Don’t mind me, I’m just having feelings about service dogs, particularly service dogs that are also veterans.
Don’t mind me, I’m just having feelings about service dogs, particularly service dogs that are also veterans.
Late afternoon in early April, and his eyes were closed, short gray hair combed back and hands folded just above his waist. The casket was open, the lower half draped with an American flag. The top revealed a 96-year-old man: dark brown skin, white shirt and black suit tucked into white satin lining, the words “In God’s Care” embroidered on the inside of the lid.
Pews in the funeral home chapel creaked as people sat. A baby bawled. Conversations and murmurs filled the air. Then a dozen deep male voices filled the room with a dirge in the Mvskoke language for Edmond Andrew Harjo, the last Seminole code talker.
The code talkers were elite Native American military units that used their own tribal languages to create and transmit fast, unbreakable coded messages, serving in bothWorld Wars I and II. They’re credited with saving countless lives in theaters around the world.
And you ask why I love Donna.
I love how the Doctor is just like “I’d listen to her if I were you…”
It’s a delightful scene, but there’s one thing wrong with it: he shouldn’t be saluting her, or indeed anybody, because he hasn’t got his hat on.
In British military usage (and UNIT is essentially British in all important respects: always has been), salutes are properly rendered only by servicefolk who have their hats on. This is because the salute is a symbolic removal of your hat.
The way to make this work would have been: officer reacts, gets his hat, puts it on, salutes: then takes his hat off and picks up where they left off. (Would’ve been even funnier if he had to do it twice.)
And yes, this means that John Watson shouldn’t have done it in “The Hounds of Baskerville,” either. John ought to have got even more fun out of that pulling-rank moment because he could have ordered that young officer around and not had to return his salute, because John was neither in uniform nor wearing a hat. (The ex-RAF guy sitting next to me, and to whom I am married, just spent some while describing the delicious torment one could inflict on those in uniform when you weren’t in uniform and nonetheless outranked them.)
What does all this mean? That Steven Moffat needs better military vetting on his series’ screenplays. That’s all.
Both of those are hilarious scenarios and this is why nitpicking and good consulting about (well, any) professional details can actually lead to better writing; they’re not things that drag scripts or stories down.
If the misogynist in your life is trying to claim women can’t serve in combat because they can’t carry a dude, kindly point them in the direction of this article about how people in the military learn the fireman’s carry.
I love how hard this guy tries to backpedal as he realizes he’s just agreed with a huge racist.
It also pisses me right off that he’s like “WELL WOMEN ARE HAVING SEX AND GETTING PREGNANT”. Yes, this may be true, but we also have a military that won’t pay for abortion, even in the case of rape, and most likely doesn’t provide birth control to women either because of federal funding — so they’re ensuring that women will be removed from units even if it’s because they can’t keep the men in those units from NOT RAPING PEOPLE. I’m guessing a lot of those women “sent home because of pregnancy” weren’t having tons of fun sex. Some might have been! Good for them! But I’m guessing there aren’t as many as he claims there are.
Also, the servicemember here looks like she is thinking really hard about ways not to kill someone.
And I mean adore…
I think her war on childhood obesity needs to be…re-examined. She needs to make it clear that being overweight does NOT necessarily mean you’re unhealthy and that it’s okay to be fat. I think when you deal with kids especially, you need to reiterate that your body type is okay. Period.
There is quite a bit of body shaming and ableism in her ‘move’ plan that needs to truly be addressed.
Yes, having children exercise is a good thing, but for a great portion of fat people, exercise is nothing more than another reminder that ‘my body isn’t good enough because it is fat.’ And it completely ignores those who literally CANNOT move due to disability.
Not to mention the fact that there is little to no active involvement in helping nutritional access to poor areas. I’ve seen nothing in her plan mentioning eliminating food deserts.
Also, people need to be aware of the fact that the whole campaign was not created to make kids healthier but in response to a paper released by retired military generals called “Too Fat to Fight.” The whole movement is to make sure kids have the correct body type to enter the military once they come of age. This is also why there is a huge focus on low income communities, communities of color etc. Why she has spoken out about how “obesity” is a national security issue.
Basically it isn’t just about making kids healthy…thats just what they want you to think.
**BTW this is probably why we will never see her coming out and saying it is ok to be fat.
Oh and she has spent a good amount of time within the military to restructure their own food system. She has visited bases that have been able to lower the BMI of recruits while completely ignoring that someone in the military is 3 times more likely to have an eating disorder due to the really strict requirements about body size not ability. Many people are able to pass their basic training or requirements but not BMI standard. The thought of having someone with an ED in a warzone scares the shit out of me..
All of the above = Everything I have ever thought but never articulated. Aside from the military thing, I did not know that, and it kind of makes me feel pukey.
