacks with little shirts that show off the mid drift...do not wear it. I have seen everything including ripped jeans and belly button rings. And, iron your clothes or at least put them in the dryer to freshen them up and take out most of the wrinkles. If it looks like you pulled it out of the dirty clothes hamper, don't wear it. Slobs don't get the job done.

In fact, I will share some excellent advice a manager once told me: even if you are interviewing for the position of a clerk, come dressed like you are interviewing for the next position or two or three above it.

On giving that advice once, I had someone tell me that they were worried that the employer would expect them to dress like that all the time and they simply didn't have the money. That, my friends, is an excuse. Once you get to the interview, you can see what the office dress code is and you can ask. They might expect you to dress decent, but not necessarily dress to the nines. What that first impression does is to say that you are serious about getting the job and will be a serious and diligent employee.

Men, wear a tie. I know it sounds old fashion, but it definitely presents a "professional" appearance. Wear a sports jacket or suit if you are going for any position where you will be in public, representing the company. Wear a suit if you are going for a supervisory or managerial position.

Please comb your hair and shave. Make sure your hair is dry. If you're running late and can't complete your toilet in time (ladies), please call and re-schedule your interview. While that is annoying, it's less annoying than having someone show up in your office with wet hair, wrinkled clothes and a harried look and demeanor.

For the ladies, don't wear clothes that look like you're about to go to the night club. Save the cleavage and belly buttons for social hour or myspace (or not, we google). Stay away from khakis unless you are going to interview at the dollar store for a cashier position. At least wear slacks, a blouse and some decent shoes.

Oh..and please, people, don't wear tennis shoes. Make sure your shoes are clean and, preferably, without holes or giant scuff marks. If possible, use some shoe polish. ABSOLUTELY, NO FLIP FLOPS!

I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest to be, at least, clean and neat.

Don't wear any clothes with leopard, tiger or zebra print. Unless otherwise noted, we do not have a "night shift".

Forty-nine percent cited badmouthing a former boss as the worst offense, while 48 percent said appearing disinterested.

Oh, lord. Please save your dissatisfaction with your current or former boss for happy hour with your peers. Do not bring it to the interview. You are likely to be interviewed by..you guessed it...a manager who probably, at least, has some empathy for the travails of your former manager who probably has more than one employee needing attention along with the untold numbers of demanding people above them. You won't get sympathy points.

The fact that your previous manager did not mentor you, listen to you, promote you when you thought you should be or gave you a really bad review is not something that you want to share at an interview with your new prospective boss. Especially that "bad review" part. It leads to other questions like "why is this person really looking for a job?"

Hey, if you really feel that way, keep it simple and positive. You are leaving because you are looking for growth opportunities or a chance for promotion.

Oh...and when you are asked to "tell us a little something about yourself", don't talk about your divorce, your custody battles, your bankruptcy, your delinquent child, etc for a half hour. The employer is looking for information about your work history. Everything you say should be about your work experience, how it relates to the new position and what are you going to do for your prospective new employer.

Other "no, no's" from CNN:

• The applicant smelled his armpits on the way to the interview room.

• Candidate said she could not provide a writing sample because all of her writing had been for the CIA and it was "classified."

• Candidate told the interviewer he was fired for beating up his last boss.

• When the applicant was offered food before the interview, he declined saying he didn't want to line his stomach with grease before going out drinking.

Brush your teeth. Don't smoke, eat or drink anything that might give you bad breath before the interview. Stay away from the onions. If you have chronic halitosis, invest in some listermint strips.

Oh...and neither cologne nor perfume covers up the smoke smell or B.O.

That doesn't even touch the actual interview questions, but, believe me, the interview is nearly worthless from the get go if the first impression doesn't scream, "Hire me! I am the best employee you'll ever have!"

� Secure this line!

When I was in charge of interviewing and hiring people, I'd ask anyone wearing flip flops, shorts, a bathing suit under otherwise "okay" attire, and/or with offensive b.o. to leave without even accepting their applications. They obviously didn't care enough to take five minutes to dress like they wanted a job so I didn't bother to waste my five with them.

For those who oversprayed their cologne, I couldn't make it longer than 30 seconds in a closed room with them. How would anyone manage to work a whole day next to the stench?

On a slightly related thought, I was going through another photographer's portfolio one day and noticed a file called "Young Professionals Networking Seminar". I never saw so many hootchie mamas and pimped out men in my life. I shook my head and silently wept at the very idea these are our future captains of industry. WTF? Please, save the skirts short enough to require hairnets for the nightclubs, the wacky hats and expensively torn jeans, and wear something more appropriate to a networking seminar and mixer. And yet, 90% of them were dressed that way.

