The American National Religion
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
"Cheltenham Veterans Cemetery, Maryland today, time now. We are laying my grandfather to rest, a Korea/Vietnam veteran, I walk over to see his plot prior to the service, and this is what I see. A backhoe that literally went through the graves, and over some graves to dig up the hole on his plot. Around it although not clearly visible in the picture about eight ( 8 dudes, that when confronted were like no big deal bro, we have a hole to dig."
From a Reddit post:
And the followup story from WUSA Channel 9 in Washington, D.C. :
Repairs underway at veterans cemetery after photo shows damage | wusa9.com
They disturb the graves at the local city cemetery in town often enough, but repair the damage rather quickly. So, apparently it's not all that uncommon. Still, seems a little bizarre that they'd use such a huge backhoe for that. It all just seems odd. Then again I've never worked in a cemetery, so I dunno.
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
So far on the sites that I visit there hasn't been a tremendous amount of outrage, but some aren't pleased. Had another vet that works at a nearby veterans cemetery and he commented that they used mats most of the time when the ground conditions were iffy. I just wonder why they didn't use a mini backhoe with mats. Heck the holes only 42" deep.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
You just might be onto something there ...
There are two clear vested interests at play:
1. The DOD's vested interest in an outcome which shows that what they put people thru (war) isn't at fault.
2. The vested interest of those conducting the study to produce an outcome that the DOD will be happy with and that will not stand as an impediment to them getting more paying contracts from the DOD.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The size backhoe they would need to use would be dependent on the depth/width of the hole that they need to dig.
Using a tracked mini excavator - which has a much lower ground pressure per square inch, due to the weight being spread out on the tracks over a much larger area than it would be with a wheeled unit - would prevent the tearing up and rutting of the ground ... in straight travel ...
The problem comes if you have to turn (will tear up ground/grass) ... and, while they are very fast in terms of digging (compared to a backhoe), they are fairly slow in terms of travel speed ...
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
You just might be onto something there ...
There are two clear vested interests at play:
1. The DOD's vested interest in an outcome which shows that what they put people thru (war) isn't at fault.
2. The vested interest of those conducting the study to produce an outcome that the DOD will be happy with and that will not stand as an impediment to them getting more paying contracts from the DOD.
Like the NFL doing a study on concussions, with preliminary indications being players are not turning doorknobs at home.....before going through doorways. Let's start with that premise, while guiding the study in that direction. It's classic MO.
I have read the above article about 3 times. Mr. Vance is a brilliant writer and is educated far and above the call of duty. But the uniform cult thing IMHO, he is wrong. It appears to me that someone must have pee'd in his bran flakes the day he wrote that article and he was all backed up inside. He was really on a tear there. But in America he has the right to express his opinion and that's good.
A few more comments: I have stood in church when military veterans were recognized. I have received discounts when buying a 3 dollar shirt at a thrift store--got a whole 30 cents off, my oh my, not for my military service, nope, I'm over 65. Lets see now, I was never told to go overseas and shoot someones mom, that was a low blow statement from Mr. Vance.
I have never witnessed a uniform cult turn an atheist into a religionists, or jews into evangelicals, or Christians into idolaters....yep Mr. Vance got all that incorrect, but it must have been that cereal thingy. Yes Mr. Vance writes well and some of his articles will make you think and that is a good thing, but again, the uniform,I always wore it with pride, amen.
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
You can wear a uniform with pride, and no one should take that away from any individual.
But the article warns of a certain "nationalism" which is dangerous to any Republic....proven by ALL historical accounts, of Republics. Soon as one starts to admire the uniform as a "state or ideal" it becomes very dangerous, and is exactly what despotic leaders desire.
Cap is off to all individuals who wear that uniform, and it's my personal hope others will respect their service. To meld that into a national "monument or testimony toward greatness" however....has brought every country who does so, into national shame.
This country once stood for ideals far beyond a uniform. The transition to worship of that uniform is just what governments want. Time and again.....
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
Just a little observation if no one minds. Every time I see the name of this thread - "The American National Religion" I think I'm clicking on a thread about money.
Not sure that that's really all that clear. The DOD certainly has a vested interest in the study, but I don't see any clarity in the study to support such a conclusion of a particular vested interest in a particular outcome. The purpose of the analysis wasn't to reach some predetermined outcome, but rather to gather "valid and generalizable epidemiologic research from which to confidently ground clinical and policy decisions ... about the magnitude and causes of the problem and how best to approach it." It turns out some "common knowledge" assumptions may be incorrect. The assumption is that specific deployment-related characteristics, such as length of deployment, number of deployments or combat experiences are directly associated with increased suicide risk, but that turns out not to be the case. However, of those suicides with combat experience, they were also more likely to be combat specialists and have pre-2001 deployment experience. They study, while extensive, only uses data from 2001 up through 2008, and more recent data needs to be analyzed and compared, especially since eight years ago the military suicide rate mirrored that of the civilian population, and in those eight years the military suicide rate has increased. They need to compare that to the suicide rate of the general population over the same eight years. If the civilian population rate matches that of the military, then the increase is probably due to the recession, or Obama.You just might be onto something there ...
