Wine weasel critiques real man

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

UPDATE: Fred Schoeneman piles on with sharp elbows.

I have read a lot of ignorant, ill-informed, mind-numbingly stupid shit in my ongoing efforts to chronicle the fools of the American left, but I have hit the jackpot with this doucheasaurus. The LA Times, respected and fair chronicler of news, has graced their editorial pages with quite possibly the dumbest thing I have read this year. Here is a quick taste.

Gen. David H. Petraeus may be as impressive a military professional as the United States has developed in recent years, but he could use some strategic advice on how to manage his sartorial PR. Witness his congressional testimony on the state of the war in Iraq. There he sits in elaborate Army regalia, four stars glistening on each shoulder, nine rows of colorful ribbons on his left breast, and various other medallions, brooches and patches scattered across the rest of the available real estate on his uniform. He even wears his name tag, a lone and incongruous hunk of cheap plastic in a region of pristine gilt, just in case the politicians aren't sure who he is.

That's a lot of martial bling, especially for an officer who hadn't seen combat until five years ago. Unfortunately, brazen preening and "ribbon creep" among the Army's modern-day upper crust have trumped the time-honored military virtues of humility, duty and personal reserve........

Memo to Petraeus: When you're making the case for more patriotic gore, go easy on the glitter.

Good lord, where to begin with such drivel. I think the simplest way to handle this is to read it, laugh at it's pretentious twittery and then remember that these are our cultural elites. These are our moral betters, the ones who will show us proles in flyover country how to think and act. Puh-leaze. I am certain that the clown who vomited this onto his MacBook has nothing at all to teach me.

What is that you ask, who is this ultra-maroon who would pop his little weasel head up?

Matthew DeBord, a former editor at Wine Spectator, is the author of The New York Book of Wine (Universe) and the forthcoming Wine Country USA (Rizzoli).

Why he is s wine critic of course, a member of that utterly useless class of wankers who spend their time swirling grape juice in glasses and then making up utterly pretentious bullshit about it. If there is someone who has less business sassing his betters it is someone whose livelihood consists of tossing out vital tidbits concocted in his mushy brain such as:

"This Shiraz has a plucky, ironic melancholy that reminds one of languid summer days spent watching the help sweating and toiling in their never-ending battle with the landscaping. It starts with a tinge of acacia brush from deepest Africa leading to an understanding of man's inhumanity to man, and finishes with the most astonishing wallop of sweaty bunghole."

Do the planet a favor Mr. DeBord and STFU about real men. Your attempt to portray Gen. Petraeus as a chickenhawk is the weakest of all arguments especially coming from someone who could only charitably be called even a girly man. Go back to your fern-filled loft and compare notes on the latest swill turned out by the grape-stompers. You need to leave the important business of who shall lead our country in war to those whose concept of it has progressed farther than fashion commentary about a man whose glass you are not fit to fill.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/27978068

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wine weasel critiques real man:

» Wine Critic Tries To Out Tough Guy Gen. Petraeus�Insulting Hilarity Ensues from Ace of Spades HQ
Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive has the full take down of this assclown but here�s a taste. Think about any of the generals you've seen in recent years -- Norman Schwarzkopf, Barry McCaffrey, Wesley Clark (all now retired) and others --... [Read More]

Comments

[Lands’nGrooves]

“Do the planet a favor Mr. DeBord and STFU about real men. Your attempt to portray Gen. Petraeus as a chickenhawk is the weakest of all arguments especially coming from someone who could only charitably be called even a girly man.”

You’ve said it all as far as I’m concerned UJ. No further input required.

[MaryAnn]

"brooches"? Oh, FFS.

Nice slapdown, UJ.

[Cynic]

Someday you'll tell us what you really think.

Hey, it's the LA Times. Whad'ya expect?!

[GrndPnd0311]

What could possibly be next?! Charmin CEO gone journalist to criticize our strategy and tactics on GWOT?! Just when I thought I had seen/heard it all....