Sigh.

As someone starting to actively pursue my own photography business, I set aside money to buy "interview" and work clothing. I can't afford to meet with someone and have them think I'm not serious. Nor can I get hired for a job and suddenly have nothing to wear. You have to prepare in advance. Sometimes it's a hardship to do so, but there are many ways to go about finding the right clothing -- Goodwill, ARC, Catholic Charities, and for women, there are countless more, all you have to do is google free business attire for deserving women or some such thing.

/mini rant

posted by Da Goddess on May 16, 2008 3:39 AM

But it was a *good* mini-rant!

posted by John of Argghhh! on May 16, 2008 9:35 AM

As the old saw goes... You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

It's all just common sense things we should have all learnt in kindergarten, or at the very least out of the shepherding of good parenting.

For every interview, I always come in my best charcoal-grey suit, crisp white oxford shirt, and a bold "power" Red Double-Windsor Tie. Not that it has helped me any in these God-forsaken five years. The only job that I've been able to land is a part-time at the local Sears. #&^*~+%!!!!! Maybe I should try the flip-flops, chewing gum angle next time.

posted by Boquisucio on May 16, 2008 10:48 AM

Meanwhile, from someone on the other side of the table ...

When I see an office whose ownership insists on a dress code including silk nooses and clothes that cost as much as my car, I know I'm looking at an office run by a stuck-up prig.

When I meet an interviewer who judges by superficialities like how many zeros and hours the candidate spent on his/her wardrobe and cosmetics, I know I've just met an interviewer who doesn't know what they're doing, probably doesn't know what they need, certainly doesn't know how to find it, and probably would be a nightmare to work for.

You see, the judging by trivialities goes both ways. It hurts just as much when you-the-employer do it to me-the-jobseeker as it does when I-the-jobseeker do it to you-the-employer. And when one is a good worker who hasn't been able to find stable work for five goddamned years precisely BECAUSE interviewers are so obsessed with their trivial bigotries about clothes I can't afford and cosmetic issues I don't give a shit about that they miss what's standing right in front of them -- namely a damn good worker with a damn good record and a hell of a lot of ability ... well, kindly spare me the snooty snippy snarking, and consider instead that maybe part of the problem with finding good employees in today's world lies with today's employers.

posted by wolfwalker on May 16, 2008 10:49 AM

In the area of making a good first impression, I've noticed something that applies regardless of how you're dressed:
If you stand up straight, act alert, and speak the local language fluently, a lot of people will immediately pigeonhole you as an Authority Figure. If you're looking to be put in a position of responsibility, this is a good thing.
(Being dressed neatly helps, too, but around Silicon Valley it's not so critical; that poorly-dressed person on the street could be a venture capitalist, a politician, or, of course, just a wino.)

posted by Eric Wilner on May 16, 2008 11:07 AM

Wolf..Take two seconds and read what your wrote. You think somebody owes you a job and the only reason they didn't hire you is because you didn't come in a brooks brother suit?

Seriously...if you were me and the guy came in dressed in ripped up jeans, flipflops and a faded t-shirt, the interview would go no further because I pretty much see that as having no respect for me or the job I'm about to interview him for.

It is about respect and responsibility. As da goddess notes, I don't give a damn how old the tie is, how long you've had it, if you bought it from the thrift store or if it is twenty years out of style.

Clean and neat like you are interested in being there. Our dress code is business casual. In 45 days I have interviewed thirty or more people for eight positions (we're expanding). You are not my only applicant. Do you want a job or to be unemployed for five years telling everyone what a bunch of snobby, priggish a-holes you have to interview with because, when you walk through the door, they are looking to see if your hair is combed, your clothes are clean and neat and give the appearance that you know what it means to work in an office?

Dude...were you ever in the military? did you ever tell the Sgt that he was an a-hole because he expected your clothes to be neat and clean, your hair cut and your shoes shined?

And, why did he tell you to do that? Some snobby, priggish military regulation that didn't have a damn thing to do with being a soldier? Or was it about giving the impression of discipline and order even when all hell was breaking loose?

That is what civilian employers are looking for, too.

Nothing shallow about it. When I put you on the front lines, however you look, however you talk, whatever you do, is going to be the brand of my company. You are going to represent it to my customers, competitors, vendors, everything. It's basic marketing. Every person who goes for an interview should understand that is what it is and what is at stake. You're damn right I'm going to look at your clothes and general appearance. You're either money in my pocket or a big sucking hole.

So, are you going to market yourself as "money in my pocket" or "big sucking hole"?