There are two clear vested interests at play:
1. The DOD's vested interest in an outcome which shows that what they put people thru (war) isn't at fault.
That almost sounds like you think the Naval Health Research Center is some outside, independent agency, and not a US military installation of the US Department of the Navy, under the Office of Naval Research, under the command of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED), Falls Church, Va., the Naval Medical Research Command, Silver Spring, MD, and Navy Medicine Support Command, Jacksonville, FL.
Read the first paragraph of the essay by William Deresiewicz [cited in the OP], cause he's describing you, and he's calling you a liberal, lol.
Those who wear a military uniform [and some of them are family members I happen to love] deserve thanks and appreciation - same as the firefighters and LEOs who also risk their lives to protect the rest of us. Like every large group of people, most are good, some are not.
The point of the OP is that this particular group is becoming [or has already become] the object of unwavering knee jerk devotion and applause - and this particular group has the potential to be used as a weapon against the very people it is supposed to be protecting, so that is more worrisome.
As I said before, the greatest reason to worry is the honor [or lack thereof] in those who command, esp at the higher levels. JJ's comments about the prevalence of "look at me" medals sure gives one reason to wonder, because real courage doesn't need affirmation or applause.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Keep goin' ... 'cause you still ain't there yet ...
Individual experiences may vary.
IIRC, you were a swabbie, were you not ?
That might mean you never really set foot where "shooting someone's mom" would be on the menu ...
Of course, I don't think Mr. Vance was referring to explicit instructions ... as much as what is implicit in policies (ROE's) ...
Not really ... ROE's are what they are ...
I'm fairly certain that they don't include the provision of "check with all potential female hostiles for their past maternity status and whether they actually ever birthed anyone before engaging them" ...
Anyone fighting in an area where the combatants might include females which have had children would be necessarily be operating under policies which are designed and intended, for the most, to kill the "enemy" ... regardless of whether they are mothers or not ...
And of course, that doesn't even begin to touch the use of "free-fire zones" or indiscriminate bombing, shelling, and the like ...
One's lack of ability to observe a phenomena is not proof that the phenomena doesn't exist in fact.
It may however be evidence that an individual has some issues with his ability to observe ... which can stem from all manner of things, including biases ...
Of course, members of the cult - indeed, very devoted and worshipful ones - are unlikely to see the cult, as a cult ...
They see it as something else entirely ...
Your (likely inadvertent) use of "amen" is ... quite telling ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
One doesn't have to examine the study to locate the vested interest - in fact, doing so may result in ignoring the very thing - the elephant in the room as it were - which provides the evidence of vested interest: the fundamental purpose of the DOD itself.
Once upon a time the DOD used to be accurately named: It was called The Department of War (also called The War Department)
It's something we should consider re-adopting ...
All governmental entities are subject to funding - in the case of the DOD, I'd wager that those further up the DOD food chain have some input and control over who and what gets funded, and to what degree ...
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Funny that ...
Indeed ...
It's exactly why some of the Founding Fathers were so concerned about permanent standing armies ...
Nevertheless, the vested interest in the study isn't all that clear, at least not to me. I can see several vested interests beyond just the one you listed, and the one you listed as being one of the minor ones, at that. The more weighted and critical vested interest would be, it seems to me, to find out the actual causes so they can be properly addressed so as to minimize the frequency of suicides. Doesn't seem like a study with artificially created or spurious results would be a benefit to anyone, especially the DoD, since they take the heat for every suicide, regardless of the cause. Seems to me they have a far greater interest in getting to the root of the problem.
If we're going to call it something in any way correlating to reality, it should be called the Department of Aggression and Economic Interest Defense. But I digress.
That's all true, but that in no way equates to "paying contracts from the DOD" in the same way an outside entity gets funded. The commanding officer and other military personnel assigned to the Naval Health Research Center couldn't care less about DOD contracts to fund the installation any more than those assigned to the USS Gerald R Ford are concerned about it. So paying contracts is very unlikely to be a motivation in the outcome of the study. That's all I'm saying.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The ultimate confirmation that America destroyed Fallujah for nothing and US troops died in vain:
Al-Qaeda force captures Fallujah amid rise in violence in Iraq - The Washington Post
Al-Qaeda force captures Fallujah amid rise in violence in Iraq - The Washington Post