[3starfamily]

There may be only one thing more pitiful than a libtard wine critic offering advice to a U.S. Armed Forces theater commander. That would be a U.S. citizen so bereft of knowledge about our military, that he thinks the criteria for a Class A uniform can be customized by the wearer. Kind of runs contrary to the word "uniform"??

[Tarheel]

Can you imagine Gen. Petraeus writing a critic of a wine tasting? "There sat young Matt DeBoard, like the proverbial Jody, sipping his swill. His Lewinsky beret slightly askew, horned-rimmed glasses perched precariously on the tip of his nose. An upside-down pink triangle over his left vest pocket seemed a bit too garrish for such an auspicious occasion. All I could think of was smashing him in the face with a bottle of Romanée-Conti."

[tankerbabelc]

I know it has been said a bazillion times and you know I don't wear blinders Uncle J but how in the heck can any American say such disgraceful things about ANYONE in our military? Oh, I know, I know, Freedom of Speech. Dang this makes me boiling mad. BOILING MAD!

Thanks for taking this ingrate to task friend. What a disgusting heap of organs and bones.

[MAJHAM]

Words actually fail me

[Deltabravo]

Your last sentence said it all, UJ! What do you expect of some ignoranus whose job consists of sampling wine and then spitting it out? What next? The movie critics writing for the auto page? The sports editor doing the crime beat? (Wait... that one might actually fit.)

LA Times is a laughingstock. They should be embarrassed. I hope they get such quantities of mail from Pendleton and surrounding parts that it drowns the editor in chief in assertions of his own stupidity.

[Some Soldier's Mom]

MaryAnn -- I said the same thing -- "brooches"??? and "martial bling"?? Does the guy even have a clue that you have to EARN all that "bling"??

Personally, sounds like a lot of ... um, "bling" and ... er, dangle envy...

[Howhurley]

Un freakin' believable. The man has a post-hole for a head.

[MAJHAM]

I found my voice long enough to call the LA Times at 213 237 5000 to explain that Matthew DeBord might want to stick to rating merlots and chianti. The lady on the phone kept trying to explain that "Mr. Debord is a free lance columnist" I guess that keeps them fro taking responsibility for the crap that is written.

[gekkobear]

You know, I may not be a professional critic, but I know what I like...

And that is some quality, grade-a high class Whine right there. No wonder he's a whine specialist...

Oh, Wine; like the drink? No, that doesn't make sense at all.

[defendusa]

I gotta love it, Uncle J...

"You need to leave the important business of who shall lead our country in war to those whose concept of it has progressed farther than fashion commentary about a man whose glass you are not fit to fill."

Just another armchair wine taster looking for his fifteen minutes...
Ya done good!" (Oops, that might rank for a bimbo bashing...ahahaha)
Yep, Ya done good.

[Old Tanker]

OMFG a freaking wine critic???

It starts with a tinge of acacia brush from deepest Africa leading to an understanding of man's inhumanity to man, and finishes with the most astonishing wallop of sweaty bunghole."

Holy shite Uncle J you owe me 2 new monitors, a keyboard, and I'll send the cleaning bill for the rest of my office after that rant.....one of your best sir!!!

[Synova]

I had to check... nope, not wearing the dangly medals, just the ribbon versions.

What I think they *ought* to do though, is get a different chair and table so that everyone testifying doesn't get the hunched suit-with-it's-own-backbone-and-shoulders affect that makes grown men with perfectly tailored uniforms (or suits!) look like a kid wearing his daddy's clothes.

[jordan]

Like an officer is allowed to accessorize himself depending on "mood" for the occasion. The idea that there might be regulations governing these things, or reasons for prominent display of patches, doesn't seem to enter into Matthew's discussion.

But then, they always forget that the military is there to fight and win wars, not entertain our effete elite.

Maybe he was drunk when he wrote it, and the doublevision made it look like there was more brass there than there was.

[jordan]

Synova, agreed, and I also don't like how the witness tables are so much lower than the Senators' panel.

Next time, they should raise it up til it's closer to even. Makes them look like errant schoolboys looking up at Mom after disobeying something.