PS...I just spent three years doing on again and off again temp work after getting laid off when my company sold out in 2005. I cannot tell you how many interviews I had in those three years. So...I'm hard pressed to find sympathy. When I didn't get hired, it wasn't because the interviewer was "too shallow" and keyed on my appearance (I always dress nice, even in my five year old suit with the slacks I've hemmed twice and the zipper I replaced last year), it was definitely about whether I fit their over all criteria.

posted by kat-missouri on May 16, 2008 1:49 PM

Every *personal* interview I was invited to turned up a bust, despite my suit, pressed white shirt, conservative tie and buffed shoes. The instant an interviewer caught sight of my grey hair, I could see his eyes change.

So I looked for a niche and targeted it.

Each job I was actually *hired* for was the result of a phone interview by someone who'd read my "niche" resume and asked me to e-mail documentation...

posted by BillT on May 16, 2008 2:01 PM

So I looked for a niche and targeted it.
Each job I was actually *hired* for was the result of a phone interview by someone who'd read my "niche" resume and asked me to e-mail documentation...

Well..that is a separate problem. But, no worries mate, most of the work force is about to be over the age of 50 so the young whipper snappers are going to have to start taking the interviews a little more seriously.

posted by kat-missouri on May 16, 2008 2:15 PM

Another bit of advice to job seekers:
No, the receptionist can't hire you. But if you annoy him / her, they can make darn sure you don't get hired.

Be polite and friendly to everyone you meet - after all, your goal is to make them your co-workers.

posted by KCSteve on May 16, 2008 3:18 PM

I'm thinking that WW's real point is - he's not interested in a job in a business where the culture includes a 3 piece suit.

I've landed the middle ground - I work for a company that would really like us to be three-piece-suiters, but understands that if they want guys like me... well, they let me wear Polos on most days and I agree to wear a noose when it's appropriate (and there are times when it clearly is).

And like Bill - I got my job from my resume', not my interview.

But I'm not an entry-level employee, either.

Unless I got back to retail...

ick.

posted by John of Argghhh! on May 16, 2008 3:25 PM

***When the applicant was offered food before the interview, he declined saying he didn't want to line his stomach with grease before going out drinking.***

That...is...awesome.

posted by Toluca Nole on May 16, 2008 3:53 PM

And like Bill - I got my job from my resume', not my interview.

You didn't have to interview at all?

And, I'm not in retail, I'm in healthcare.

Which, actually, is worse. If I got a slobby looking guy taking your blood or talking to you about your billing, what does the patient think about their over all care? Probably something like "carp, I'm gonna die or they'll leave some forceps in me they won't find for 20 years".

Like I said, we're business casual most of the time (polos and khakis are fine), but we are talking about getting hired to a job, not what you can or should wear afterwards. What to wear to an interview. That, I believe entails a tie if you are interviewing for an office job(unless applying to the kitchen or janitorial services).

Find out the dress code for post interview, thank you Yesuh, I'm employed.

I notice that none of the men were insisting on wearing tiger stripes or leopard print. ;)

posted by kat-missouri on May 16, 2008 4:16 PM

Kat, there's a big, BIG middle ground between demanding people not dress like bums, and demanding they dress like the CEO of Bank of America.

I'm a programmer who made a mistake and let his skills get rusty at his last job, so I know I've already got at least one strike against me. I have enough trouble just getting interviews -- I average about one every three months, and I haven't been able to figure out why. Do you really think I'd do anything I knew was going to further reduce my chances?

Don't answer that. It was rhetorical. I never do things I know will reduce my chances- -- but because of the infernal games you and your fellow shallow, superficial, appearance-oriented, prejudiced hiring managers so love to play, I DON'T KNOW WHAT BEHAVIOR MIGHT REDUCE MY CHANCES. When I walk into an interview, I want to know the answers to three questions:

1) who are you?
2) what do you want?
3) can I do what you want?

The only questions I want to hear from you are

1) do I understand the job you're trying to fill?
2) can I fill that job?
3) can I fit into your team successfully?

Everything else is bullshit.

If appearance is relevant to answering any of the above questions, either mine or yours, then it should matter. If not, then it shouldn't. Period.

I don't know how to play The Interview Game. I tried once, a long time ago, and discovered that the rules change with every interviewer, every company, every position. Therefore, I refuse to waste any of my time trying to learn it. If you insist that I play the game by your rules but you haven't got the common decency to tell me what those rules are, then you don't deserve to have me, or any good employee, working for you.

posted by wolfwalker on May 16, 2008 4:18 PM

It wasn't the grey hair, it was the peroxide highlights ...

Cheers

posted by J.M. Heinrichs on May 16, 2008 4:33 PM

No, the receptionist can't hire you. But if you annoy him / her, they can make darn sure you don't get hired.

