Military social work.

Remember when I had a massive rant on the pay of social workers compared to the debt when acquiring a MSW? Well, I still stand by that massive rant. I also have found out that if you're medically cleared to enter the military to become a military social worker, life is pretty good in terms of pay, job stability and respect. See below.

Army 73A (Social Worker)

Navy Social Worker

Air Force Social Worker

According to one Navy recruiter, a Navy social worker pay starts at around 75K and can lead up to 100K in ones third active year. I do not doubt this range because I have heard from other civilian social workers that VA social workers make the most when compared to other social work fields (child services, health care, mental) in the civilian employment. Depending on where you're placed and how wealthy the school is, school social work tends to pay a little better than a social worker working with child protection services or welfare queens.

In many cases it appears that military social work, though the program one graduates from must be CSWE accredited, is somewhat independent of the usual social work politics of "Ally" to LGBT and diversity/inclusion awareness. After all, you're dealing with people suffering from PTSD, stress, marital issues and social alienation (you know, real shit) due to wartime deployment, not some female LGBT sociology/social work student who's quite butch, or some feminist.

Now, to analyze each of the videos. I think each woman shown in the video is attractive. I won't rank them, but they're attractive to me. I think the Air Force video was the best - very sleek when viewed on the Air Force site. Then comes the  Navy video where the woman is a very coherent speaker; definitely a person with intellectual capabilities. The Army video is better than most job recruitment videos put out by the Army, but it still has the trademark corniness that the Army videos are known for -- from the outdated graphics, staged hall walks, the Captain Obvious language, the talking and the rapid sequence of pictures to the synchronized head turn. Despite all that, it's an improvement and that's saying something.

Thanks feminism, you made men stupid.

And men who are already stupid, well, you just became more stupid. If ...

Men who are supporting women to be put into selective-service are bringing forth horrid, horrid arguments.

A good majority of the arguments that I've come across are balancing on one thing: anger towards feminism and their push for "equality." The argument goes like this -

Man: Why is it okay to send our boys overseas to get killed? Isn't it sexism to value one sex over another and think one sex is less capable?

That pretty much how it goes.

Well here's one thing, I'll go back in time actually during the colonial period, men were the fighters. I'll fast forward from that time period and go to WWII. Men were the fighters. They were the drafted ones. I'll creep forward to a more present time when the Gulf War happened where both men and women were sent overseas. At that time combat roles were all men. The USA didn't have a draft because they didn't need one. Women were mostly in supporting roles if they chose to join the military. Let's go back a little before the Gulf Wars and look at Vietnam. There was a draft and all the draftees were men. Most became infantry because that's what drafts are for: to fulfill infantry positions.

I don't think Man understands what the draft is actually for and what jobs, when the draft happens, are mostly for infantry. But Man is stupid and goes on to say, "But they can draft the women as nurses. In WWII that almost happened ... " I don't know if women were 'almost' drafted in WWII, but I do know there was an agenda to fill nursing roles by all the propaganda posters.  I don't believe there is a shortage in the nursing corps, so I having a huge influx of female nurses is pretty stupid. Man doesn't take into account that since women are allowed to be in combat roles that combat roles, if they were to register for the draft, would be open to them and that to exclude them from that MOS would defeat the logic of retard Ashton Carter and all the feminists.

When men support the drafting of women they fulfill the feminists Utopia because they support this bizarre notion of "equality" on horrid arguments. For whatever reason they're angry that "our boys" die. Welcome to war. All of a sudden you're for co-ed drafts. For what reason? "Because our boys die!" Okay, what if we send puppies? Men who support this are just as horrible as the feminists who really don't give a darn about the lives that are at stake, just that "equality" is accomplished. Men like Man are idiots for failing to recognize that they helping feminists win.

If you're pissed at the feminists who push for equality, backing up further insane "equality" metrics renders your backlash from feminism is pointless. Here's what you do: You don't support the drafting of women and debate that accepting women into combat roles was a horrid decision. It's like saying you're all for socialized healthcare because you're pissed at Obama, and you want all the people to suffer under a healthcare system you don't like in order to prove that it was a horrid plan.

