Friday, May 14, 2004
Rank Ignorance: From the Archives
Re: MSNBC's inability to distinguish a specialist from an officer:
Several years ago there was this movie with Demi Moore, she wanting to be a SEAL. Anyhow, later I was on a website where this writer was quoting a reviewer approvingly, particularly the clever comment that the movie was essentially 'fetishistic' because the knuckle-dragging males in the movie called their leader 'Chief'.
I wrote and pointed out that 'Chief' means chief petty officer in the Navy, something like a master sergeant in the Army, if she might have heard of such. I also suggested that anybody who would really use the word 'fetishistic' in public should be restrained and sedated.
Her reply: "Who would know?", as in, "How would we be expected to know that?". How indeed.
The review this writer quotes is undoubtably Boston media writer Charles Taylor, writing for Salon, on the 1997 film "GI Jane."
Here are some choice snippets:
Of course, her fellow recruits (rendered, by Scott, indistinguishable from each other) are certain she hasn't got what it takes, as is her predictably hard-ass drill instructor (Viggo Mortensen). What isn't predictable is that this character has been given a hilariously fetishistic name -- "Master Chief" (didn't Texaco sell that?) -- and an even more fetishistic look.
Ok, so we've established that Taylor's clueless.
But why should ignorance stop him from yapping?
Historically, the armed forces, which are perhaps even more distrustful and contemptuous of the public they're supposed to be serving than the police are
Ok, we Taylor, we see where you're coming from. Maybe you have a point. Hell, maybe the military is almost "as distrustful and contemptuous of the public they're supposed to be serving" as the media!
have changed only under direct order, as when Truman ended racial segregation in the services. That's the only way women will ever go to combat and gays will ever serve openly.
Well, gee--ever stop to think about whether the military can legally 86 entire articles of the UCMJ --such as Article on their own authority, without the OK of Congress and/or the President? You know, the fact that if the military allowed homosexuals to serve openly would be a violation of the 1994 Defense Authorization Act just might have something to do with it.
You got a problem with the exclusion of homosexuals? Take it up with congress. It isn't the military's call.
Military training as it's practiced in this country is, by any reasonable standard, sociopathic.
Oh, now there's an informed opinion.
People attracted to the military often feel contempt for the "softness" of society.
Not really. But soft people often have contempt for members of the military.
Military officials often sound out of touch with reality when they argue for huge defense budgets and the necessity of "preparedness," as if they imagined lurking enemies on every border.
Of course, this was pre 9/11, and right around the time Osama Bin Ladin declared war on the US and after he had already hit the Khobar towers and the World Trade Center. It was also less than two years after the flareup of the North Korean nuclear proliferation confrontation and a pointed bout of sabre rattling with the Chinese in the strait of Tawain.
So who's out of touch with reality?
Some months back, it was reported that SEALs were actually being subjected to some of the torture methods they might face if captured, a practice that raises questions about the trainers' ability to distinguish reality from maneuvers.
Show me someone who thinks that training shouldn't reflect reality and I'll show you a born loser.
We can pay lip service to equal opportunity all we want, but does anybody really believe that it's a triumph for women to submit themselves to a system that reveres the old male horseshit about manhood equaling physical strength and courage and bonding and contempt for anyone weaker?
See what I mean about contempt?
In its crude, rabble-rousing way, "G.I. Jane" suggests exactly how the military will allow women to be all they can be -- by recognizing their constitutional right to say, "Suck my dick!" and kill Libyans.
Charming.
Message for Charles Taylor:
Oh, well, nevermind.
Splash, out
Jason
Several years ago there was this movie with Demi Moore, she wanting to be a SEAL. Anyhow, later I was on a website where this writer was quoting a reviewer approvingly, particularly the clever comment that the movie was essentially 'fetishistic' because the knuckle-dragging males in the movie called their leader 'Chief'.
I wrote and pointed out that 'Chief' means chief petty officer in the Navy, something like a master sergeant in the Army, if she might have heard of such. I also suggested that anybody who would really use the word 'fetishistic' in public should be restrained and sedated.
Her reply: "Who would know?", as in, "How would we be expected to know that?". How indeed.
The review this writer quotes is undoubtably Boston media writer Charles Taylor, writing for Salon, on the 1997 film "GI Jane."
Here are some choice snippets:
Of course, her fellow recruits (rendered, by Scott, indistinguishable from each other) are certain she hasn't got what it takes, as is her predictably hard-ass drill instructor (Viggo Mortensen). What isn't predictable is that this character has been given a hilariously fetishistic name -- "Master Chief" (didn't Texaco sell that?) -- and an even more fetishistic look.
Ok, so we've established that Taylor's clueless.
But why should ignorance stop him from yapping?
Historically, the armed forces, which are perhaps even more distrustful and contemptuous of the public they're supposed to be serving than the police are
Ok, we Taylor, we see where you're coming from. Maybe you have a point. Hell, maybe the military is almost "as distrustful and contemptuous of the public they're supposed to be serving" as the media!
have changed only under direct order, as when Truman ended racial segregation in the services. That's the only way women will ever go to combat and gays will ever serve openly.
Well, gee--ever stop to think about whether the military can legally 86 entire articles of the UCMJ --such as Article on their own authority, without the OK of Congress and/or the President? You know, the fact that if the military allowed homosexuals to serve openly would be a violation of the 1994 Defense Authorization Act just might have something to do with it.
You got a problem with the exclusion of homosexuals? Take it up with congress. It isn't the military's call.
Military training as it's practiced in this country is, by any reasonable standard, sociopathic.
Oh, now there's an informed opinion.
People attracted to the military often feel contempt for the "softness" of society.
Not really. But soft people often have contempt for members of the military.
Military officials often sound out of touch with reality when they argue for huge defense budgets and the necessity of "preparedness," as if they imagined lurking enemies on every border.
Of course, this was pre 9/11, and right around the time Osama Bin Ladin declared war on the US and after he had already hit the Khobar towers and the World Trade Center. It was also less than two years after the flareup of the North Korean nuclear proliferation confrontation and a pointed bout of sabre rattling with the Chinese in the strait of Tawain.
So who's out of touch with reality?
Some months back, it was reported that SEALs were actually being subjected to some of the torture methods they might face if captured, a practice that raises questions about the trainers' ability to distinguish reality from maneuvers.
Show me someone who thinks that training shouldn't reflect reality and I'll show you a born loser.
We can pay lip service to equal opportunity all we want, but does anybody really believe that it's a triumph for women to submit themselves to a system that reveres the old male horseshit about manhood equaling physical strength and courage and bonding and contempt for anyone weaker?
See what I mean about contempt?
In its crude, rabble-rousing way, "G.I. Jane" suggests exactly how the military will allow women to be all they can be -- by recognizing their constitutional right to say, "Suck my dick!" and kill Libyans.
Charming.
Message for Charles Taylor:
Oh, well, nevermind.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