That is right. I had an interviewee that I was so/so about. Had decent skills, seemed confident, but came across a little bull dozer like. Sometimes, I don't mind that because you need a go getter, but they have to be able to exhibit some finesse so they don't piss off everybody else. Unfortunately, after we shook hands and they left, the executive assistance caught me in the hall and asked if I was going to hire that person.

Apparently, the interviewee had gotten lost on the way and rudely and crassly demanded to know if the EA knew how to use mapquest (I sh*t you not).

One wonders why they didn't use mapquest to verify the directions for themselves?

interviewee not hired. personality conflict. ;)

posted by kat-missouri on May 16, 2008 4:54 PM

Wolf: Those that hire are different people. If you really want the job you need to know what they are like because at the end of the day the idea of them hiring you based on company values is an incomplete picture. They hire you based on their own values with a company perspective.

And that's the black art. Knowing what they value before you talk to them. I've never figured a good way around this one so I guess it's trial and error till you find one of those with moderate values you may want to model your interview on.

Both Kat and daGoddess talk about hiring someone with a faded Goodwill tie but I'm going to put myself on the line and say I frankly don't believe they have ever hired such a person. Those type of interviewers are conservative and they feel anyone unemployed is unworthy of a job en passant because they prejudge all unemployed to be a "big sucking hole" before you even walk in. Where do you think their hard earned taxes are going? If they've seen your resume most of the time you won't even get an interview. So they project this out as such ppl thinking they are owed a job to drum home it's the other person's fault.

And there's a shift from those conservatives who have some degree of class though not usually full on priggishness to the very flip flopers they interviewed becoming the interviewers. It can be a bad idea to overdress for those ones. And worse those often don't know what the company wants never mind themselves. So then it seems more like a lottery. 5 years of picking tickets must suck.

I do urge you to self examine. You may be the cause. Are you really offering them what they might want. 5 years is a long time. I also urge you not to reject a place for priggishness. Live with it repay your clothes and find somewhere more in line with your values.

You still *want* to look at the interviewer and other employees you contact. What can you see? For example, are they all stressed or miserable? Well you are there to assess them too. The grass is not always greener. That can mean more to a jobchanger than a jobseeker.

As for dagoddess on charities, all i can say is actually go visit them. Open your eyes. Ask them questions. Let them preach and snarl. See what they have and what they are willing to offer You'll learn more than you'd ever want to and you can still return home to everything you have.

posted by Argent on May 16, 2008 4:58 PM

Wolfwalker,

I was given some very good advice during my long job search: by the time you've gotten to the point where they want a face-to-face, there's little difference between you and the other candidates. They've already decided they wouldn't mind having you on the team. So in order to whittle it down to The One, they're looking for a reason NOT to hire you. Don't give them one. Doesn't matter how small that reason is, it's their reason, and little things like dress can make all the difference.

I lost at least one position that was right up my alley because I under-dressed. I was neat, clean and professional (high-end business casual), but the interviewer had been expecting executive-style dress (I didn't know the job had a development component that involved meeting local business leaders). She was "this close," to hiring me (she said), but told me straight up that I didn't present myself as someone who could've walked into an executive office. I could've kicked myself.

posted by Fbl on May 16, 2008 5:14 PM

I'm going to put myself on the line and say I frankly don't believe they have ever hired such a person

Not that I have anything to prove, but you'd be so wrong.

Still, you are right to some degree, I am conservative in my hiring practices.

I would take FbL's advice and know who you are interviewing for and what position. Every office or business has a certain culture it wants to instill and project. That is the company's perogative. You either accept it or don't.

But, I'll re-iterate something I said earlier that goes along with FbLs comments. I have eight positions. Thirty people interviewed. Most with some or a lot of experience on their resume. Everything they say and do, how they appear, how they express themselves, how much information they provide, whether they "speak the lingo" of our business, can give examples of their knowledge, etc, etc, etc all goes into the decision making process. Particularly if I have a few people with similar experience on their resume.

While I was being snarky here, the reality is that an interviewee should be selling the interviewer on why they are the best candidate for the job because the interviewee is competing for it and competition requires giving more than the other person to win. And, when I think that person is going to do give it more than 100%, when they give that impression in every possible aspect, when I have to decide between two good candidates, the person that made the extra effort is going to get the job.

Now, you can take my advice or leave it. It's free after all and that makes the value dependent on what the recipient gives it.

Which, apparently, is about nil.

posted by kat-missouri on May 16, 2008 6:48 PM

It wasn't the grey hair, it was the peroxide highlights ...

