Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Saturday, April 02, 2011

Idealism Meets Reality

The young Congressman from our district, Rep. Raul Labrador, ran on a very idealistic platform that essentially boiled down to "America was a much better place in the 19th century, and we should return to that" -- basically, straight Tea Party doctrine. (My posts from the campaign are here, here, and here.) As the underdog, Rep. Labrador apparently felt he needed to tap into Tea Party anger to get the Republican nomination, so he was the only major candidate to fill out the Tea Party Boise questionnaire. This document asked the candidates to "commit" or "pledge" to do several things, many of which were clearly delusional. Among the things that Candidate Labrador pledged to do was to "Vote "NO" on any bill that has not been read and understood by you and published on the web for at least 7 days prior to the vote". [Emphasis mine]

Fast forward to April Fool's Day. The Republican-controlled House had instituted a rule that non-emergency bills had to be online for three calendar days prior to a vote, so there have been plenty of bills that didn't meet the 7 day pledge of Rep. Labrador. On 4/1, the House voted on the "Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011", which had been introduced on March 30th (not even past the 72 Hour window promised by Rep. Boehner in 2010). The bill's frankly humorous purpose was to say that a bill previously passed by the House, and not passed by the Senate, was to be "hereby enacted into law" unless the Senate met their April 6th ultimatum; even Fox News agrees that the bill is foolish. Nevertheless, Rep. Labrador violated his own pledge by voting "YES" on the bill, despite the fact that it hadn't been on the web for at least seven days. (The "Defund NPR" bill had the same 72 Hour problem; Rep. Labrador was out of town, and didn't vote for that bill.)

Expect any defense of this violation of the pledge to center on the "emergency" nature of the bill; this would just tend to show that Congressman Labrador, whom I personally like, has bought into the Washington culture that voting for symbolic bills that have zero chance of becoming law is an "emergency". I don't have a problem with a politician recognizing, after he assumes office, that the reality of the world doesn't match his idealistic beliefs as a candidate; I just don't want them to blow smoke up my butt for their reasons for facing up to reality. I'll be interested to see if Rep. Labrador explains this to his Tea Party supporters before he renews his "pledges" in 2012.


Anonymous Night Orders said...

I didn't know you leaned to the left, Joel. Was it hard to hide while on active duty?

4/02/2011 5:05 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thinking the Tea Party is a bunch of idiots doesn't mean you "lean left". It means you can think critically.

4/02/2011 5:45 PM

Anonymous Night Orders said...

To label an entire organization as "a bunch of idiots" involves may things, critical thinking is not one of them.
Let Joel speak for himself from now on, mmmkay.

4/02/2011 7:15 PM

Anonymous Senator Obama said...

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

4/02/2011 8:22 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

@Night Orders - I didn't call the Tea Party a "bunch of idiots", but I will admit to thinking a lot of their proposals are idiotic time-wasters. In general, I think they mean well, but have drawn some very wrong lessons from history. As far as "hiding" my leanings on active duty, I never had any problem. I believed then, as now, that President Reagan and both Presidents Bush did a good job. Then, as now, I didn't believe in repealing the 17th Amendment, returning to the Gold Standard, denying citizenship to people born in the U.S., wasting time on stupid "symbolic" votes in the middle of an economic crisis during wartime, believing giant conspiracy theories centered on the notion that a teenager without a passport flew to Kenya to give birth and then returned immediately to the U.S. so she could get the birth announcement put in the paper, trying to nullify federal laws, or pushing the theory that the First Amendment applies only to Christians. (That last idea comes from one of the founders of the Boise Tea Party who was a big deal in Idaho Republican circles before he took his idiocy national, so it's valid for this conversation.) I've never voted for a Democrat for President, and was a big supporter of the last Republican Presidential nominee. In summary, my politics haven't changed that much in the last 25 years -- the centers of both parties have moved to the right, such that the Republicans are starting to include many of the people who would have been considered whackjobs 10 years ago into their leadership.