[Beth]

What a f*cking ASSHAT!!!

Have some fun with his Amazon review (of his own book!).

What a miserable clown!

[Scott]

Maybe someone ought to find a copy of Gen. Petreaus' service record and list of awards, then shove it down DeBord's throat far enough so he will need a proctologist to retrieve it.

After he reads it, ya think he'll write an apology? Naww... I don't think so either. Typical of the LA Times tho', and I always consider the source.

[redc1c4]

"respected and fair chronicler of news"???? that must be a different "LA Times" than the one printed here in Lost Angels..... there's a reason Patterico calls it the "Dog Trainer".

http://patterico.com/category/dog-trainer/

[tankerbrosbrat]

I went and looked at this *reporters* bio on the book review. It seems that he had a birthday recently, complete with his own "wish list". MY wish would be that whine reviewers do not step in to arenas that they are obviously unqualified for. Also, maybe his dog Cooper would be more able to show respect for his betters.

Sad, sad, sad!

[Steve O.]

Uncle J;

This proves yet again that liberalism is a mental disorder. I actually find the condition of liberalism quite comical. It amazes me how these people can have their heads shoved up their own asses for so long. What's wrong with people? I ask myself. It really is astonishing.

Nice take on it too Uncle J. Although you could have left out the part about the sweaty bunghole, even though that is precisely what he was thinking:-)

[Laughing Wolf]

I just sent an e-mail to the editor and the reader's rep at the LASlimes:

Greetings,

If the research, knowledge, and accuracy of Mr. Debord's recent column are representative of his wine writings, it might be good to suggest that he stick with concord grapes until such time as he can master the intricacies of scuppernongs. For even this lowly civilian knows that the "martial bling" being described is required by regulation to be worn on a Class A uniform; and, that not a single bit of it -- possibly unlike Mr. DeBords outfits -- merits being called a brooch in any way than on a strained technicality.

As for the salubrious speciousness that is the rest of the piece, I would note the following:

Class A uniforms are required for speaking to Congress, and not for accepting surrender from an enemy on the field of battle (I would note the many apple/orange comparisons, but I doubt the intellect or the pallet to understand the distinction on the part of Mr. DeBord).

For a strongly implied chickenhawk slur, it is not wise to follow by listing a general who to the best of my knowledge, for all that he accomplished as a soldier and a president, never saw combat. One might also do a quick search to check the type of uniform being worn by these other generals, as well as the regulations for what was required to be worn at the time -- as well as what ribbons had been earned.

For a strongly implied chickenhawk slur, one might want to note Ranger tab, Bronze Star, Combat Action Badge (admittedly, not the CIB), Master Parachutist Badge, and Air Assault Badges. While many may question the wisdom of those who jump out of running airplanes, it does not do to question their bravery; nor, do the other awards I've noted indicate that chicken is anything other than a meal for them.

One might also lean that all of the showiness of the military uniform is governed by regulation, not just some of it. The number of stars has nothing to do with it, nor do they have any say on such "matters of peacockery" that go with each of the four types of uniform.

When writing an opinion column for any paper or outlet, it behooves one to do some basic research and exercise somber, sober thought. For failure of such sobriety tends to result in showing an extreme modesty of intellect, research capabilities, and reason; leading, for this reader at least, that the writer is better suited to whines than to wines, and has neither the capability or ability to distinguish the topics of the day, much less a Tokay from a Chardonnay.

You are not to be commended for running such drivel, guest column or no.

C. Blake Powers
occasional wine reviewer
previous skydiver
Civilian-In-Residence
http://www.blackfive.net

I would also note to UJ that I use a Mac myself... For any who take issue with my choice of grapes above, I will note that my parents grew scuppernongs (muscadines) and we did indeed make wine from them -- some d****d good wine at that

LW

[mindy1]

You have all said it for me, so i'll just say I concurr with all of you.

[Deltabravo]

Great idea, Beth. LW, I'm partial to a good moscato myself. A grand letter to the Times. It's all the same issue we were discussing the other day with respect to the MOH. The MSM just doesn't CARE about the details. The LA Times editors must have been asleep at the switch to let that get by. Either that, or they lost their blue pencils.