Heh. We had a guy at the Facility who used a "get rid of the grey" comb.

We couldn't get him to read the ingredients on the label, so we just chuckled when he walked past a window and the sunlight highlighted the green tinge from the *lead* in the coloring agent...

posted by BillT on May 17, 2008 1:02 AM

Dang, Wolf, you sound like a lot of folks on the Autie-Aspie forums on which I hang out. Believe me, I feel for you.

Ever since that infamous Duke Power case, objective standards in hiring are pretty much forbidden, in favor of good impressions at the interview.

Most people who do actual productive work would, I believe, rather have all of their teeth pulled slowly with no anaesthetic than conduct an interview, so that job is sloughed off onto the Personnel uh, Critters.

posted by Justthisguy on May 17, 2008 1:14 AM

I can empathize with WW, a tad.

last job I went ot interview for was in CA and a guy I knew from Davis and I were both going for it. I kicked this guys butt when it came to lab work capabilities. I prooved it by outscoring him in the three lab courses we shared together(organic, modern organic synthesis lab, and inorganic methods), by a LOT. He got the job. He dressed better(tailored suit, whereas I wore otr) than me and my stutter that shows up when nervous surely didn't help either, but by objective standards I owned Mike.

I heard back from the company a week later. Mike had shown up on his first day wearing flip-flops and wanted to know if I'd consider taking the job. YOu don't wear flip-flops where people are playing with HF. You're lucky if you don't get nailed for wearing cloth tennis shoes in that environment. But, hey, Mike dressed better than me. And talked a better game. Which is why I hate this whole marketing centered process. It's stupid. It rewards the bs artists more than the competent but awkward. That's not a good thing, imo. It can be a *very* useless grading point.

Of course, I keep telling RBBH that when she starts interviewing we're going to have to get her a trioka of interview dressup stuff, fancier than the stuff she bought for confrences. That's the way the game is played. I don't like it, but those are the rules if one wants to play.

Argent, dude, lay off da Goddess. You don't know her and haven't likely read her blog. Dude, she knows. Trust me, homegirl knows. She spent what, the last 4 years, dealing with a serious back problem that cost her just about everything except LD(Little Dude), and I'm not kidding about the financial troubles she's faced these last 48 months. She's in the BTDT (had to sell the t-shirt) category. She knows. Homegirl knows.

posted by ry on May 17, 2008 5:18 AM

Justthisguy:

To be honest, I don't know whether to be happy that somebody actually understands what I'm trying to say, or irritated that some people think it means I'm mentally impaired. Yes, I know about Asperger's, and I know the symptoms. I also know exactly where my problems come from. So I know there's no match there. I have the ability to play the games Kat is talking about; what I don't have is either the necessary knowledge or the inclination. I think that people who refuse to tell me what they want, then punish me when I can't deliver it, are no better than orcs: motivated primarily by malice, unfit for polite company, and suited primarily for use as fencing dummies. With live blades.

Here, I'll give you an example from this very post. Dress codes for interviews. In this age of 'business casual' environments, I need to know what level to dress for. You know, one of my interviews I walked in in jacket and tie, to be met by two interviewers in T-shirts and bluejeans. I felt so acutely out of place that it completely threw me off my stride, and the interview was a disaster.

So how to change that? Well, this is the age of the Internet. Most companies have websites. Most company websites have an "About us" page that lists the senior staff and gives a brief CV on each. Isn't it blindingly obvious that the "About us" page can also serve as a cue for interview dress codes: the interviewee is expected to dress the way the senior staff is shown in their photos? If they're in three-piece suits, then the applicant should wear one too. If they're in business casual, that's acceptable for the applicant. If they're in jeans and t-shirts -- on their CORPORATE WEBSITE -- then they've got no farkin' business gigging a candidate for showing up at his/her interview in business casual clothes. On the other side, the applicant has no reason to carp about "giving the wrong impression" if the photos show business casual and he wears either spring-break party clothes or a thousand-dollar suit.

See, that makes sense to me. The rules are there, even if only implicitly, and you don't need a PhD in psych to interpret them. But this line about "dress like a banker even if you're interviewing for a mushroom job" is simply posturing. It's fundamentally dishonest, and I hate it.

posted by wolfwalker on May 17, 2008 7:51 AM

Yes I was out of line. I see that now. So I offer an apology to Kat and daGoddess in my presumption on who they hire. I was wrong.

I didn't realise how much bashing the unemployed pushes my buttons. And that's what that article and this post said to me. Painting the broad flip flop skanky picture. I'll have to explore this a bit.

I am not backpedaling regarding the charities. I've BTDT too and that's why i suggest a personal visitation. It may be things are different for daGoddess. Points on a graph you know.