4/02/2011 8:28 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

@Senator Obama - I see you've learned since you assumed the Presidency that the world isn't the nice tidy place where idealism works. Like your predecessor President Reagan going into Grenada, I see you've learned that sometimes a President has to take the latitude given him by the War Powers Resolution to do what he thinks is in the country's best interests without prior Congressional authorization. I am a little disappointed that you haven't come right out and said that, however. It's OK to admit that you've learned some things since becoming President.

4/02/2011 8:44 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Tea Party IS a bunch of idiots. They're mostly well-meaning people who are incredibly misinformed. It's pretty much obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

Even Glenn Beck is starting to turn on them at times.

4/02/2011 8:48 PM

Anonymous War Powers Resolution said...

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

4/02/2011 9:12 PM

Anonymous Night Orders said...

What is your definition of misinformed? Who is Glen Beck, and why does he matter?

4/02/2011 9:13 PM

Anonymous 610ET said...

Ehg, those were interesting comments on the whole “Birther” thing. I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about where the President was born but, when I do think about it, I wonder why the President only produced a document that he could have received even if he had been born somewhere else. Why not just produce the definitive long form document?

You are obviously a pretty smart guy and, as a nuke, I wonder why you don’t wonder?

Can we talk about college transcripts? I would like to know why these don't matter either.

Clearly these topics have nothing to do with how he governs but still……

4/02/2011 9:51 PM

Anonymous 610ET said...

Err, make that Eng not Ehg.

4/02/2011 9:52 PM

Anonymous XEM2 said...

I agree that it would be nice to hear ANY politician -- and especially the President -- admit that he didn't entirely know what he was getting into when he was elected, and has learned a lot since. I liked Obama's rhetorical ability (it's nice to have an inspirational leader), but that's not why I voted for him. I voted for him because his policies seem more pragmatic than idealistic. So I don't think he lost his idealism, as much as he has realized the limitations of the Presidency, even when your party controls both houses of Congress.

Since I agree with you on most political issues, I am sort of dumb-founded that you think George W Bush did a good job. Starting the unnecessary Iraq war while we were already fighting in Afghanistan, pissing away the pro-American sympathy after the 9/11 attacks, and presiding over the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression (not entirely his fault, but some of his policies contributed, and he did nothing to avert it)? I just don't see what he did well to overcome all of these. Please elaborate on why you feel this way.

4/02/2011 10:05 PM

Blogger KellyJ said...

The problem with the TEA Party is that their is no "TEA Party."
Their are numerous local grassroots groups using the acronym, along with several major National Groups. But they are all disparate organizations with different viewpoints and 'candidate criteria.'
The name came about as a play on the Boston Tea Party, standing for "Taxed Enough Already." They aren't an actual political party, more of a special interest group that supports specific candidates.
Regardless how you feal about yor local "TEA Party group," the basic premise of their forming is still applicable: The government is wasting too much of our money, not listening to the citizens of this country, and must get control of the deficit spending.
Anything beyond that is nothing but local groups putting their personal agendas into the mix. Some have good ideas, some are truly idiotic. In the end, they are still citizens who have had enough of the lunatics in DC running the asylum and are trying to get their voices heard.

4/02/2011 10:37 PM

Anonymous T said...


There you go, a copy of Obama's birth certificate. It's been scanned, people have held it in their hands, they've interviewed the doctor that delivered him. And anyway, his mother was an American citizen, so he would've been born an American Citizen if he was born on the moon. This is probably the most beat to death, stupid ass controversy ever. Even truthers have more credibility than birthers.

Whether you are progressive, or conservative, or somewhere in the middle, there are lots of things to disagree and criticize Obama on (I voted for him, and could name at least 10 things that he's done that I think are terrible), but shit, at least criticize him on something moored to reality.

