Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal GMontag's Journal: Understanding the Guard 22

Journal by GMontag

I found this article somewhat interesting:

February 19, 2004, 12:56 p.m.
Brothers Know
Understanding the Guard.
By Richard L. Novak

From this logical muddle, one thing emerges very clear: that those conveying and repeating the attacks as newsworthy have very little, if any, knowledge of serving in the military, especially in the National Guard or Reserves. And despite this ignorance, there does not seem to have been much effort or research undertaken to alleviate it. The coverage has clearly presumed (or wished for) guilt on Bush's part. Have any of the accusers provided proof, or even been asked by "responsible" media outlets to provide proof, that Bush was AWOL? Have any of them even researched how service in the National Guard or Reserves works before making the accusations? The evidence would seem to suggest that these are clearly partisan attacks, with very little basis in fact. It is sad that we as individuals, and the media as the last line of defense in the information war, do not maintain high standards of conduct and expectations before propagating these types of accusations.

This whole discussion has been amazing. Nice to see another former Guardsman actually getting something in print on this.

It is almost as if it were a Bizzaro-world discussion where people who know "nothing" of "art" actually try to engage artists and gallery owners on the details of their field. Then dismissing everything that they say and making up new nonsense to "bash" them with, never bothering to learn the most basic information about the professional art business.

From some bringing up non-applicable UCMJ sections when State Law applies, to others bringing up Guardmeber's incomplete documentation complaints. As so many of these people are in fields where logic, research and documentation are key areas I will conclude that they are partisan hacks.

That last item especially annoys me. The complaint by many Guardspeople is that their retirement records are not complete. Note that the complaint by the Servicemembers is not that they are getting too many points, the complaint is that entire periods are not being shown. Somehow the Bizzaro "journalist" cult has taken this to mean that no retirement record is of any value. Anybody who deals with data analysis KNOWS that this is complete nonsense. An incomplete record just means that some things are MISSING not that the things found are wrong.

As I have linked to before the Boston Globe has had the retirement points sheet of LT Bush for several years. It shows the proper number of retirement points and shows that drills were performed in advance. More talk of that in this JE. Somehow the "media" has turned service done in advance into absences.

Somehow, the media has turned non-rated periods into absences. Every Officer knows that when they are tasked to rate someone who they did not observe because that person was not reporting to them the proper thing to do is note that the person was not observed in the rating period. We also know that if someone was chronically absent "not observed" is not what goes into the OER. Long narratives of how you assigned them things and they did not perform them, or were absent when they should have been there, are what goes into the OER.

Pretty pathetic.

Update: This was not hard to find and I will wager that the current full text and the 1972 version could be found quite easily offline at any large Texas library.

LT Bush was covered under Title 32 during his guard service, NOT Title 10.

This discussion was created by GMontag (42283) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Understanding the Guard More

Understanding the Guard

Comments Filter:

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close