Yes they are the rules because they get to make them. If an interviewer wants powdered judicial wigs and a pink tutu that's what we'll want to put on. And the silly questions oh the questions I dislike those far more than the clothes. I actually like dressing up. Here's a few of my favourites.

"What would you do if you were Prime Minister?" I fell for this one too.

"What does your brother do for a job?" This reminds me of the bad date scenario where they went out with you for your brother. I'm still a bit vague on why this one was asked. I don't have a brother btw.

"Are you married?" Why, are you available?

"What's you biggest weakness" Oh this one is so common.

Yes stuttering wouldn't play well at all and probably the stress of that makes it come out more. Bad hearing plays poorly too, You really need to understand every word they are saying and when they notice it gets translated rapidly into unhirable due to communication difficulty.

So many styles too the one on one, the comfy cosy one, the panel, the competition, the multistage. Bluh there's no such thing as an easy one.

posted by Argent on May 17, 2008 7:54 AM

"Are you married?" Why, are you available?

That's a violation of the EOE actually and we never ask that question.

And I might add, it's not the "unemployed" that I was bashing. WE have plenty of "employed" people seeking other jobs who show up all interesting looking too.

The dress thing, is really about psychology. It's not a "game" per se. What people do to prepare for the interview says a lot about what they will do to actually work there and get the job done.

posted by kat-missouri on May 17, 2008 10:27 AM

by Kat on May 16, 2008 | General Commentary

Obama: I Have A Question...

[Kat]

Who is Obama running against? John McCain or President Bush.

"Who is Obama running against? John McCain or President Bush?"

What, there's a difference?

posted by Jason on May 16, 2008 8:24 AM

Yep. One can't speak and the other one stutters.

then there's the "The Trinity": Obama, son and holy Ghost

posted by kat-missouri on May 16, 2008 9:18 AM

Jason, Jason, Jason. President Bush clearly has better hair.

posted by John of Argghhh! on May 16, 2008 9:37 AM

I was really peeved. It was a really good speech and all this a$$hattery by Kerry & Biden (two completely irrelevant people) being all offended on Barry's behalf has taken away from that. The statement was delivered to thunderous applause and echoes similar statements "W" has made in the past. This has been "W"s line since before Barry was a Senator, much less a Presidential candidate.

All this nonsense takes away from the speech as a whole and I liked the next paragraph even better.

The President of the United States went to Israel and stated what is America's long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorist and standing with Israel. Yom Ha'atzmaut Sameach!

The President did not go to Israel to thwart you. Sorry, Barry........you are not that important. Note to Barry - when Princess Crabby thinks your ego is out of control, you've got a problem. I know all those people were fainting at your rallies.....but "W" wasn't one of them.

Once again....Gore/Bush.....Kerry/Bush.....no question.

Disclaimer - Princess Crabby, while not always happy with "W", is solidly in the 30% approval group.

posted by Maggie on May 16, 2008 10:59 AM

Surely the question is rhetorical; it's been obvious for at least a month that the Dems will paint McCain as "Bush II," thereby eliminating their responsibility to put forth a concrete program.

posted by Casey Tompkins on May 16, 2008 12:31 PM

Jason just likes showing up here to toss the occasional stink bomb to keep us interested.

I like the fact that he's comfortable enough here to venture into enemy territory to tug on my beard...

posted by John of Argghhh! on May 16, 2008 2:58 PM

by Kat on May 16, 2008 | Politics

H&I Fires* 15 May 2008

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

Time to add a new caveat, because from email it's not clear to some folks (mind you, if you don't read this it won't matter...) Being an open post, people (collectively, the Denizens) other than I post in the H&I. They sign their work (most of the time) - keep that in mind when you want to flame someone in email please - if it doesn't say "The Armorer" or "John" then I didn't write it! And honestly - if you don't like something said or posted... leave a comment, and hash it out (within the context of The Rulez which are clearly posted on the comment form, I would add).

********************************

Princess Crabby reminds us:

A lot of folks can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country. ~~~ Well, there's a very simple answer. ~~~ Nobody bothered to check the oil. ~~~ We just didn't know we were getting low. ~~~ The reason for that is purely geographical. ~~~ Our OIL is located in ~~~ ALASKA ~~~ California ~~~ Coastal Florida ~~~ Coastal Louisiana ~~~ Kansas (Heck, they're even drilling two new wells on the property next door to the Castle) ~~~ Oklahoma ~~~ Pennsylvania and Texas ~~~ Our DIPSTICKS are located in Washington, DC!!! ~~~ Any Questions??? NO? Didn't think So.