4/02/2011 11:35 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

@610ET - I'm not concerned about President Obama's past or citizenship status for one reason -- in late spring 2008 it was fairly clear that the Democratic nominee was going to win the Presidency, and they only person standing between Sen. Clinton and the Oval Office was Sen. Obama. Do you honestly believe that, had there been anything at all disqualifying for Obama, that the Clinton camp wouldn't have pounced on it? Since they didn't, I have to assume there isn't anything. As far as why he doesn't release the "long form", why should he? He gains nothing, and while he doesn't release it he gets the advantage of marginalizing the people who are potentially his most troubling opponents because they look like a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

4/03/2011 5:43 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


He doesn't release the long form because IT'S NOT PROVIDED TO HIM. It's held in the state government of Hawai'i's official records somewhere. He has the only birth certificate available to him. I suppose, as President, he could probably pull some strings to get his long form out there, which you or I could not do if we were born in HI, but like you said what would be the point?

It's not like the birthers (who as it happens, are pretty much all tea party people), would vote for him anyway. They would just minutely change the conspiracy into something a little bit different.

4/03/2011 9:48 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The thing about the Birther argument, is that it's really thinly veiled racism. What they're really saying is he's not American-enough because he is black, but that's not polite to say anymore, so in the true spirit of Jim Crow Gingrich starts talking about Kenyan Neo-Colonialism philosophy and other bullshit that roughly translates to fancy way of saying "nigger".

I think the GOP is actually marginalizing itself for the future right now. I've voted R in the past and D lately, and for the life of me, I can only think of one or two R's I would consider casting a vote for in the immediate future. None of them are currently running for President.

I would maybe grit my teeth and vote for Ron Paul, but honestly, I'm scared he's a little too nuts. I agree with him wholeheartedly on a lot of social issues, and national defense issues, but I think on economic issues he's fully certifiable.

4/03/2011 9:53 AM

Blogger Unknown said...

I love this web site. Thanks for bringing politics and Submarines together. I believe "Politics" is just another form of expressing your world view, your "religion", through the civil sphere. I truly believe most americans, and i do mean u.s. citizens with a small "a", are willful slaves to the State. How we can think we are free, when we voluntarily submit ourselves to having most of our property taken through taxes and regulations is beyond understanding. Unless, of course, we are also self-deluded, as well as self-blinded. Thanks again, all of you, for your service to our country.

4/03/2011 10:03 AM

Anonymous 610ET said...

First off I’m not a “Birther”. As I said I don’t spend a lot of time on this.

However, I do find it strange that a lot of the President’s supporters give him a pass.

The document that “t” linked to could be obtained by someone who lived in Hawaii but was not born in the US. That is a fact.

Anon states that he can’t release it because it was not provided to him. Pretty weak.

Joel states that it is not an issue because Hillary’s people would have discovered something if there was something to discover. Maybe that’s true but is that the standard that you used to run your engineering spaces? I doubt it.

No one wants to talk about why he won’t release his college transcripts when every other candidate has released theirs.

Like I said before, I believe that he is an American citizen and that he graduated from college. I just find it curious that he allows the controversy to continue. Apparently Donald Trump has come to the same conclusion. It will be interesting to watch how that plays out. (Disclaimer, I am not a fan of Trump’s but he is pretty well known).

I hope that Congress enacts a bill that will eliminate any possible doubt from future candidates.

4/03/2011 1:03 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So 'deemed passed' was really good when the democrats used it to pass health care---and really dumb when the GOP uses it?

4/03/2011 1:04 PM

Anonymous T said...


"The document that “t” linked to could be obtained by someone who lived in Hawaii but was not born in the US. That is a fact."

That is not a fact in any way. In fact, that IS his birth certificate. It just says certificate of live birth on it. In fact, it even states on it: Location of birth: Honolulu, HI.

That is the exact same record that someone would use to get a US Passport. Are you saying that a non-US citizen can go to Hawaii, get a certificate of live birth, then obtain a valid US passport fraudulently? Why haven't we heard about this critical national security risk? Why does DHS let this stand?

(I actually was the anon too, clicked the wrong button). What I meant to say when I said it wasn't provided to him is that the "Long Form" Birth Certificate is kept on file in Hawaii, like your BUMED records or whatever.

This is issues IS settled. There is nothing else to settle. The only people that still believe that there is any shred of doubt about the status of Barack Obama's citizens are idiots, racists, incredibly ill-informed, or know better but are using the issue to pander to the other 3 for TV screen time (aka The Donald).

