"It is our job as old salts now to bring them up to be the leaders they will become." Hear, hear!!!!! Always has been and ever shall be.

Also, just to note as well, when I went in, they had gotten their "Advanced Electronics" program started u, to model the nke program, we got an advanced class (and it was on a 1960's sonar system) but when we did go to our boats, it was always assumed you had a basic education, and you then spent 2-4 years actually becoming proficient. I think that may be what we are talking about, proficiency, vs basic knowledge. The ability to integrate and then expand on what you know.

Yes, Firefly I picked up the one season, and enjoyed it, then the movie tied up the loose ends. It and B5 get the perennial "comeback" requests.

The question of "helping out my own kind" depends on how you identify yourself. You could tell all the same anecdotes about Masons or Ivy Leaguers, especially if you are not one of "them", and think that you see a lot of "them" helping each other. That collectivist thinking is easy enough to leave behind though it is deeply engrained by culture.

Not everyone who enjoyed the Atlas Shrugged movies has been motivated to read more of Ayn Rand, and certainly not her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology or even The Virtue of Selfishness. So, we get some traditionalist expressions of collectivism, altruism, or mysticism that are not based on reality and reason.

Thanks for the offline chat. I cannot speak to the experience in Australia. Just generally, I try to get around racial issues by first denying the existence of race, since it has no scientific basis. Race is ascribed: other people tell you what your race is. It is social, only. In my personal experience growing up, our prejudices were targeted to hillbillies. Appalachia was - and remains - permanently depressed by federal benefits. It is populated by Grapes of Wrath morons who never put two ideas together and who were - and remain - White people on welfare, inbred White people at that.

But that prejudice was born of the 1920s when my immigrant Catholic grandparents lived in West Virginia and the KKK was so powerful that they marched openly in Washington DC.

So, I can accept your view that Australia's aborigines have been coddled to death.

I think that your question has merit, though, in that the military in America has been an equalizing institution. I spent most of my career in the private sector as a contractor. I have seen General Motors, Ford, Kawasaki, and Honda, and a slew of small technology firms. I have interviewed innovators for business magazines talking about the culture of quality. It is easy to complain about what you know, based on what you know. Myself, working in this particular military office has been the best job of my career. Not everyone is 100%, but those who are not stand out as exceptions, and do not rise, whereas those who do the right things and avoid the wrong things do achieve greater responsibilities by promotion.

The key difference is this: In the private sector, we promote based on good behavior. Thus, we have the "Peter Principle" of people promoted to their level of incompetence. In the military, you get ribbons for good behavior. You get promoted based on your demonstrated potential for leadership.

That demonstration includes documented proof that you were instrumental in the promotions earned by those below you to their next levels. It is not a metric that I have seen in the private sector.

Thanks! Just to note... I wonder what the old salts would have said about you when you were 18 ... Myself, I would have had a hard time working with myself from back then. If you read engineering magazines from the late 1800s, when the first college classes were created, you find the same complaint... right up through the 1950s... 1980s... It is our job as old salts now to bring them up to be the leaders they will become.

Thanks, also, for looking at the blog. Regarding the Watchmen, while it does have sense-of-life problems from Ron Moore, it was highly regarded among "objectivish" writers. This post in the Gulch from a link to Reason got zero notice.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

I picked up on the movie on my own, just seeing the posters in a Borders bookstore before they closed out. I bought two comic compendiums and we went to the theater. I then bought the movie. Since then, I sat through it or parts of it a couple of times more. It has flaws, but "objectivish" people like it. See this on Rebirth of Reason
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Movi...

(BTW Firefly is another.)

Lady Gaga, in an effort to support transgenders in the military, ironically pointed out the main reason why they shouldn't be in service. She quoted a statistic that 45% of transgenders have considered suicide, among other things. Identity confusion is highly stressful, even if the subject experiences no prejudice, and many psychologists advise therapy before making serious physical changes.