One side is feminism calling for "equality." The other side is full of  idiots calling for the drafting of women because they're pissed "our boys" go to war but not "our women." Well, women do go to war, just not in conscription form (as of today). They voluntarily join the military and, if fates have it, deploy in a war zone.

The stupidity of The Right (or non-progs) concerning "equality."

 Rated PG-13 for crude language.

This is about conscription of women.

There is a faction within The Right that are cheering on the drafting of women. Why?

"Let the feminists get what they deserve!"

Well, by that reasoning you should also support women in combat roles under "equal opportunity." You should also acknowledge that there are no major differences between a man and woman. You should also burrow away any tenderness you have towards a woman because they are just human beings - nothing special. Feed 'em to the wolves. In fact, you should stop caring about almost everything.

I know there are some who have been in the military and see this as a good thing. It's equal opportunity in their eyes and they are all for women wanting to serve their country. Of course there's the story of a mother and daughter who wanted to sign up for the selective service. First, this mother and daughter are egotistical assholes. If the daughter truly wanted to serve she should've joined the military straight out of high school or join ROTC in college. Second, who the fuck is pissed that they can't join the selective service? Is this for real? And to those who have served or are currently serving who support such a thing: you're dabbling in the moronic corner. The dunce hat is a few feet away from you. It's white and shaped like a cone. It says "DUNCE" on it.

There are those that act like women are being held back from serving their country; they aren't. They can serve in any branch and in any component. Before December 2015, all of the jobs were open to women save for infantry and SFs. There was no long petition from women wanting to tryout for the Rangers, SEALs, PJs or the Green Berets. As always, there will be those in active duty who support women in combat roles saying things like "It's not about ones sex or gender. It's about their willingness to serve and their character." You're right. And I bet you also support the laughable reality that is same-sex "marriage." There are idiot servicemen, so beware of them when asking about "equality" since they too are not immune to stupidity. They will then tell a story of a some rare female unicorn that can take on a 6'3 11B. Sure. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

What we have are people who The Left crave for: idiots. They need people who don't think things through to in order prevail. 

Personally, the thought of knowing that women are going to be conscripted is sickening. It's true, I view women differently than men. Men fought in the lines of WWII and the survivors of that war said they would never want others to experience what they did. Yet if WWIII breaks out, or if a woman in the combat role is deployed, such a wish is shattered. It's one thing to let men go off to war and fight in the front-lines, getting ripped about by shrapnel and bullets. It's another thing to out women in that exact same position.

Fools who support drafting women will say, "What if there's a Red Dawn?" So now you treat that prospect with respect? People mocked those who stood up for the 2nd Amendment. "Look there's not gonna be a Red Dawn you fools ... You don't all those guns." Now, when met with "woman power" the Red Dawn scenario is taken seriously. Fuck you. Even if there was a Red Dawn that's what our volunteer military is far. 1% of the population, those of age, are in the military, be it active or part-time. Now all of a sudden serving in the military is real fucking important. (Sorta like how marriage was all of a sudden important when same-sex "marriage" was being pushed.) That's what the National Guard is for. That's what the 2nd Amendment is far (but the leftists wants that taken away).

This isn't me thinking women are helpless, fragile beings.  This is me thinking women are innately different than men, both emotionally, mentally and physically, and that seeing a woman ripped apart by an RPG is a rather sickening reality. War is already sickening, why make it more so? Some will say, "Are boys lives less valuable to the nation?" Yes and no. Males were meant for war, if need be. Conscription was mainly to fill combat roles. You will have the idiots who try to say, "Well they can make a clause saying that women can be exemplified from combat roles." Bullshit. That's you wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Infantry is special - that's where most of the Medal of Honor are given, mainly for the direct reality facing the opposition. Infantry is "the classic" MOS branch. Without it the military wouldn't be "the military." That's where Dick Winters gained his legendary status alongside E Company. That's where Captain William Swenson showed his compassion for his fellow wounded soldier. I sense that the hard-line feminists and the fools want in on this as well. They want to see the a female infantry Medal of Honor recipient.