He doesn't waste time on this, because there is nothing left to prove.

I kind of agree about his transcripts, but again, I don't really care that much either. Bush's college grades were not so hot, and I voted for him, too. There have been interviews with roommates, friends, and professors of his from college. He clearly existed. There's pictures of him as a child. There's pictures of him from various grades at Punahou School in Hawai'i. (Punahou is a private school that teaches K-12). Disclosure: I also attended there for a few years in H.S.

There just isn't any real controversy. If you hate Barack Obama, there are plenty of things to criticize him on that have nothing to do with where he was or was not born or went to college.

4/03/2011 1:30 PM

Anonymous 610ET said...

I forgot to address the other Anon’s statement that asking a Presidential candidate to show proof that he is qualified by birth for the off that he is seeking is racist. Really? So when John McCain was asked to produce his birth certificate that was racist? I hadn’t heard that before. Good work.

4/03/2011 1:33 PM

Anonymous 610ET said...

“t” where did you get that I hate him? I never said or even implied that. I don’t hate him at all. You can disagree with someone without being labeled a hater or a racist. At least you should be able to.

You might want to do a little more research on that Certificate of Live Birth thing.

4/03/2011 1:38 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


Yeah, it's totally racism and couldn't possibly have anything at all to do with a concern that the man holding the office of President might be constitutionally ineligible to do so. You know, I don't subscribe to the birther arguments but at least I don't default to assuming the worst motives of them.


Good to know your understanding of presidential power is that he can do whatever he wants as long as he thinks its the right thing to do, even if the law says otherwise. I want to say you're wrong but unfortunately, you may be de facto correct since nobody in a position to do anything about it has cared for decades.

4/03/2011 1:58 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, I guess it's delusional for the Tea Party to hold candidates to essentially the promise BHO made - no signing of bills that have not been published online for the general public to read. Also, apparently Joel forgot about Nazi Pelosi and her famously "deemed passed" bill.

. . . the centers of both parties have moved to the right, such that the Republicans are starting to include many of the people who would have been considered whackjobs 10 years ago into their leadership. Wow, now that IS delusional.

4/03/2011 3:18 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There you go, a copy of Obama's birth certificate. It's been scanned, people have held it in their hands
blah, blah, blah

Nice, except this has been easily refuted as a forgery.

4/03/2011 3:22 PM

Anonymous XEM2 said...

"Nice, except this has been easily refuted as a forgery."

And that's why there's no reason to try to refute the Birthers. There will never be enough proof.

I don't think most Birthers are racists, they just despise Obama so much that they have suspended rational thinking.

4/03/2011 4:53 PM

Anonymous Night Orders said...

Bubblehead said "As far as "hiding" my leanings on active duty, I never had any problem."

Well that is debatable. To serve 20 years and retire as an O4/O5, or E5/E6 for that matter, spells a deficient career.
My point is leftism and the military is a queer combination. The mentality is just wrong for a military climate.
You chose the wrong career Joel. Acting, performing, or politics would have set you free.

4/03/2011 5:16 PM

Blogger bbrian9 said...

Hey all...been reading Joel's blog for a while now, but this is my first post. Someone made a statement that had to be responded to. Obama is a woefully unqualified socialist who never should have been elected. His politics will take years to recover from. He was probably a great community organizer. I don't care about his birth certificate. I also believe that "Reverse Racism" got him elected...lots folks thought voting for a black man proved they weren't racist (it certainly wasn't on his qualifications). Now...if anyone tells me that my opinions are a thinly veiled way to say "nigger" to my face, that person will have a mouthful of bloody chicklets.

4/03/2011 5:25 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

I strongly disagree with the "opposition to President Obama is prima facie evidence of racism" argument -- I'm sure that most people who oppose President Obama would have been just as opposed to a President Hillary Clinton. Heck, a lot of them accused her of murder when she was First Lady, so who knows what they'd be accusing her of as President.