And, in fact, there is a kernel of truth in there, given the role of Congress and the Executive have played in energy policy. -the Armorer

**********************************

Today in 1718, Mssr. James Puckle patents a gun. A mechanical machine gun. With a unique characteristic...

Puckle's gun

From the patent application:

16. The plate of the Chambers of the Gun for a ship shooting Square Bullet against Turks.
17. For Round Bullets against Christians.

So *that's* what we've been doing wrong... -the Armorer

*********************************
Also on this day, in 1862, Union Major General Benjamin Butler displayed *his* grasp of counter-insurgency...

"As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subjected to repeated insults from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans, in return for the most scrupulous noninterference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation."

That action, among others, prompting this response from the leader of the insurgents. -the Armorer

*********************************

But the junk comment header was soooo promising! Redhead playing with boobs. I had visions of Lucille Ball and the 3 Stooges. Or HomefrontSix and Congress. Or Princess Crabby and some sailors... It wasn't. - the Armorer

*******************************

H.R. McMaster finally gets his star. And he shows it's not gonna slow him down, debuting in style. - FbL

Gen Ben Butler was a political appointee with very little credentials for his post. His nickname was Spoons Butler because of his need to pilfer the silverware from locals. I don't think he is a good example of Union Generalship. I think the incident was brought on by a Lady dumping her nightly deposits on Admiral Farragut from a two story window. Not just an insult.

posted by Fishmugger on May 15, 2008 11:35 AM

Lets not get too excited by the possibility that McMaster will get his star. The list has not been published so this is just informed, hopefully, speculation and still subject to change.

posted by JimC on May 15, 2008 4:26 PM

Said the guy who sent me the story... and not one comment about Puckle's gun.

Youse guys disappoint me sometimes!

posted by John of Argghhh! on May 15, 2008 4:32 PM

Redheads playing with boobs

Nope - that picture isn't on my blog...

posted by HomefrontSix on May 15, 2008 5:39 PM

I've loved the Puckle since seeing a repro of the original patent application... complete with the 'square shot for use against Turks' quote, showing the two different magazines.
OK?
Dunno how that square shot was gonna fare down the barrel, though...

posted by Neffi on May 15, 2008 6:04 PM

Ah, but Neffi - clearly the root of our failure against terrorists-who-happen-to-be-muslims, since I'm told the connection is simply coincidence, is that we aren't using the right ammunition.

Surely we can make the square bullet work now!

posted by John of Argghhh! on May 15, 2008 6:10 PM

Oh, yeah, the Puckle Gun, from the times when folks weren't afraid to say EXACTLY what they thought, about individuals, or even groups.

State yer case, and let's have it out!

I do wonder if getting shot with cubical bullets hurts more than getting shot with spherical bullets.

Prolly not, but the guy shooting you with the cubes gets to feel somewhat more mean and nasty, being hoppin' mad at you.

posted by Justthisguy on May 15, 2008 10:32 PM

The only Puckle gun I've seen was in a museum near where they built some of Nelsons fleet.

The round bullets were just over an inch round, weighed 4 ounces, the square ones an inch cube weighing over six ounces.

Maybe Puckle had had an argument with the Turks and wanted to square the account.

posted by rikkochet on May 16, 2008 12:55 PM

by Denizens on May 15, 2008 | General Commentary

On letting go... one of the hardest things for the warrior-born to do.

Heh. Just ask Bill.

Sara Teasdale wrote:

When I can look Life in the eyes,
Grown calm and very coldly wise,
Life will have given me the Truth,
And taken in exchange - my youth.

Though perhaps this is more apt for the subject:

It is time to be old,
To take in sail:--
The god of bounds,
Who sets to seas a shore,
Came to me in his fatal round,
And said: 'No more!
No farther spread
Thy broad ambitious branches, and thy root.
Fancy departs: no more invent,
Contract thy firmament
To compass of a tent.
There's not enough for this and that,
Make thy option which of two;
Economize the failing river,
Not the less revere the Giver,
Leave the many and hold the few.

As the bird trims her to the gale,
I trim myself to the storm of time,
I man the rudder, reef the sail,
Obey the voice at eve obeyed at prime:
'Lowly faithful, banish fear,
Right onward drive unharmed;
The port, well worth the cruise, is near,
And every wave is charmed.'

"Terminus," by R. W. Emerson.

I was going to stick in Ulysses, by Tennyson, but I see the target has done so already...

So I'll go with this, instead.