Diabetics aren't allowed to enlist, because they're medically dependent. Transgenders, likewise, depend on hormones and other medical support, making them just as medically dependent as diabetics. My opinion on this is not a matter of prejudice, as I've worked with transgenders quite amiably. I take people in general as individuals. I'm not prejudiced against epileptics, either, but I agree they shouldn't be in the military.

While that is very true, each leader needs a basic skillset, my experience (1976 to 1996) was that in the latter 5 or 6 years, there was a signifigant decline in knowledge and commonsense in the junior officers we saw in submarines, and some were actually so ungifted in problem solving they were scary with the nuke plant. As a chief, I heard a lot in the Goat Locker of "That fucking idiot wanted to..." stories, and usually it was something even I, as a "coner" (non nuke) could understand was a "bad thing". The last straw was an XO who wanted to try to "list the boat" underwater, by blowing one side only, we had to go to the Captain to derail that insanity. In 20 years in high tech manufacturing, I find it is still worse in the "Masters and Phd" gang, many of the newly minted seem to hve no great knowledge or skill, some of the technicians are superior to them. Leadership is based on knowledge and experience, merged with common sense and empathy. Miss one, and the quality goes down. IMHO, of course.

BTW your little sidebar is impressive, you produce a lot of written material. I'm also impressed you put the "Watchmen" on your list of favs, I had never heard of it before, did some digging around, and have watched it a few times now, it is one of those "need several runs to get" movies.

Thank you.

Right. The Hoover surveys are of civilians to see their attitudes. So, few were prior military. On the other hand, Urben polled military people in the military. Dempsey compared and contrasted his own survey with existing results from others.

As you say, personal experience defines your generalities. I have seen none of the favoritism you referred to.

Your mileage varies based on how you drive. Personally, I have seen none of the problems you highlighted. I have seen other problems. People are people. One of the recent classics in leadership is It's Your Ship by Abramoff, similar to Turn this Boat Around. Once the leader left the organization, a new leader had a different style, different goals - not wrong or worse but not what the author intended. I am going through that right now with a change in command in our office. Every leader has a vision.

I agree generally. I do suggest that we all validate our subjective prejudices with good rationalizations. So, you are in favor of racial integration, but not transgender integration. You have no special prejudice against gays. And that's fine, of course, but other military people do and can claim thumbnail statistics about "most of them." It is always "them." You just have fewer "thems." And statistics say nothing about individuals.

I agree in that personal responsibility is balanced with team work. For example, it is a cliche in the military that no one will manage your career for you. On the other hand, it is also true that you learn the job above you and teach your job to those below you. In addition, promotions come in part by showing that you promoted those below you, that you enabled their promotions. You have to track their education and training and see that they stay on that track.

And, of course, in the field, everything is team work. You always have a "battle buddy" even if you are a supply clerk.

For myself, as an individualist that was a deep lesson for me to learn. I was preparing to deliver training, hauling computers and stuff up from my vehicle to the classroom, when a sergeant stopped me and told me to find some specialists or privates and have them do the work. It is not you make others do your heavy lifting but that (1) they get the opportunity to learn by doing whatever it is and (2) you practice leadership by directing their actions.

That all being as it may, you are 100% right that ultimately, it comes down to you. You are responsible for everything from your bootlaces to your next promotion.

(Speaking of promotions, that, too, is a lesson. In the private sector, you get promoted for good behavior. So, we have the "Peter Principle" of people promoted to their level of incompetence. In the military, you get ribbons for good work and get promoted based on your demonstrated potential for leadership.)

++++++++++++++++++++++'s

For sure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was reading through this one:

http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/f...

Just from some of the answers (and I assume that they used the same sample group) it appeared there were a large majority of "no previous military experience".

Who are you talking about? I cited three different sources:
(1) the book edited by Schake and Mattis contained works of other researchers with whom the editors did not always agree.

(2) the book by Dempsey

(3) the doctoral dissertation by Urben.

Interesting, Mike.