@Night Orders - I'm interested in your definition of a "deficient" career. Since an officer doesn't even reach the time in service to become retirement eligible as an O-6 until 21 YCS unless they get early selected, I'm not sure how retiring as an O-5 after 20 is bad. As far as me, yes, I retired as an O-4, but I only had 16 years of commissioned service. I went on active duty in April '83 and made E-5 off the Fall '84 exam, which was pretty good. I got commissioned in '89 and started getting paid as an O-4 in '96, which is also pretty good. I did two NEWCON Eng tours, so apparently NR liked me. As far as choosing the wrong career, I'll say that if you support the people in the Tea Party who are saying we should bring all our troops home from overseas, maybe you chose the wrong career.

@Anonymous @1304 and @1518 - The "deem passed" trial balloon put up by Democrats for the Health Care Bill was also idiotic, and they correctly didn't do it after they took so much crap for it. I opposed that, in that I thought that a bill of such magnitude shouldn't rely on parliamentary tricks. In that case, they were at least talking about "deeming passed" a bill that had at least passed the other chamber.

@XEM2 - Maybe saying the second President Bush did a "good job" was overreaching a little; I will say that I don't regret either of my votes for him, because I think he did a better job than either of the yahoos that the Democrats put up as alternatives.

@bbrian9 - I'll buy your description of President Obama as "woefully unprepared", but I'm not sure about "socialist". By any reasonable metric, President Obama has governed to the right of, say, President Nixon or the current British Conservative Party, especially in fiscal matters. Did you also consider Nixon a socialist? If so, I guess I don't have any quibble with your description, although I'll still disagree with the definition.

4/03/2011 8:01 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

As far as the "easily refuted as a forgery" argument, that makes no sense at all. The COLB on that page was issued by the State of Hawaii, and confirmed by the Republican then-Governor of Hawaii as the document the State of Hawaii issued. How could it possibly be a "forgery"?

4/03/2011 8:05 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

One last thing for @Anonymous @1518 - Yes, I would consider Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Michele Bachmann "whackjobs". And I would consider them Republican Party leaders. Rep. Paul heads an important subcommittee, and Rep. Bachmann leads a caucus that has a significant number of Republican members.

4/03/2011 8:19 PM

Anonymous 610ET said...

@Night Orders

RE: Joel’s Career

You are WAY out of line with your comments. Joel chooses not to mention it but he had XO orders and given his two Eng tours would probably been a lock for command.

Unfortunately for him and probably for the Navy, he was medically retired.

Also, given today’s downsized Navy, there will be good competent people retiring as E-6. Unfortunate fact of life.

Were you actually in the military?

4/03/2011 9:06 PM

Anonymous T said...


Your criticisms of Obama are legit. If that's the way you feel, more power to you.


"“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

and this:

"Huckabee later stated that Obama's perspective was shaped by "growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather."

Are thinly veiled racism. Completely unqualified, demonstrably false in Huckabee's case, statements that focus mostly on Obama's blackness and how "un-American" that is.

I too, am disappointed with Obama, though for wholly different reasons. He hasn't been any more of a disaster than Bush, but he hasn't been any better either, really. But my complaints fall farther to the line of he doesn't have a backbone when shit really matters, and has continued every violation of personal rights instituted under the Bush Administration, and even added to it.

4/03/2011 9:58 PM

Anonymous T said...

I suppose I should also mention that his dumb ass got us into a third M.E. conflict without bothering to consult Congress as well.

4/03/2011 10:04 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is being a Democrat somehow incompatible with Military service? I was in for 9 years served on 2 pac fleet SSNs. I made no secret of my politics, many of my shipmates shared my views. What someone's political affiliation was of zero concern, outside of card game conversation in crews mess. Since I've been out, it seems to me that the Republican party tends vote in favor of big ticket weapon programs that often the Pentagon doesn't even want (lining the pockets of big donors), then votes against Veterans programs as budget busters (homeless and disabled Vets aren't really big donors). Supporting the troops is more than having a magnet on the back of your pickup. I remember a hearing about a speech Karl Rove made soon after 9/11 at a GOP fund raiser. He said Democrats were preparing for arrests and trials while Republicans were preparing for war (how, by buying Haliburton stock). My daughter did 2 tours in Iraq, my son 1 tour in Iraq and 1 in Afghanistan (both Democrats by the way). We serve our country and commander in chief as Americans not as Democrats or Republicans. Any Conservative that states that a Liberal cannot serve in the Military effectively and honorably is the one that doesn't deserve to wear the uniform and can kiss my ass.

