Letters to the Editor
captainlarab
Published Letters: 539 Editor's Choice: 41
-
There's the military, and then there's the military
[Read the article: Tempest, meet teapot; pot, meet kettle]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Folks, can we please stop looking at "the military" or "the troops" as some sort of monolithic entity that should be either placed on a pedestal or derided, depending on your political orientation? Military servicemembers are as diverse a group of people as American society at large. More importantly, there is a huge difference between the lower enlisteds serving in Iraq, and the officers calling the shots from back here.
This is particularly true of the flag officers (generals/admirals). If you picture the rank structure within the officer's corps as a pyramid, then picture the pyramid narrowing very sharply between the ranks of colonel/Navy captain and general/admiral. I was told when I was in the Army that only about 1 in 50 colonels makes the rank of one-star general, and you won't make it if you've made an enemy out of any other general in the Army during your climb to the top. Promotions up to the rank of lieutenant colonel are more or less merit-based, but to make that big leap to flag officer, you really need some political skills. The need for political connections and savvy increases exponentially if you want to go for two or more stars. To become chairman of the JCS? You need to be a major player. And you'd better believe that with a gig like that, you're set up for a lucrative life after retirement. If it's not a book deal, it will be a gig on the Hill, on K street or with a defense contractor. Not so for the average military veteran, who has a much higher likelihood of unemployment than his or her civilian counterpart.
So, go ahead, bash Peter Pace all you want. You're not bashing the troops. That's why he gets paid the big bucks--to take command responsibility and to take political heat. Just don't conflate him with "the troops," for good or for ill. That's not to say he didn't pay his dues as a junior officer, but right now he's about as close to the real ground-pounders as he is to the moon.
-
One thing's for certain: David Chase hates SUVs
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This message comes through the show loud and clear: If you own, drive or ride in an SUV, you're likely to either roll it (Tony and Christopher), set it on fire (AJ), or have it roll over your face (Phil). As far as Chase is concerned, SUVs seem to be the perfect symbol of everything that is wrong with America.
Wouldn't it be great if all the Sopranos fans stopped asking questions like "Did Tony get whacked?" and started asking themselves, "Why in God's green earth do I need to drive an SUV unless I live on a ranch in Montana?"
-
Dream on, Impatient
[Read the article: Hillary's hard-won experience]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Two problems with your analysis:
(a) Not all Americans are dazzled by the Nobel Prize. Are people dazzled by Carter, who was awarded a Nobel in 2002? No, the people who already hated Carter concluded that the Nobel Prize had become a tool of America-hating European leftist elitsts. They will have the same reaction if Gore gets it.
(b) Gore is not going to run. He is a happy and functional human being now, who can see quite clearly what political campaigning does to your soul. I'm happy for him. And if he ran, I guarantee you you wouldn't like him as much as you do now, because the process is corrupt and corrupts everything it touches. If you don't like the current crop of candidates and haven't for some time, maybe it's time to ask what is wrong with the process that produces them.
-
Women in law school
[Read the article: Unstable starlets and little-girl voices]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of the most fascinating phenomena you can observe with respect to male and female speech patterns is how men and women behave in a law school classroom. In fact, I remember reading a study about this while I was in law school, although I can't remember the name or the author now. It found that women do, overall, engage in much more "uptalk" than men (a separate study found that this affects, among other things, witness credibility).
But the most striking difference, to me, was the disparity in male and female "gunners" in the law school classroom and how the "gunners" behave ("gunners" are people who often volunteer comments during the class discussion, either because they are engaged by the material, are trying to impress their professors or are simply in love with the sound of their own voice). They tend to make the better grades in law school (with some exceptions; I knew some quiet folks who did quite well), and tend to have a better rapport with their professors, which gives them access to better mentoring.
There were plenty of male gunners, but no more than a dozen or so female gunners in my entire law school class. I think I would probably be counted among them. I enjoyed hearing from them, simply because there were so few of them, but I still remember the resentfulness with which they (and I) were often viewed by the male students. I'm sure I was regarded as a loudmouthed bitch. Having dealt with this kind of animosity in the Army, I felt pretty immune to it.
But what was really remarkable was how often the female gunners (myself included) would begin their comments with the phrase, "I'm sorry..." or "I'm sorry, but..." As if they felt it necessary to apologize for taking up class time with their comments. I don't know where I got this habit from, but it was only after reading the study that I saw how I and so many of my female classmates had this compulsion. The male students, of course, had no such compulsion. It was as if they assumed the class was delighted to hang on their every word.