Yeah, I like her a lot and I love a lot of the things that have been done under the Obama administration. “Let’s Move” and the war on obesity is one of the things I ABSOLUTELY HATE. BMI is not an indicator of health, even less so than fat is (and that has been mostly disproved itself - fatness can be a SYMPTOM of problems but is largely not a cause).
Highly muscular people ALWAYS score higher on the BMI, and that’s WHY it’s so hard for troops to maintain required BMI, because it’s NOT. AN INDICATOR. OF HEALTH. It’s not even an indicator of body fat. It’s an outdated weight/height stats chart from the beginning of the goddamn century. Weightlifters and athletes from high-contact sports (particularly shorter ones), as well as actors are almost always overweight on the BMI.
I didn’t know that the program’s impetus was a DoD paper though. While I think this kind of thing would happen anyway — there’s a lot of money and lobbying to be had in the diet industry — it’s totally creepy that we’re preparing our kids for BEING SOLDIERS. Especially if we’re doing things that nominally should DECREASE the disproportionate level of volunteers from workingclass and/or POC areas.
But regardless if this is the real reason, any kind of shaming kids about their level of activity or what they eat in school is HORRENDOUS. And also counter productive.
Theoretically, whole countries go to war, not just their soldiers, but not this time. Civilian sympathy for “the troops” may be just one more way for us to avoid a real reckoning with our last decade-plus of war, when the hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown up on the average American’s radar only if somebody screws up or noticeable numbers of Americans get killed. The veterans at the heart of this story — victims, heroes, it doesn’t matter — struggle to reconcile what they did in those countries with the “service” we keep thanking them for. We can see them as sick, with all the stigma, neediness, and expense that entails, or we can recognize them as human beings, confronting the morality of what they’ve done in our name and what they’ve seen and come to know — even as they try to move on.
Bump. Back in 2008, we interviewed a lone Army lieutenant colonel who was urging the Army to acknowledge and address the moral injuries soldiers incur in war. Still waiting.
Really recommend you read the articles linked here.
I learned that under current military law no member of the military is required to register as a sex offender or disclose their crimes on their discharge papers. Without these types of protections, sex offenders are able to leave the military with a completely clean slate, eligible to collect from military benefits, and free to apply for jobs and positions that would normally be off limits to sex offenders. When you hire a veteran, you assume you are working with someone who is trustworthy and has a clean record. Most of the time this is true, but not always. Most veterans are honorable men and women who have served our country, but there are some who have committed serious crimes like rape and sexual assault during their service and the military has a responsibility to disclose that information for the sake of the public good.
When asked why sex offenders do not have to disclose on their discharge papers, some of the responses I was given were: 1) It will take too long to create a national database or 2) The military is going green and it takes too much paper to add an extra check box to discharge papers.
This is part of a larger issue of rape within the military. Some estimates reveal that more than ⅓ of women in the armed services are raped during their service. If you serve in the US military and you rape or sexually assault a fellow service member you have a 86.5% chance of keeping the crime a secret and a 92% chance of avoiding court martial.
Please sign this.
Aug. 1, 1947: In a “mighty demonstration,” the 40th anniversary of military aviation in the United States was celebrated with a 25-plane flyover in New York — shown here passing the Empire State Building — and a birthday luncheon at the Biltmore Hotel. “Meanwhile,”a general with the Army’s ground forces also paid tribute, an accompanying article said, “but reiterated his belief that any future war would reach final decision only through the soldier on the ground.” Photo: Meyer Liebowitz/The New York Times
Stephanie Schroeder joined the U.S. Marine Corps not long after 9/11. She was a 21-year-old with an associate’s degree when she reported for boot camp at Parris Island, South Carolina. “I felt like it was the right thing to do,” Schroeder recalls. A year and a half later, the Marines diagnosed her with a personality disorder and deemed her psychologically unfit for the Corps.
Anna Moore enlisted in the Army after 9/11 and planned to make a career of it. Moore was a Patriot missile battery operator in Germany when she was diagnosed with a personality disorder and dismissed from the Army.
Jenny McClendon was serving as a sonar operator on a Navy destroyer when she received her personality disorder diagnosis.
These women joined different branches of the military but they share a common experience: Each received the psychiatric diagnosis and military discharge after reporting a sexual assault.
Military records show the personality disorder diagnosis is being used disproportionately on women, according to military records obtained by Yale Law School’s Veterans Legal Services Clinic under a Freedom of Information Act request.
- In the Army, 16% of all soldiers are women, but females constitute 24% of all personality disorder discharges.
- Air Force: women make up 21% of the ranks and 35% of personality disorder discharges.
- Navy: 17% of sailors are women and 26% of personality disorder discharges
- Marines: 7% of the Corps and 14% of personality disorder discharges
The records don’t reflect how many of those women had reported sexual assault.