4/04/2011 5:32 AM

Anonymous Night Orders said...

I never mentioned Democrats and never said liberals couldn't serve honorable.
Much like law enforcement, the military attracts type "A" personalities who willingly (gladly) follow and enforce rules, regulations, and laws, without question. There are other professions that naturally attract a more liberal mindset: acting, performing, and the creative arts.
There is no right or wrong, just the facts of life.
It is no secret that if a service member is opening liberal, they are naturally going to contradict many aspects of the armed forces. Not much different than the handful of outcast Republican actors in Hollywood.
In both of the above examples, I am sure there are many very successful members that were wise enough to "hide" their ideologies and suppress their natural inclinations in order to rise to the top, or at a minimum not get blacklisted, in their professions.

4/04/2011 8:05 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess it is a sign of how weird things are that the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility are labelled as "fringe". Oh well, sooner or later our fiscal house will be put in order. Either we can do it ourselves with hard work and discipline or it will be forced upon us when the house of cards collapses. Our choice.

4/04/2011 9:50 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my experience military service tends to develop politically authoritarian tendencies in people. You get so used to sticking your nose into people's business and having your business meddled with that you often come to accept it readily as a solution to problems wholesale. (Look no further than the "intrusive leadership" concept for an example.) I don't know if either the leftist or rightist flavor of authoritarianism is more likely to develop (and personally, I think the distinction is superficial).

4/04/2011 5:10 PM

Anonymous Night Orders said...

I can't speak for the wardroom, but bleeding heart liberalism in the Chiefs Mess goes over like a fart in church.
E-1 thru E-6 will stiff out and railroad a soft and easily forgiving Chief in a heartbeat.
To say being liberal in the military is superficial is either dishonest or "deficient", and you will retire at the rank you deserve.

4/04/2011 5:53 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Night orders-

You completely missed my point. I said that military life steers one toward authoritarianism and that there is a superficial difference between left and right authoritarianism. Whether (for example) you want to ban being gay or ban calling gay people names, we're talking about two sides of the same authoritarian coin. The only difference between the mainstream political parties is which aspect of your life either one wants to control.

You also don't know what you're talking about if you think political ideology has a thing to do with military skill. The most widely respected officer I knew from my boat was a dyed-in-the-wool Massachusetts liberal. Leadership is what matters, and leadership is not exclusive to any one political orthodoxy. There's plenty of room for soft heads on either side of the aisle, and we've all seen examples.

Finally, you don't know the first thing about me, so it's frankly stupid of you to make any statements about my career or the rank you think I deserve.

4/04/2011 7:02 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

@night orders

So how many people did you railroad out? Or do you just talk big?

4/04/2011 7:04 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the main issue with Obama's birth certificate isthe fact that he and his handlers are obviously trying to hide something. He could release the long form anytime he wants and gain a few more independent voters who are hardcover on whether he is a citizen or not (I have little doubt he is). What it looks like, however, is that his campaign didn't want his certificate secret revealed (McCain was asked to produce his long form and he did without a hassle). Now the Obama camp can use this for their gain by coming up with a new derogatory term (birther) and marginalizing an entire group that can be rolled together with the tea party movement.
Pretty sure he isn't hiding a foreign birth, the ramifications would be too great if discovered. What is more likely is that his longform states that he was a Muslim at birth (I believe he isn't now) or that his race is something other than black (his father was less then 1/2). Both possibilities would have initially hurt a presidential candidate running the way he did unfortunately.

4/04/2011 7:09 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, meant I have little doubt that he was foreign born.