May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind ever be at your back, May you find old friends waiting to greet you, there on the outside track We're gathered together old times to remember, 'tis but for ourselves we would grieve, So we'll sing you a chorus and bid you farewell - fair winds and a following sea.
We'll sing of 'The Leaf' and 'The Parting Glass', we'll raise up our voices in song,
No sadness today for the one who has passed, celebrate with a voice glad and strong.
A catch in the throat, a tear in the eye, but no funeral dirge will this be,
We'll roar 'Auld Lang Syne' as a victory song - fair winds and a following sea.

And those of us left here will miss a true friend, who shared with us good times and bad,
Raising a glass to your memory we'll say: “We've known you – why should be we sad?”
We honour a life that was lived to the full, we honour a spirit, now free.
You'll long be remembered, whenever we say: “Fair winds and a following sea!”
You'll long be remembered, whenever we say: “Fair winds and a following sea!”

Fair winds and a following sea, Sailor.

Bosun, Pipe the Captain away. - Neptunus Lex, Departing.

H/t to Tom Lewis for the lyric and song.

No, he's not dead. It just feels like that, when you finally let go and retire. There's relief mixed with a sense of... drowning. The hardest part is the realization that while many you served with will miss you, the organization won't hiccup. Which is a good thing. Both for our egos, and for the organization. There are plenty more myrmidons of good metal in the field sown with dragon's teeth.

Update: Our own Fuzzybee has a different view of Lex, fascinating as it stems from her non-warrior eyes. Somebody get the head clamps. When Lex reads that, there won't be any room left in the building...

by John on May 15, 2008 | Shameless Pandering to Big Bloggers

Taking down Barney.

Two Denizenne's of Argghhh! went shooting recently, resulting in the timely demise of this paragon of evil...

So sorry, Barney.

Well, there were obviously *some* problems here. So, use this GTA (milspeak for Graphical Training Aid) to help Brab out.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

If that one is too hard for you to read, click here.

And, if she's left-handed... that would be this GTA.

I'm sure she'll tell us she was aiming for the bowtie.

Heh, MH and I recently did something like this with the emptied shell of a SpongeBob pinata. I consider it *therapy* for the times I had to listen to the show while SWHNOB watched it on TV.

*Off to see where to buy those Barney targets*
0>;~}

posted by DL Sly on May 15, 2008 10:29 AM

Gawd, how I despise Barney!

Thanks for putting one in his forehead for me. LOL

1,327,044 hours of his show are ENOUGH!

posted by fdcol63 on May 15, 2008 10:45 AM

It was a pleasure doing the little beast in. And I never said I was aiming for the bowtie ;-)

posted by Barb on May 15, 2008 11:12 AM

I never realized Bill Gates wore a bow tie...

posted by BillT on May 15, 2008 1:20 PM

Running an Engineer familiarization for ROTC summer bummer at Ft Lewis a few years ago, we would sit a 14" Barney doll on top of a quarter-pound block of TNT to simulate an anti-personnel mine.
As the ROTC students sang "THAT F****ING SONG", we would touch off the block and enjoy watching Barney disappear in a vortex of purple, green, and white fleece.
Ah, those memories...

Hunter (tearfully)

posted by Hunter on May 15, 2008 5:14 PM

When I read the title, I thought you were speaking of the President's dog and, for a moment, I worried that Cass was going to have a coronary.

posted by HomefrontSix on May 15, 2008 5:42 PM

I would never speak ill of the First Dog. I've met him, and he is, bar none, the most honest and forthright resident of the place.

Plus, he's just a happy puppy. Ummmmm. Happy Puppy! If there is one thing I dislike about business travel... it's leaving SWWBO and the furry ones behind.

posted by John of Argghhh! on May 15, 2008 5:58 PM

Obviously the Adjutant has not trained her fingers by playing a woodwind instrument, when a small child.

I really do seem to be a better shot with a handgun than other folks who exercise with one as infrequently as do I.

I think it has to do with moving only one finger at a time, while holding the rest of them still.

Bandsman, at the right of the line....

posted by Justthisguy on May 15, 2008 11:53 PM

BRAB wasn't aiming for the bow-tie. She just wanted to blast that irritating voice box of his.

Silence is heavenly.

posted by Boquisucio on May 16, 2008 10:54 AM

Interesting theory, JTG. I played piano, violin and cello - of which only the piano exercises the fingers of the right hand individually (as I'm right handed). Hmmmm. My bigger problem is being right-handed and left-eye dominant.

posted by Barb on May 16, 2008 10:55 AM

Hey! Why isn't there any flash game 2 really kill Barney? We h8s him!11!!!!1
thx

posted by Splinter54 on May 17, 2008 2:12 PM

ok i have 2 tell ya, it hasnt been splinter, im sry 4 him.... cya!

posted by splinter again on May 17, 2008 2:15 PM