"Men With Guns" ...The American Thinker

[Snaquebite]

REally good article....

Another sophisticate has spoken out, and bravely.


"I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that. It's not as bright."


So said Stephen King. He is a writer of horror I hear, though I have never read his books. I do hope that his written prose is more literate than that evinced by his speech.


King's bold words passed scarcely noticed, near invisibly in fact. (Only Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters spread the outrage.) The reason is because they are not at all remarkable. Such courageous thoughts spew regularly from those who ride booted and spurred over this tottering edifice we call ‘Western Civilization.' There is hardly a mover and shaker residing in the ivory towers of academia or among our literati who does not share the same views as Mr. King.


From their talk, from their vast outpouring of books and articles, from their appearances in the media, from their endless self-absorption, from their spittle-flecked sputtering hatred and disdain of the common man, one would get the impression that these types are the very upholders of all that is sweet and honorable in our culture.


One would be wrong. Such men are the destroyers of civilization. Like competent parasites they take every advantage of a society created and maintained by their betters. They drain as much vitality as they can, replace it with a crude solipsism and work to crush the husk that remains. Their lives are ones of soft comfort and padded ease. For in all their degrees and learning and rhetoric and billions and billions of words they have learned nothing worth knowing. For all intents and purposes they are barbarians.


Civilization does not rest upon their shoulders, it rests upon the shoulders of men with guns.

more here... http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...with_guns.html

[Gypsy]

Good piece. I like how he ends it...

In 1000 years when the dust has settled, when the first glimmers of a new Age of Gold appear, men like Leonidas will still be remembered. Men like Stephen King will be as forgotten as yesterday's papers, remembered only by worms.

[nmap]

I suspect that the civilian population - particularly within academia - do not have much conscious interaction with members of the armed services. This might be particularly so in the case of Quiet Professionals; I get the impression that at least some of the QP's on this board do not mention their background to others. The civilian community may come into frequent contact with members of the military, but may be unaware of it.

The lack of communication between the two communities could result in differences in perceptions - perhaps even in values - of considerable magnitude. Which is, in my opinion, unfortunate. Widespread ignorance among potential voters could have adverse effects on national policy.

[Moving Target]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of King's books, but he is severely lacking in the common sense department. On top of that, he's a jackass.

[Sandwich]

That's disappointing.
I've always enjoyed his books, the majority of them are well-written.

[nmap]

I read an item by Stephen King, titled "On Writing". It provides some background on his writing career, as well as his thoughts on how to write more effectively. He seemed reasonably thoughtful and intelligent.

It occurs to me to wonder how often members of the military services - and here I refer to all soldiers, not just specific groups - are depicted as highly trained, intelligent people. Conversely, how often are they shown as primarily brawn - or worse?

When it comes to the Quiet Professionals, I don't see much about them in the media or literature. Their low-key but effective efforts don't seem to make the news. That said, when it comes to intelligence, I'd be inclined to believe the average QP's IQ is in the 140's. On the surface, there are discussions of fitness, weaponcraft, or field problems; but the nature of the discussions, the exchange of ideas, and analytical approach seem well above the norm. Yet I never hear of that attribute.

So, if the public doesn't see the intellectual and analytical side of members of the armed services, but often sees depictions lacking such attributes, then is not the outcome predictable?

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by nmap

I suspect that the civilian population - particularly within academia - do not have much conscious interaction with members of the armed services. This might be particularly so in the case of Quiet Professionals; I get the impression that at least some of the QP's on this board do not mention their background to others. The civilian community may come into frequent contact with members of the military, but may be unaware of it.

The lack of communication between the two communities could result in differences in perceptions - perhaps even in values - of considerable magnitude. Which is, in my opinion, unfortunate. Widespread ignorance among potential voters could have adverse effects on national policy.

Nmap,
Most of the interaction is one of two instances. 1. I am questioning a teacher as a parent. 2. I am taking a class and some leftists who chooses to use their opinion as a statement of fact is the professor....

No, I don't bring up what I did...but they walk away understanding where I stand.

[Go Devil]

Originally Posted by nmap. So, if the public doesn't see the intellectual and analytical side of members of the armed services, but often sees depictions lacking such attributes, then is not the outcome predictable?

I am aquainted with many individuals who, unfortunately, have had limited contact with active or former military personnel.
Their primary opinion of is based upon the behaviors of their fellow class mates who were involved in JROTC or ROTC, whether they became soldiers, seamen, airmen, marines, or not.

I witnessed a considerable amount of disdain from people and businesses around the Ft. Benning area directed towards military personnel.
Unfortunately, the frat boy behavior of the few impacts the stellar performance of the many. Distaste is passed on, experienced or not.

I live near Ft. Harrison in Indiana and have worked with civilians who have worked on post. Their honest opinion of the soldiers that they have worked with is one of contempt for the " Welfare sucking behavior." of soldiers on post.

If professional behavior is taught at a young age, the behavior will permeate any lifestyle or occupation.

Live well and be remembered well.

GD

[Cagekicker]

That article was very well-written and thank you for sharing it.

I was raised an Army brat, joined the Infantry and after ETS'ing, became a Correctional Officer for the state of Arizona and have dealt with a couple different views that people have of military and other organizations.

What I've found is that most civilians don't have much of an idea of what the military services do, what they are composed of, what their abilities are, etc. They generally only have a thorough understanding when they have military background or have had close contact with the services. The further away from a military base a city/town is - it seems the less impact any military entity has on them. For some, the only knowledge of military is what they see in the news or movies. In my opinion, that's why military history is important to be taught to kids in school...it's important to know where they came from, how the country got to where we are and who fights for their rights to get to where they are going. (Don't know if that makes much sense, I'm a bit tired.)

People don't fully understand things that they don't deal with on a daily basis or that are outside of their "scope".
When I was a Correctional Officer, for the most part the public knew nothing about what we did for them. We worked behind the scenes and out of the publics eye for the most part. "Out of sight, out of mind."