How much can you know? Let's just take one middle class guy. He has a job. He must know that and know it better than others in order to advance. He must know his familly and make time for them. He should know some politics, know his congressman, know his city officials, his kid's school board. So far, knowing his military isn't all that high on his list. I know a formerly prominent creative artist who was unable to know it all. He know sleeps in a campsite just on the edge of San Francisco. He is formally a "street person." He doesn't have to be, but he likes it that way. I guess you can only know so much until the duct tape holding your head together gives out.

Personal experience can always be a little misleading, due to a relatively small sample population. However, from my experience in the Army, the reason I saw most often for an over-representation of blacks was that they are more likely to stay in longer.
In my training class, and the classes that went through at the same time, they were around 10%. When getting to my first unit, it was closer to 40% and they had a higher average rank.
This was due, I think to multiple factors. Whether attributed to genetics or culture, they are statistically less likely to be chaptered out due to failing physical standard (PT tests or Hight and weight).
They are also promoted on a different scale, based on command needing a higher percentage of minorities within a unit or MOS. This means (though the majority of all soldiers I worked with strived to exceed the standard) they would often be promoted with lower points and scores.
The vast majority of soldiers either serve one contact or stay in to retirement. Being a higher rank (resulting in higher pay, dealing with less medial tasks, higher living conditions, and a higher general sense of accomplishment) affects that decision a great deal.
From my observations, there is also a stronger professional level support system. The military is known for a close comradery that I saw definitely exists between all soldiers. However, on a professional level, when choosing younger soldiers to mentor, who to send to a school, or a special detail that will look really good on their record, there is a sense of 'helping out my own kind'. Whites will generally be mindful to not do this, as it would be seen as racist and could cost them their entire career. However, with specific military supported clubs and organizations solely for blacks, it is made clear that the issue is not looked at the same from the other perspective.

As a veteran, from a line that's served in one service or another since the French and Indian war, I would say that respect for military is more dependent on the political climate than anything else. Distaste for the military was the unfortunate outcome of the Vietnam conflict, though even then it wasn't the predominant view of the civilian populace. Ignorance of military specifics is excusable, since so few have served, or have had relatives that are in uniform.

Social engineering in the military has had some ups and downs. One thing many don't know about the U.S. military is that it was racially integrated until President Woodrow Wilson, a contemptible racist, segregated it. President Truman re-integrated our military in 1947, in part laying the ground for the civil rights progress of the '50s and '60s. Fitting women into proper military roles has been a little more difficult, given the realities of gender physical differences, and the sexual friction compounding the stress of military life. Accepting gay males in the military has been less difficult, since military folk tend to look at a merit-based value. If a gay sharpshooter takes out the enemy that was aiming to kill you, it's hard to be resentful. The attempt to integrate transgenders into the military was a bad idea from the start. These are people with identity confusion to begin with, and a high suicide rate in the civilian world. They don't need the added stress of military life.

MIke, maybe it was the context, but the questions seemed somewhat vague, and if asked of the civilian side, I would not believe the results, in that most of them do not know who their political representatives are, or civic basics, so I would not expect in depth, serious thought about military matters. I couldn't see where their survey population was, if it was all military or a mix or what. Just from the question at the end my guess is they were a large group with the bulk civilians. Also their data was from a very specific timeframe, so it does not factor in changing events, etc.

Lucky, having 2 sons in the Army (where I was Navy (submarines), I can tell you from my sample that there is a large number of blacks in the Army for the points Mike makes (no college, offers steady pay, some discipline, and college if you want it (i.e perks)) The issue they see is a lot of the senior people are Not responsible, and the junior officers are only concerned with getting to the next level. There is a lot of issues in the management and administration of the Army today, and a lot of senior enlisted just waiting to bail out.

Might I add that personal responsibility for one's efforts and outcome are a hallmark of the military, and although many who have not gone through that process do not understand responsibility, it nevertheless is absolutely essential in a functioning society. We not longer have one.