4/04/2011 7:11 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since there's a lot of Anonymous posts I'm the one that 'Night Orders' is baiting, so there's no confusion. A sailor's opinions concerning how the government raises and spends tax dollars doesn't have a damn thing to do with what kind of sailor they are. How they do their job, handle themselves in an emergency, and what kind of shipmate they are is what matters. Come on 'Night Orders' you know all that. We don't all fall into some predefined stereotype because of our politics. Dirt bags and stellar performers come in all political persuasions. What's important is whether they're a dirt bag or a stellar performer, not their position on raising the tax rate 3% on families making more than $250,000 a year, or whether Wisconsin public employees should have collective bargaining rights. We don't know each other, but I'm guessing you're a stellar performer. I've been out for 28 years now, but back in the day this is something we would worked out over some San Miguel's at the Tom Tom club in Olongapo. Probably wouldn't have changed each others minds, but we'd had fun.

4/04/2011 7:44 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


There are at least two of us here.

4/04/2011 7:54 PM

Anonymous T said...

My favorite part about night orders is this:

"Much like law enforcement, the military attracts type "A" personalities who willingly (gladly) follow and enforce rules, regulations, and laws, without question."

I love how he portrays himself, and other careerists as authoritarian cheerleader Gestapo types. That shit cracks me up. It is ironic on so many levels. Mostly because it's actually somewhat true, or at least it is more likely to be true than in the civilian world, but if you, in any way see yourself as a "Type A personality that will willingly and gladly follow orders and enforce rules without question", kill yourself now, you are part of the problem not the solution.

Of course, the best part about these bastions of independent rugged conservatism is how tightly they latch to the government teat for their entire career and afterwards. We can cut Medicare but don't touch my Tricare for Life!!

(I'm still a reservist for solely those same reasons, so I'm not knocking it, but at least I'm honest about it).

4/04/2011 8:50 PM

Anonymous Night Orders said...

t, it's not a choice Chiefs make. We a made to follow orders, rules, and regulations.
If the DivO/DH, COB/CMC, or a DMC tells me to right-up one of my guys, I do it. Agree with it or not, I have to follow their orders.
And if you paid close attention to what I have written, you would figure out I am not a type-A personality. I did not agree with a lot of the things I had to do and say. That is why I never senior/master Chief.
I've pissed off many a Master Chief, but don't regret a single thing in that regard.
I served 22 years 8 months, retired a little over 2 years ago, and can count on one hand the things I miss.
That is the reason I asked Joel how he managed to "hide" his leanings, as I was unable to do so.
Lastly, many of my favorite officers were "liberal", and all but a few saw the righting on the wall and we out before their DH tour.

4/04/2011 10:10 PM

Anonymous Night Orders said...

I meant to preview that before posting, so please overlook my illiteracy.

4/04/2011 10:17 PM

Anonymous T said...

Oh, I suppose I did not read into what you wrote closely enough. I suspect we agree more than don't! I feel like I had a similar experience as a JO. I got written up a lot my first year or two until I just went with the flow because it was easier than doing the right thing, and I clearly wasn't going to change the culture anyway. I did feel some what vindicated when one of my least favorite officers senior to me got fired from his command tour.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, take care.

4/05/2011 4:50 AM

Anonymous Night Orders said...

T said "I did feel some what vindicated when one of my least favorite officers senior to me got fired from his command tour."

Yes, vindication was one of the few things that helped make my career a little more tolerable and even fulfilling when I was forced to deal with the occasional maniac DH or DMC/CMC.
The best part was knowing that I helped play a role, usually small but a few key ones, in their undoing. Nothing dirty or dishonest, just nudging the spotlight in their direction.

4/05/2011 4:36 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My point is leftism and the military is a queer combination."

When I was on active duty, I had the sense that my shipmates were majority Democratic.

Recently, I've been a Democratic-voting Republican.

BTW-I think I could pay more taxes. It's not a matter of affordability; It's a matter of being proud of America and recognizing that what the government does is at least part of what America is.

4/05/2011 7:37 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


If you really have that much extra income to throw around on the useless crap our government wastes money on, you can mosey on over to and deposit your scratch right into the treasury.

4/05/2011 7:55 PM

Anonymous T said...

