I agree with the general thrust of the article, but I'm not comfortable with the "Scout vs Soldier" dichotomy. Or, perhaps I should say, I disagree with the use of those particular terms moreso than disagree with the dichotomy itself. It's a semantic issue, but those descriptions don't match the reality of those roles. In actual military organizations, a "scout" is just another work role within the larger category of "Soldier". A "Scout" cannot logically be opposite a "Soldier" when a scout IS a Soldier.
Likewise, as much as I like to joke that "Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron, and readily acknowledge that politicized abuses of the National Intelligence Agencies have certainly earned a clean sweep of the upper echelons by the next administration, I also happen to be familiar with the actual training, doctrine, and practice thereof. Politicians may want to hear only good news, but military commanders, in my experience, very much prefer to receive ACCURATE assessments, firmly grounded in observation, expertise, and proper methodology. I don't know if it's still mandatory reading these days, but I still have a copy of Richards Heuer's "The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis", issued to me by the Army, as it is literally foundational to the entire branch of MI. Characterizing "Soldiers" as anything other than realistic pragmatists simply does not match the theory or practice of Soldiering as I know it. After all, when a politician's reality check bounces because they lack enough sense, it's Soldiers who often pay the ultimate price for it.
Well I agree with this as far as it goes. I was an enlisted infantryman myself and you’re of course correct: scouts are just a kind of soldier. I took it from Ada who took it from Jennifer somebody (?) who presumably DIDN’T know as much about small unit tactics 😂. Let your ideas about the world develop naturally, rather than wedding yourself to an ideology and defending it from threats. I would’ve probably gone with a biological/zoological term myself. My creativity was wanting this morning.
As someone once quipped, "A metaphor (or simile) is the most efficient form of miscommunication". Isn't this basically just a rebranding of "Realist" (or "Empiricist") vs "Idealist" (or perhaps "Ideologue")?
Btw: Happy Veterans Day weekend! Thank you for your service.
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To have a chance at victory Democrats should try listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their distain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a vain effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No you can’t camp in this city. No you can’t shit in our streets No you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bond to rob and murder again.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
I see a general pattern: people learn a set of ideas (feminism is worthy and good, anti-racism is necessary, gender ideology is liberatory, capitalism is fatally flawed, strict price and resource controls should be imposed to address climate change). They believe them, and the ideas seem so self-evidently true and good that dissenters are treated with suspicion.
But the ideas are NOT true (or at least they’re debatable). When confronted by people who did NOT experience their own indoctrination these people (mostly professionals with college degrees) become confused and upset.
They never actually understood these ideas or considered counter factuals, because skeptics and critics were essentially silenced and marginalized in these privileged circles. Now they’re falling back on emotional coping mechanisms: the voters are just uneducated, bigoted, regressive. This strategy won’t convince anyone though (for obvious reasons) and the more they indulge in it the less popular these people will become.
There’s also the fact that many of these folks rely on government spending for their livelihoods (professors, doctors, lawyers, therapists, non-profit executives) and so they have a financial and class incentive to support the Democrats. This is never acknowledged though. They frame issues purely in terms of ideology, as if everyone ELSE (poor people and black Americans and business owners) are motivated by economic concerns while they are not. They just want to preserve democracy and help stabilize the climate. I believe they’re sincere in their hypocrisy but it’s hypocrisy nonetheless.
I agree with the general thrust of the article, but I'm not comfortable with the "Scout vs Soldier" dichotomy. Or, perhaps I should say, I disagree with the use of those particular terms moreso than disagree with the dichotomy itself. It's a semantic issue, but those descriptions don't match the reality of those roles. In actual military organizations, a "scout" is just another work role within the larger category of "Soldier". A "Scout" cannot logically be opposite a "Soldier" when a scout IS a Soldier.
Likewise, as much as I like to joke that "Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron, and readily acknowledge that politicized abuses of the National Intelligence Agencies have certainly earned a clean sweep of the upper echelons by the next administration, I also happen to be familiar with the actual training, doctrine, and practice thereof. Politicians may want to hear only good news, but military commanders, in my experience, very much prefer to receive ACCURATE assessments, firmly grounded in observation, expertise, and proper methodology. I don't know if it's still mandatory reading these days, but I still have a copy of Richards Heuer's "The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis", issued to me by the Army, as it is literally foundational to the entire branch of MI. Characterizing "Soldiers" as anything other than realistic pragmatists simply does not match the theory or practice of Soldiering as I know it. After all, when a politician's reality check bounces because they lack enough sense, it's Soldiers who often pay the ultimate price for it.
Well I agree with this as far as it goes. I was an enlisted infantryman myself and you’re of course correct: scouts are just a kind of soldier. I took it from Ada who took it from Jennifer somebody (?) who presumably DIDN’T know as much about small unit tactics 😂. Let your ideas about the world develop naturally, rather than wedding yourself to an ideology and defending it from threats. I would’ve probably gone with a biological/zoological term myself. My creativity was wanting this morning.
As someone once quipped, "A metaphor (or simile) is the most efficient form of miscommunication". Isn't this basically just a rebranding of "Realist" (or "Empiricist") vs "Idealist" (or perhaps "Ideologue")?
Btw: Happy Veterans Day weekend! Thank you for your service.
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To have a chance at victory Democrats should try listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their distain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a vain effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No you can’t camp in this city. No you can’t shit in our streets No you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bond to rob and murder again.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
I see a general pattern: people learn a set of ideas (feminism is worthy and good, anti-racism is necessary, gender ideology is liberatory, capitalism is fatally flawed, strict price and resource controls should be imposed to address climate change). They believe them, and the ideas seem so self-evidently true and good that dissenters are treated with suspicion.
But the ideas are NOT true (or at least they’re debatable). When confronted by people who did NOT experience their own indoctrination these people (mostly professionals with college degrees) become confused and upset.
They never actually understood these ideas or considered counter factuals, because skeptics and critics were essentially silenced and marginalized in these privileged circles. Now they’re falling back on emotional coping mechanisms: the voters are just uneducated, bigoted, regressive. This strategy won’t convince anyone though (for obvious reasons) and the more they indulge in it the less popular these people will become.
There’s also the fact that many of these folks rely on government spending for their livelihoods (professors, doctors, lawyers, therapists, non-profit executives) and so they have a financial and class incentive to support the Democrats. This is never acknowledged though. They frame issues purely in terms of ideology, as if everyone ELSE (poor people and black Americans and business owners) are motivated by economic concerns while they are not. They just want to preserve democracy and help stabilize the climate. I believe they’re sincere in their hypocrisy but it’s hypocrisy nonetheless.
James: Simply excellent.
I'm willing to forgive, if they're willing to publicly apologize, and *mean it*.