[HokiePundit]

I've not served in the military, but is it possible that this guy has at least a partial point? I could be mistaken, and I apologize if so, but doesn't the Navy allow the wearing of only the top few rows of ribbons under certain circumstances? If the military allows the wearing of ribbons instead of full medals, it doesn't seem (to me) beyond reason to suggest that a four-star general need only show the top however-many rows of decorations.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that when Congressmen see a huge wall of ribbons they're not so much impressed as made to feel defensive. We don't want that: we govern with the legislators we've got, not the ones we wish we had. I'm not saying we should send generals in wearing Brooks Brothers suits, but it's possible that this critic is suggesting what might be a reasonable compromise (and a way to win the hearts and minds of our supposed allies in Congress).

[Rich Casebolt]

To borrow some words once uttered out of respect and honor for the great James T. Kirk.

Would you leave us, Mr. DeBord? The thoughts of one Man to another cannot possibly interest you.

[jordan]

"Modesty of intellect." Very nice.

I've always thought the ribbons were meant to show the person's resume and training so that -- at a glance -- they're instantly "understood" by peers or leaders, especially useful in the event of a crisis situation.

In the smoke, fog and chaos of battle, large, prominently displayed patches quickly signal who you are and where you belong. If that's true, I can see how such requirements might elude a wine critic.

[Action Hero Sock Puppet]

I won't defend the op-ed because it was stupid. But I would say that the author of the opinion piece is NOT a reporter and he doesn't work for the LAT.

He also seems like a complete pussy.

As for the certainty of a resident civilian "expert" on Army Class A uniforms and the wearing of Decorations, Service Medals, Badges, Unit Awards, and Appurtenances, I would direct everyone to 29-2 of AR 670-1:

"Awards are worn at the option of the wearer when not prohibited during normal duty hours. Personnel also may
wear awards on appropriate uniforms when off duty. Personnel are encouraged to wear authorized awards on the service, dress, and mess uniforms."

Commanders MAY order the wearing of awards for "(p)arades, reviews, inspections, and funerals" plus "(c)eremonial and social occasions," but without such an order the Soldier is "encouraged," not mandated, to wear them.

Different regulations control the wearing of state ARNG ribbons, medals and whatnot while on activated service.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the general wearing all the ribbons, medals and badges he's received while serving his nation.

It sure beats him wearing a dusty ACU from OIF. Is that less intimidating for Senators?

And while it's true that the vast majority of his ribbons and medals are not tied to his conduct in combat (he didn't face enemy fire until OIF), his CAB recognizes his conduct in combat and that salient fact should've been emphasized by the op-ed page's editors.

They likely will issue a clarification or correction.

"In the smoke, fog and chaos of battle, large, prominently displayed patches quickly signal who you are and where you belong."

Not much fighting is done in the Class A uniform. With the wearing of SAPIs, K-pod, ACUs and the rest of the kit, one is hard pressed to discern rank during the "chaos of battle," much less determine how many ribbons a colleague has or make much sense of them during house clearing.

We didn't even wear the same combat patches, and CIBs are NOT authorized with the ACUs while on the battlefield. They are applied only upon leaving OIF for leave or redeployment.

[Moe]

AHSP said "I won't defend the op-ed because it was stupid. But I would say that the author of the opinion piece is NOT a reporter and he doesn't work for the LAT."

What a racket, Matthew Debord got paid for that opinion !
If you want to let the LA Times know what you're thinking here is a Deputy Editor's email Susan.Brennenman@latimes.com
or write a response letter (under 250 words) to letters@latimes.com

[jordan]

Thanks, AH -- just guessing.

My, this fashion review of the latest in uniforn accessorizing has been most scintillating.

[Moe]

Correction on the deputy editor's email. Three calls to the LA Times to get it right. Maybe they don't want any emails LOL

susan.brenneman@latimes.com

[Kat-Missouri/USA]

It sure beats him wearing a dusty ACU from OIF. Is that less intimidating for Senators?