Women, as the late General Robert H. Barrow said, give life, not take it (unless you count abortion). I am not willing to dismiss tradition and the status quo for this type of "progress." It's not progress. It's devolution. A nation who conscripts there females is a nation who has lost their moral compass, the true north, for "equality." Equality, like diversity, is utter bullshit when practiced the modern way.

I can go all conspiracy and say that it was all planned, that shrinking the military and slowly eroding the 2nd Amendment was to allow women into combat roles and to justify the drafting of women. If the citizens of the US don't have guns and are helpless to defend themselves then send in Wonder Woman! See, the allowing of women into combat roles works! See, conscripting women works - now we have enough military personnel AND these women are "being all they can be"!

Back to reality.

As Jude Eden points out there are military careerists who want the promotion, who want to be known as "that person who helped usher in 'progress.'" There are generals who deny that it's about quotas and political correctness, but about access - to build a future that was once denied (sound familiar? See: Chief Justice Anthony's Obergefell v Hodges approval), forgetting that their bases of "access" is political correctness.

When foolish men run the country (Obama, Chief Justice Anthony) you get a shitty society. When you have foolish men who are in charge of the military (Carter, Mabus, Neller) you help destroy the greatest military force on the planet. And all under the guise of "progress" and (not "equality") but "equal opportunity." There's a slight change in words, but the shift is important because it frames a demographic that's propped up as a victim and if we allowed such changes we'd be a better nation for it. Or they say.

Ashton Carter's order to allow women in combat roles under "equal opportunity" will be a decision that will be bemoaned (silently by those with a sane mind) in future decades. General Neller's call to open the draft to women will be looked upon as a careerist move. It has nothing to do with making the nation's military force stronger or more efficient. If WWII did not need women on the front-lines let alone conscripted why now? There is no need. There are only needs that are fabricated.

Equality, the usage of it in the modern sense, must be relegated to dustbins of history, only to be acknowledged of what not to do.

Priorities are a strange thing.

When there is an active agenda to make the US military smaller, there is an active agenda to push women into combat roles and into selective service aka the draft/conscription.

You would think that such a vital institution with such a vital cause would be the last place to have social experiments or to pathetically use the line "equal opportunity," and if major changes were to be made it would come slowly with much debate, discussion and small vetted experiments to assure honest conclusions.

These changes have come to the marriage & family as well.

Yet there is no active change for "equality," to combine differences, in say professional sports like the NFL, NHL or the NBA. There are no serious discussions in the near future to combine Best Actor and Best Actress as one category - Best Performance in a Film - for the Oscars and other industry awards. None. There is no serious push to combine women's MMA division with men. These institutions and mediums of entertainment are untouched and yet they are the least important to what makes society function. Shouldn't they be the ones to be subject of unfettered social experimentation? They aren't. Why is that?

Changes have occurred in occupations that deal with life and death. Firemen. Police force. The military. The have come to institutions that deal with child rearing. Any backlash is deemed sexist or in the name of bigotry. Proponents hide under the ever feel-good, so-called enlightened concept of equal opportunity.

Something is up and all of it is being done in the name of "progress."

Why change one of the most lethal institution? Why subject women, as late General Robert H. Barrow once said, to death?

This past January, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus ordered that the Marine Corps to do away with separate training grounds for women and men Marines, both in boot camp and Officer Training School, in order make them co-ed. But sleeping and shower quarters are to remain single sex. Hmmm.

Mabus served two years in the Navy in the 1970s. He is also a graduate of Harvard Law.

US Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, is a Yale graduate and received his doctorate from Oxford University in the sciences. He has never served in the military.

Between these two, there is a total of 128 years being on this planet (Mabus, 67; Carter 61). There is only two years total of military experience between each. Both have been appointed by Obama. Both are Democrats.

How The Left Abuses "Equal Opportunity."

2015 was a very interesting year for Leftists and their lackeys. It was filled with victories and incidences where The Left's juvenile and pathetic emotionally and psychological instability was on full display. Their argumentation was greatly to be desired. Given the subject head I will brief two main milestones of The Left.

(1) June 16, 2015. Obergefell vs Hodges.

