Thursday, October 13, 2005
Army Unveils New Award
Recognizing the need for an award for troops assigned to headquarters units during combat operations, the Army today announced the approval of the Combat Briefing Badge, or CBB. "People don't realize that being in a major headquarters can be just as stressful as going on patrols or convoys," said MAJ John Remf. "When you're briefing that many General Officers, your career can end in a heartbeat. And it can happen to anyone at any time, not just combat arms soldiers." DOD statistics note that CSS personnel are more likely to suffer career-ending incidents in rear areas than Combat Arms Soldiers. "This just reflects that reality," said Pentagon spokesman LTC Roger Pogue.
The award ranks in precedence below the CIB and CAB, but above the EIB and PowerPoint Ranger tab.
The criteria for the award is still under discussion, but preliminary guidance authorizes the award for 30 days of continuous briefings of officers at least two grades higher than the briefer without incident while serving in a theater of operations in which the awardee is eligible for hostile fire and hazardous duty pay.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
And how brave your are for using someone elses words to show us that you can actually think for yourself...or can you?
The appropriate response from a 12 year old would be 'Your Mama!'
It appears you are mixing your metaphors and philosophy of the current consciouness to derive an Orwellian or Dennettian and even a Stalinesque mentalism to prove your point. Not that that is not expected from someone like yourself who sees something like a green spot on a piece of paper, for purely argument's sake, and says it's red to prove his premise that a green spot never existed on the paper to begin with, but that another spot, say green was there. This Stalinesque revisionism seems to be the real premise from which you base your assumption that war is peace and freedom is slavery. Let's take another example of everyday consciousness and to futher illustrate this point. I will use an example of walking down the road and seeing a cat on a fence (yes, it sounds silly!). Suppose you see this cat and it is white with brown eyes. Earlier on in the day a white spotty dog with brown eyes had run in front of your car, you dodged it...fortunatley for the dog. Later on a friend questions you about your day and you tell them you saw a white
cat with black spots. How did this happen? the cat was white with brown eyes!!! An Orwellian revision account would state that you percieved the cat as white, yet the memory of the spotted dog had interfered with this memory and you had recalled incorrectly. A Stalinesque account would propose that you had inaccuratley percieved the cat at the time
of seeing it, (in a way you hallucinated the spots) and so you
remembered incorrectly, (it really did have spots in your
consciousness). The problem with the Orwellian revision account is that of timing. Were you first conscious of a white cat with no spots,(you remembered this) and then later conscious of a white cat with spots which wiped out the first experience) or was the very first thing you were conscious of was a spotty cat? The problem with Stalinesque is WHY we hallucinate the spots. Overall, do we make a mistake on recall due to interference (Orwellian)
or do we accurately recall a perceptual mistake we actually
experienced? (Stalinesque).
I could talk about Orwellian and Stlainesque dualisms all day. But since you enjoy quoting the words of others for us to be impressed with your premise that war is peace and freedom is slavery, I'll leave you to ponder whether your consciousness of the current is either Orwellian or Dennetian dualism.
And one more thing...Your Mama!
It appears you are mixing your metaphors and philosophy of the current consciouness to derive an Orwellian or Dennettian and even a Stalinesque mentalism to prove your point. Not that that is not expected from someone like yourself who sees something like a green spot on a piece of paper, for purely argument's sake, and says it's red to prove his premise that a green spot never existed on the paper to begin with, but that another spot, say green was there. This Stalinesque revisionism seems to be the real premise from which you base your assumption that war is peace and freedom is slavery. Let's take another example of everyday consciousness and to futher illustrate this point. I will use an example of walking down the road and seeing a cat on a fence (yes, it sounds silly!). Suppose you see this cat and it is white with brown eyes. Earlier on in the day a white spotty dog with brown eyes had run in front of your car, you dodged it...fortunatley for the dog. Later on a friend questions you about your day and you tell them you saw a white
cat with black spots. How did this happen? the cat was white with brown eyes!!! An Orwellian revision account would state that you percieved the cat as white, yet the memory of the spotted dog had interfered with this memory and you had recalled incorrectly. A Stalinesque account would propose that you had inaccuratley percieved the cat at the time
of seeing it, (in a way you hallucinated the spots) and so you
remembered incorrectly, (it really did have spots in your
consciousness). The problem with the Orwellian revision account is that of timing. Were you first conscious of a white cat with no spots,(you remembered this) and then later conscious of a white cat with spots which wiped out the first experience) or was the very first thing you were conscious of was a spotty cat? The problem with Stalinesque is WHY we hallucinate the spots. Overall, do we make a mistake on recall due to interference (Orwellian)
or do we accurately recall a perceptual mistake we actually
experienced? (Stalinesque).
I could talk about Orwellian and Stlainesque dualisms all day. But since you enjoy quoting the words of others for us to be impressed with your premise that war is peace and freedom is slavery, I'll leave you to ponder whether your consciousness of the current is either Orwellian or Dennetian dualism.
And one more thing...Your Mama!
Thanks for the comment. You're right. Thanks for illustrating my point that you and others like you fit the world of relativism for your own premise. Ad hominem attacks aside, we disagree. I do not link or equate Orwell to what is happening today or ever. You can't. Doing so is to doom yourself to a worldview cemented in perpetual relativism. If that is how you think, which it seems that you do, fine. Live and think like that if you like. But where do you stop? Do you apply Orwell to all other human experiences, or is it just the convenience of politics of an administration in your disfavor that you aver such a position? Are there boundaries for such an application of political and psychological doublespeak? If there are, what are they? I would find it difficult to live in such an existence of perpetual nay saying while applying a constant black is white and white is black approach to all that I do, think, and say. If your highly evolved intellect allows you to live like that, than you are indeed on an evolutionary tract that is far superior to myself and most other mere mortals. Thank you for allowing me and others to bask in your reflected glory? Let us all eat Orwell’s cake and let us exist in our lower mental caste as you look down on us from clouds of your intellectual Olympus.
Post a Comment
<< Home