I don't know about "less intimidating", but sometimes I think it would be nice to see Petraeus stride into congress in his dusty, stinky DCUs, sit down at the table, look impatiently at his watch 90 times as all the speechifying goes on and then begin his remarks with "Let's make this quick. I have a war to run."

[Old Tanker]

Socky,

I can't challenge the CIB as you've stated but once awardedon the first tour, doesn't it stay on for good?? I knew guys from Desert Storm/Shield that won their CIBS from Greneda and Panama and they stayed on during Storm/shield.

Hokie,

While I can't comment on Navy, there are many here that can back me up. During Class A inspections we were expected to wear everything that was awarded to us. Since it is clear on the spacing of ribbons as worn we would by "boards" or "racks" or whatever you wish to call them that would hold our exact number of ribbons in a single "board" so that the spacing was perfect. This allowed you to pin on the whole kit as one piece. To take them off, rearrange them in proper order, and have the right sized "board" to put them all back on is a big ol' pain in the a$$. We simply didn't do it. We always pinned the whole kit on.

[Laughing Wolf]

Kat, I would pay good money to see that. :) Of course, the apoplexy that would result amongst Congress and REMFs would be entertaining too (and possibly improving of both groups with those shuffled off thereby)

LW

[1charlie2]

I really can't imagine a flag rank officer testifying before congress and not wearing all the tinsel and fruit salad he's entitled to. I can't say for certain, since I was USAF, not Army, but I never would have been allowed to attend any formal ceremony without wearing "the bling" (to translate for the whiner author).

And AHSP, can you imagine ANY airborne-qualified soldier, sailor, airman, or marine NOT wearing his ice-cream badge ? That's just heresy. It might even be a crime :)

[Old Tanker]

1charlie2

I wore everything I won.....although I may have been a row or so short Of Gen. Petreaus ;-)

[Cannoneer No4]

At least he doesn't have to wear pogey ropes.

[Cincinnati_Bob]

At the risk of sounding like a groupie UJ, LOL!

Hey, you should think about doing some wine critquery. I thought your analysis of the hypothetical concoction was spot on!

[defendusa]

I read the Fred thing and oh... that is too funny. I loved this line:
"You know what else has a long history? Ad hominem attacks. Seriously. That dude Aristotle invented that shit. He said that when you can't defeat someone's ideas, message, or argument, you can defeat him by making personal attacks. As in: You're wrong about that math problem, little Jimmy, because you're a homosexual; or you're wrong about affirmative action, Steven, because you're a negro; or you're wrong about the war in Iraq because you used to sleep with Code Pink chicks, Matt. Well played, Matt, well played. Now go shimmy on up to Medea Benjamin and see if she likes your friction."

[Cincinnati_Bob]

Jordon: Like an officer is allowed to accessorize himself depending on "mood" for the occasion.

Not for long. Pelosi has a bill in the Senate to allow accessorizing visiting military so as to be more pleasing to the eye during pretend grilling adventures.

[18Echo]

With the Combat Infantryman Badge riding on top.. Yeah, they just give those away for advanced wine tasting..

Bling my rosy red A**. I'm really struggling to ratchet the language out of an old Army mans vernacular..

You Army folks know that what I'm saying below is *not* how I'd say it in real life.. :-) fill in the words as you see fit..

This *man* needs to understand that any clerk typis in Iraq is 10 no 100 times the man of this little pissant. I'm willing to bet most anything that this sad little creature has never served his country in any capacity, ever, but feels fully qualified to judge and comment on the better men that protect his right so spew this drivel.

.
OTOH, my daughter is talking Air Force.. I know, I know. the shame.. but they do have good chow and I've known a few of them that were all right..

Even she is 10 times the man he is..

If he was on fire I wouldn't cross the street to piss on him.

[Old Tanker]

18Echo,

I'll give it a shot.....

*man* = shitbird...

clerk typis = REMF's or I believe they are now called "Fobbits"

this sad little creature - his goat smellin'ass

"but feels fully qualified to judge and comment on the better men" = Sandpaper a Tigers' ass in a phone booth......