People of the same sex can now be issued a civil marriage license.

(2) December 3, 2015. Women are allowed to enter combat/infantry MOS's.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter issues policy that forces all branches to allow women to serve in direct combat roles.

Both of these milestones were under the reasoning of "equal opportunity." (1) is pure bullshit because people with same-sex attraction could already get married, that is to the opposite sex which was the original sex requirement. (2) is where I think discrimination should be allowed to prevail. Men and women are innately different - different brains, difference in strength and agility, difference in subject aptitude. There is no animosity towards women who want to join the military in the US; there is animosity towards the once tried & true tradition of allowing only men to serve in direct combat roles.

What bothers me greatly is the attitude towards those who disagree with both decisions.

"It's the same thing with blacks when they weren't allowed to serve!"
"Brown v. Education!"
"In ten years from now it'll be normal for a female to walk into recruiter's station and sign for an infantry role. It'll be no big deal."
"Change always happen. In order for us to survive we must embrace change and there's nothing you can do about it."
"Deal with it."

These are the usual suspects in terms of comebacks when met with opposition. How is it fair that non-"progressive" policies and traditions can be changed and yet somehow "progressive" policy cannot? If all things are treated equal, that there are no grand differences, then what's the point if even caring?

"Meh. So what? I don't see a big deal."

This is the mentality of smug "progressives." Of course many will deny such a label, as they do, and in the ironic fashion embrace "I am nothing."

When so-called progressives get their way, those that disagree do have to deal with it. In the leftists mindset, as years past and as their policies are set in stone due to time, the future that they want becomes to the norm. I say why should it be the norm? If they worked tirelessly to change the laws they disagree with, why can't those that oppose with the changes work tirelessly as well to reset what has been changed? I say strike down Obergefell v. Hodges. I say strike down Ashton Carter's decision. The remaining same-sex licenses shall expire when either party divorces or perishes. The women in combat roles should either be assigned a different MOS or they should be the last of their kind, allowing no further participation of females.

I think so-called progressives have a narrow view of change. "Change" is their way replacing the old. But change can also be the old replacing the new. People will complain that it's going back to the "old days." I say so what. Yes and no. Yes because it is resetting the clock and no because it changes the current policy and norm.

Inclusiveness.

The normalization of those under this flag -

is making the institutions that fly these flags weaker:

as a well as their reserve components.

An actor joining the military? Get outa here!

But really.

English actor, Michael Enright, age 51, joins Kurdish People’s Protection Units to fight ISIS in Syria.

Even though Enright isn't an established actor, I wonder how that makes all the young actors feel. Probably like metrosexual man childs. How manly. The terrorists are intimidated by such people I heard.

According to the ABC article, "He has no military background and little experience with firearms, according to his biography on the Internet Movie Database, or IMDB." That's a serious handicap for him and for the unit he's attached to.

I remember reading an online article about entertainers, mostly actors, who served in the US military. No millennial was listed. All that were listed were over the age of 50.

There's always this type of comment -

 

Atheists. To be a "free thinker" and a pacifist. What an admiral thing to be, right? There's something not right about a modern atheist's mind - the more I come across these types of posts and comments I'm coming to the conclusion that modern atheism is a mental condition.

Accurate beyond belief.

This excerpt from an article written by Peter Hitchens is how I felt when I subscribed to liberal views during my teenage years. I get that this same snobbery is alive & well in other liberals.

The liberal mindset isn't hard to figure out when it comes to their impressions of non-urban places and non-progressives. I'll list them.