I'm sorry, if you are active duty in the military, you are a hypocrite if you start talking about "the useless crap our government wastes money on". A significant part of that useless crap is military spending, whether it's retirement, TRICARE for Life, 2 VA class subs a year, Conventional ICBM (this is perhaps the dumbest military idea ever), 11 carrier strike groups, F22, Women on Subs, Task Force Uniform, most boomer patrols, most SSN deployments, REFTRA, anything having to do with freaking out about China, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, nuke Continuation Pay etc., etc., etc.

I will just point out that despite the fact that everyone in the military is supposedly conservative, they live and maintain the most bloated, inefficient, useless (in amount of utility per dollar) government entity in the USA. It's crazy to think that 10 years ago the defense budget was about $300 billion and now it tops $700 billion.

4/05/2011 9:33 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

t: take your pill please

4/05/2011 9:38 PM

Anonymous Night Orders said...

As government entities go, the military is easily one of the most efficient (relatively speaking) programs going.

It's the hand-out, anti-incentive, entitlement programs that crush the taxpayers, coming and going. Not only do they cost massive amounts of money paying out, they then enable the lazy side of human nature to front itself.

Numerous generations of blacks have slipped into this cyclic gravy-train, leaving little chance, or reason, to become self-sufficient productive citizens.

Another crushing result of "unintended consequences."

4/05/2011 11:40 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You keep using that word, "hypocritical." I do not think it means what you think it means. I'll certainly agree that the DoD budget should be smaller (while being a larger percentage of the overall budget). Here's one fun example of waste:

Again, if you feel your tax burden is too low, put your money where your mouth is and leave the rest of us alone. The government accepts gifts. (Don't feel bad, the "raise my taxes" rich aren't doing it either.)

4/06/2011 4:48 AM

Anonymous T said...

As government entities go, the military is easily one of the most efficient (relatively speaking) programs going.

I'll be honest, I don't even think there's a way to measure this in a meaningful way. People killed per dollar spent? One thing is certain, DoD is just a net cost. For all of our military adventurism we have nothing to show for it except for the ire of the rest of the world, and a prison where we violate Constitutional rights.

You keep using that word, "hypocritical." I do not think it means what you think it means. I'll certainly agree that the DoD budget should be smaller (while being a larger percentage of the overall budget).

What I mean is this. There are a lot of military people that want to slice the rest of the country's benefits while wanting to keep their own. Military retirement is just as much of an entitlement as anything else. To me, that's being a hypocrite.

Personally, I don't want to end SS, Medicare, Medicaid, or Military Retirement. They are part of what's dragging down the budget, but there are likely some ways to make these programs more efficient without just taking them away more or less completely(military retirement probably just is what it is). I'd be careful what you wish for, if everybody else's benefits start going away, people are going to look at military benefits next... SecDef has already started talking about trying to raise premiums and force people out of Tricare For Life.

4/06/2011 5:57 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I work for a defense contractor in DC now that I have left the Navy and can assure you with certainty that the military is NOT efficient, much less "one of the most efficient" government expenditures. SOOO much money. It's a dirty business, and I'm leaving it as soon as I can.

How is it that a middle manager at NUWC was able to squirrel away over $10 million dollars in bribes from a small business subcontractor if what we do is somehow "efficient." Every once in a while the dude would come back from congress with a few hundred million more to spend and spread it to his buddies for kickbacks. And he was a middle manager. A working stiff. You guys have no clue.

4/06/2011 10:36 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know how, guy. I'm guessing you have no actual evidence, though, because if you did you'd be using it to claim a fat reward.

4/06/2011 5:37 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

1737 Anon, I didn't just pull that out of my ass. It actually happened - recently. As in, this year. Google "Advanced Solutions for Tomorrow" and "Ralph Mariano." Friends of mine lost their jobs because of this greedy clown's decision to blatantly steal more than ten million dollars.

4/06/2011 8:01 PM

Anonymous T said...

he is probably using the internet as evidence... considering the guy was already arrested:

Unless you don't see a problem with this...

4/06/2011 8:03 PM

Anonymous Jemimah said...

Thank you for your post, pretty helpful material.

9/20/2012 7:48 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home