• The military is for the stupid. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Coasties can't think for themselves. They're the epitome of the "yes" man, taking orders, never questioning them.
•  The military is the mafia for the greedy business and oil men. The reason why wars start is for profit - military personnel are killers, killing innocent civilians and mistaking people who defend their country as "the bad guys." They are the henchmen for the CEOs.
• Rural places are devoid of culture, filled with narrow-minded people. These people are called rednecks, hicks or townies. 
• Rural places are filled with ignorant people, racist people, sexist people and homophobic people. 
• State universities, for the most part, are people who weren't smart enough to get into the Ivies, a top private or an elite LAC. Don't even mention community college.
• People in rural places drive trucks. Lamborghini they are not.
• Those in rural places and suburbs shop at malls and where clothes that are devoid of uniqueness. These malls are also filled with moms and dads with strollers, screaming kids and annoying teenagers.
• Suburban teenagers have no fashion sense. They dress in Ugg boots, North Face jackets and crowd Starbucks. They then attend a sate university and move to the city to be known as a "Chad & Trixie."
• Rural and suburbs tend to favor sports as a way of entertainment. Sports mostly appeals to the unsophisticated; soccer/football is the exception because Europe likes it. Soccer/football is the one sport that open-minded and intelligent crowd prefer unlike the brain bashing American football.
• Suburbs is a soulless place. Same architecture in the more newly developed divisions. 
• The suburbs is car centric with little options for quality stores. Target, Walmart and K-mart are looked at as places where you can find the ever popular overtly patriotic, heavy weight and dimwitted American.
• Many of those who work in the suburbs work 9-5 jobs, doing boring soul sucking tasks. For example, car insurance, retail, food services etc.These are uncreative jobs, if not dead end.
• If you work a corporate job aka cubicle farm worker then your the second best example of the "yes" man.
• The suburbs is the sign of dead dreams: Married with children. Instead of trips to Paris and canoeing in Canada's lakes, it's trips to Disney World and cross-country minivan trips to The World's Largest Yarn Ball.

If anyone cares to disagree, there's the comment section. I'd be more than happy to discuss this entry.

Ramadi to ISIS.

I remember reading, a few years back, that ISIS wasn't a world threat, but that was by someone who was under 30, therefore innately stupid.

Maybe this is the sign that I need to visit a military recruiter.

Modernists, Iraq War, Little W. and the armed forces.

So predictable. Who's filled with hate, contempt and intolerance again?

Please, just go live in the woods already.

If you aren't naive modernist/progressive that annoys me you're a wannabe feral child aka The Contradiction Libertarian

These are some possible characteristics of The Contradiction Libertarian.

1. Thinks religion is evil and was made by wackos to control the minds of people, and to oppress woman and to kill homosexuals and other non-straights.

2. Think the US government engages in war mainly for profit (Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex) for Big Oil & Big Business.

3. Thinks that our military personnel are henchmen to those in charge in #2.

4. Your "what about the children" concentrates on ending global warming (think Day After Tomorrow or The Road), fracking and want to pass gay mirage because "What if your baby was LGBT?"

5.  Anything corporate is soul sucking.

6. Wants to "live off the grid" but somehow has the internet.

7. Might have this as his avatar -

Like the naive modernists/"progressives," The Contradiction Libertarian wants his cake and eat it too. If you want your cake and want to eat it, then go make your own cake. I did. I made a carrot cake for Easter - turned out alright, definitely nothing prize worthy or any honorable mention ribbon - and I ate it. If the cake layers weren't so darn oily I'd be more proud of it.

LGBT & the military #1

This will be the first post of my thoughts on the LGBT community and the military.

I was on youtube browsing information for fancy rats (domesticated pet rats) and came across a video that seemed to have what I was looking for, then I clicked on his profile and perused through his video library to find out if he had anymore (he didn't). I then stumbled upon him proposing to his boyfriend entitled "gay marine proposes to boyfriend," took a look at the comment section and found these -

There were handful that didn't approve saying that gay "marriage" is legalized sodomy, which I agree with, and others that appealed to nature and how sucking another man's dick and having your penis penetrate the body cavity that excreted stool wasn't all too "beautiful" and "cute," as much of the comments were when giving the two Marine and his boy"friend" their good wishes.

As the comments made clear, the play of "love is love" is used to full force and the appeal to humans "just falling in love with someone who so happens to be of the same sex" peaks its head as usual.

There's the fool who thinks marriage is some bizarre heterosexual tool to oppress women and keep those who suffer from same-sex attraction as second-class civilians. I'm guessing Salvatore isn't from the US, but if he is, then I wonder what's the push for marriage if it's such a messed up and archaic social institution? 

What I strongly get is that marriage, the general feelings of the institution of marriage, from the comments is that it's just a mere celebration of ones feelings for another - the grand statement of "Hey! I dedicate myself to this person for the time being until our feelings run out or if he/she pisses me off too much!" This isn't necessarily an attack on those who support gay "marriage," but mostly a comment on what many in general, I assume, marriage is. They have some very shallow concept and meaning behind marriage. Many will probably say that since we have this current concept of what marriage is and what it stands for that it proves that marriage is some social institution that never was really important, only that it's important to those who choose to perceive marriage as something individually costumed (like "Have it your way." Burger King style) - regardless of sex preference and regardless if the ceremony is performed at a resort or city hall by some "pastor" that has more in common with a Vietnam hippie than an actual serious pastor of an orthodox sect.

I will also comment on the straight-out arrogance of modernists and those that usually fall into the boho/indie/hipster sub-culture when it comes to kids. They either say "No. Kids are way too much and I value my freedom and individuality," or "Raising kids isn't that hard. The suburban housewives make it look like it's running a marathon." So it's too hard or it's not as hard as it seems, but if you ask them about their lives and personal issues they probably need to see some sort of therapist; if they have a tumblr page they'd probably have some really childish view on the world like "Why can't we just get along?" with some instagram-ish pictures portraying heartache and under 30 yr. old angst. (I hope to make a post on the angst that is overflowing tumblr.)

But back the gay Marine "marriage" proposal and all the adoring comments on it. I ask, if you've seriously thought about what actually is marriage - not some expression of two people, man and woman, declaring their feelings to one another - not some heterosexual plot to oppress women and to malign the gays and bis and the confused - and in my mind marriage is: The union between opposite sexes, of two different souls, in hopes to established a family, to procreate, and to raise the next generation. Now that may fall on the romantic side, but it's much more stable and less immature and doe-eyed than "Two people regardless of sex dedicating their lives to one another." You can say that for any relationship between two good friends who aren't romantically/sexually interested in one another. So, that in it of itself makes same-sex marriage rather bizarre and laughable. I'm sorry yet I'm not.

Society shouldn't be celebrating two people of the same-sex getting "married" let alone a proposal to do so. Society should look at such a thing with raised eyebrows and rejection of the action, not the people involved. Such a relationship, in the grand scheme of things, does not contribute anything positive to society (if they want kids they need to adopt or revert to in vitro -- every single time) and furthering accepting it blindly like it's "so cute!" and "beautiful" is actual proof of how damaging it is. Gay "marriage" does (negatively) effect my life, kids and ultimately society.

Let's Move the Goal Posts for Psychology

It's a science, apparently.

This is completely new to me.

Another poster notes -

Where does that leave studies done in the fields of sociology and anthropology? Is this pushing what is a called a "science"? Is this pushing the "science" in social sciences?

Accussations.

Which one is more accurate?

(A) The left hates the military.

or

(B) Christians hate those who are LGBT?

Both are sweeping generalizations, but I always thought that through generalizations there is - not always - a grain of truth.
 

"Deathmatch": Peter Sattler's Camp X-Ray vs Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas

Kind of.

Pete Sattler's debut feature, Camp X-Ray, deals with a newly enlisted soldier of the U.S. Army who is deployed at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) to babysit detainees. It's a film that is sympathetic to the treatment and the supposed unfair trial(s) that the quarantined men received. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas may just disagree a bit. Okay, maybe a lot.

This video was brought to my attention thanks to this post by Neo-NeoCon. I think it's good timing since after I watched the video memories of Camp X-Ray, which I saw last November, came immediately back. As I walked out of the theater I thought that it was fairly naive in its humanistic worldview. It also didn't help that the "caged tiger" analogy just made me roll my eyes - though it seemed I was the only one who was withholding laughter when that scene/monologue was finished. Add to the fact that lead actress Kristen Stewart, when it came to the film's promotion, went on to say some ignorant things about the military, those that join and the world of GTMO -

(bold: interviewer)

With Camp X-Ray, this is pretty heavy subject matter here in Gitmo. President Obama promised to close the place down in 2009, but hasn’t done so yet. Was part of the attraction to the project shining a light in this bizarre blight on America?

I was forced to really investigate. I knew that Obama wanted to close it down, and I knew that everyone else wanted to, too. Most people you talk to in America have kind of put it out of their minds. I didn’t jump on this movie to make a huge political statement, but it’s such an interesting story within an interesting context, and it’s more of a poke on the shoulder to remind you that this thing is here.

Your character’s relationship with Peyman’s detainee reminds us of the humanity of these people. We tend to view suspected terrorists as this nameless, faceless “other,” when they’re human beings, too.

As Americans, we should absolutely aspire to more than that. If you label something “bad,” people will justify the most terrible things. Just because you’re following a greater whole, suddenly you take the individual out of it and no one bears responsibility for anything.

The film doesn’t show any of the more controversial practices at Gitmo—like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, force-feeding, etc.

It alludes to it. But if we showed all that stuff, people would instantly demonize the film. You see something like that and it becomes so polarizing. Yes, it was cool to be in a Gitmo movie, it was cool to play a soldier, and it was cool remind people that this still exists, but I also thought it was cool to play a simple, American girl who wanted to find her line and aspire to something bigger than her—only to find that things aren’t so simple. Most people in every state think, “Well, of course it’s a great thing to sign up for the Army,” and there’s no question asked beyond that—ever.

She really gets swept up in all the post 9/11 patriotism and signs up for Gitmo duty, only to find that it isn’t what she thought at all.

She’s simple, not very smart, and really socially inadequate—but a good person. So, if you can sign up, put a uniform on, and erase yourself, you don’t have to consider yourself anymore. You can take the individual out of it and say, “Well, this dignifies me. I’m good because of this.” And when that doesn’t end up being true, you actually have to contend with who you are. All she wants is to think, “They did 9/11, they’re bad, fuck that, I’m going to do my job and I’m going to do it well.” But then she gets down there and just can’t accept it; she can’t conform to that.

Right. The mistake we make is not viewing these detainees down there as people, too. We’re all people. 

That is essentially so fucking evil, it’s crazy. It’s a ridiculous idea for you to think that you know anything for sure in life—other than to take care of your fellow people. Where the fuck do you get off thinking otherwise? These two people couldn’t be from more different worlds and perspectives, and probably disagree fundamentally on most things, but there’s a through-line for all of us—and that’s what people forget, and that’s what makes people capable of doing terrible things to each other. What makes you different from any other person that walks the earth?

Given Senator Tom Cotton's military experience (and not being a Jon Michael Turner type or AWOL type) it's a good thing Ms. Stewart wasn't interviewed by him. It would have ended very badly. She'd probably use the "through-line" bit like it was an ace.

P.S. The answers given were probably lightly "taped together," though not manipulated, by the interviewer himself. If anyone is familiar with Kristen Stewart's live interviews she is, sadly, incapable of stringing together that amount of words for an answer - let alone incapable of going an entire two minutes of straight talking - without succumbing to "ums," silent pauses, unfinished thoughts (maybe they are finished?), weird facial expressions that might be expressing gaseous pain (or maybe she's thinking really hard) and cussing.  

Liberals/progressives/modernists are more immune to being trolls

I say this because there's at least one of them trolling on a conservative/right-leaning libertarian blog - not every site I stumble upon, though. The conservatives who post on liberal sites are almost non-existence; if they do they're not nearly as assholish - they're quite benign, really.

Take mud _rake for instance. On his (now-defunct) blogger profile, his occupation states "unattached to any monetary-based entity" and the "introduction" warmly says "Dislike bigots and Jesus-pimpers most of all and freely give them dope slaps at every opportunity." I take that he has grandchildren because they're listed under "interests."

Yea, I wonder who was the lucky lady he impregnated and I wonder what's his relationship with his kids (mostly likely the response is "Absolutely amazing," or something like that).

Back in 2011 he asked "Are you a Christian too?" to a diatribe of a post on a blog entitled "The Anti Liberal Zone." It turns out the writer of the blog isn't really religious. The post which mud_rake responded to never even mentioned religion nor Christ. He just immediately thought "wing-nut ... probably Christian." If the writer indeed self-identified as a Christian I don't see much of a problem, but then again I'm biased.

Here are some of mud_rake's responses, devoid of any substance, insight or meaningful rebuttal (though the Christian poster who did engage with him didn't do so well in terms of apologetics) -

AntiLib answers, Am I a Christian?
No, I consider myself more of a warrior-poet

Oh, that's a relief. For a while there I thought that maybe you WERE a Christian but, with all of that 'hate' stuff that you posted, Jesus would weep bloody tears at your anti-Christian rhetoric.

I suppose that none of the other people who commented here are Christians , either, seeing how they all agree to hate other human beings.


Like you, I feel that it's good to hate. Nothing like a good, fat HATE session to purge oneself of all of the nasty toxins that build up within. It's a cathartic experience from time to time.

Do you feel refreshed after a good hate session, AntiLib? Raring to go, bright-eyed, optimistic about tomorrow- new challenges, fertile ground to plow?

I'd urge all of those who comment here to do their own hate-session from time to time. Quite cleansing of body, mind and soul.

The "that's very un-Christian like of you" card. The guy's a Gnu Atheist (check out his wordpress blog). I like it how he emphasized on the HATE session - like a snarky d-bag. "Ohhh boy I caught you now you right-wing nut bags, getting all mad!"

Mud_rake is an atheist so hating, according to him - when it's done by him, isn't so much hypocritical. Also, in italics (emphasized by me) notice the egging on of the hate session. Notice that he never actually tried to defend one perceived misinformation or accusation.

And this one -

Read the book of Revelations? Good joke, Tenth. I gave up reading Fairy Tales a long time ago, about the time I lost my first tooth.

I'll bet, Tenth, that you like the christian hymn, 'Onward Christian Soldiers.'Marching as to war.

In your fantasyland I'll bet that you play medieval crusader- fighting to free the Holy Land from the godless Muslims.

Are you, Tenth, a 'soldier of Jesus' in your bubble universe? Do you recall your European history class while in the GED program? Recall the idiotic Wars of Religion? I'm guessing not.

I'll let you go back to your World of Delusion now, Tenth. Remember though, that Jesus taught, "Love one another."

Let me count the idiocy:
1. Calling Christianity (religion in general) "fairy tales."
2. The "wars were justified in the name of religion" card when used by an atheist ... nuff said. (I haven't heard of the hymn before, but I did look it up and I sort a like it.)
3. Calling those who mix their faith and patriotism as a fantasyland. Immensely ironic given how he's of old age and his political leanings let alone his (type of) atheism.
4. He assumes the Christian poster failed to graduate high school, hence the jab at GED holders. He is appealing to the popular notion that the (Christian) religious believers are stupid.
5. Pulls the Wars of Religion card in an attempt to discredit the "mixing faith and patriotism."
6. Appeals to "love one another" when met with a stubborn opposition. How about all the "tolerance" almost universally touted by liberals/progressives/modernists? I'm guessing he forgot.

Then there's poster "RD" - Christian - who doesn't really like the hate being thrown around by some of the Christians -

10th generation...I can't agree with you there.
I don't support homosexuality, and I don't believe in abortion.
I read my Bible every day and the only thing you wrote that was actually in the Bible was to turn the other cheek.

If you want to publicly disassociate yourself with Christianity, go ahead. It is obvious you have no understanding of the Bible anyway. Jesus did not raise up armies. Paul did not overthrow Nero...

I'm taking issue with the tone here. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

Do you want to enact change? Run for office, volunteer for a candidate you believe in. But to hide on the internet and spew hatred...it's just cowardly and you guessed it, evil.

So venting on the internet is evil. So setting up a blog, even if it's entitled "anti" is evil. So sharing ones thoughts on the internet and allowing people to comment on any given post is evil. So writing a blog to express ones thoughts, even if it's considered hatred is cowardly. 

I have to agree with the poster "10 generation" when he says "I am tired of all you candy ass Christians saying turn the other cheek. The old timers that came before your old timers would think you're a pussy."