How's that?

[JoeS]

Someone mentioned:

www.patterico.com

The blog is dedicated to criticizing the daily bilge from LA Slimes. Maybe it is time for the people of LA to start picking up their neighbor's paper and throwing it in the trash.

Uncle Jimbo, Yours comments are truly above Pulitzer Award caliber! I cannot add a thing.

This a$$hat is not the worst they have...

[Valerie]

All this LA Times article tells me is that this former editor for the Wine Spectator is a fake. He obviously thinks that there is no such thing as genuine expertise on any subject. It could be that he learned this while trying to pass himself off as a oenophile. Just put him in the class of pseudointellectuals, and forget him, he doesn't have the intellectual firepower to make a "pop" with a cap gun.

[promoguy]

Geez louise, I missed that editorial. Guess it's because I cancelled my subscription a couple of years ago.

Try it. It ain't hard.

[Jim]

AHSP,

Doesn't the editor have an obligation to make sure that what DeBord puts out is factually correct? I thought that's what editors were for in the "unbiased" (my rosy red a$$) MSM?

Jim C

[douglas]

"Personnel are encouraged to wear authorized awards on the service, dress, and mess uniforms."

One would expect then, that a Commanding General would feel obliged to do as his subordinates are 'encouraged' to do. That would simply be good leadership.

And yes, I'd love to see them at eye level to the Senators, but then some of the legislators might get nervous.

Those rooms are set up like that for a reason- you're supposed to feel and look intimidated and small. I'd love to see Petraeus sit on the front edge of his chair and be as big and as imposing as possible. And not be quite so polite and patient (although always professional). None the less, he and Crocker still made those clowns look ridiculous.

[douglas]

"Eisenhower wears a single row of ribbons"

Can't even get his facts straight, much less his understanding of them.

Here is a picture of Ike with a six row rack.

Nice beatdown by Fred, too.

[TheNewGuy]

Holy smokes... that beatdown by Fred...

W(h)ine boy should stick to what he knows... and Army regs and Uniform Standards ain't it.

[Action Hero Sock Puppet]

First, most newspapers do NOT pay for op-eds. They are submitted freely much like letters to the editor. If LAT had a different policy they probably should disclose it. But at most newspapers, it's a freebie reserved for people of some note in a field of interest to the public.

I'm not sure Mr. DeBord's expertise on fashion, but perhaps he has some. Some of what he wrote was cribbed from a London story last year that I actually thought was a good use of reporting: What do all those ribbons and stinkin' badges mean?

For a public divorced largely from the military experience, it was a good photographic essay on exactly what those awards are for. He also makes a point many WWI and WWII vets made about Vietnam guys: There's been some serious medal inflation.

While I'm proud of my combat service over the years, beginning with the USMC and then in the USA, I have more medals and ribbons than guys who stormed Tarawa. For many USA vets in WWII, when the wearing of medals/ribbons also was optional, many infantrymen chose to go home sporting simply their CIB.

Personally, for all the awards I've received in the USA and USMC, the one that's always impressed me the most if the CAR or CIB. When you see that, respectively, on a Marine (or Sailor) or a Soldier, it means something. It puts you into a band of brothers. It's so special in the Army that it goes atop all the rest, across the chest, in a blazing silver and blue badge that remains to this day a very beautiful award.

The USMC takes the CIB so seriously, it automatically converts to their CAR is the Soldier later becomes a Marine. While there was some controversy with the awarding of CIBs to one brigade in OIF, in my experience it requires multiple witnesses attesting to the Soldier's role in a "personal" engagement under fire. Not only must he receive that fire, but he must respond to it in an honorable fashion.

Again, it means something.

The next award I'll linger on is the Purple Heart, which predates Napoleon and puts to some dispute the wine critic's truncated knowledge of how our citizen soldiers have valued their combat awards over the years.

On a final point, GEN Petraeus wears the Combat Action Badge, not the Combat Infantryman Badge. There's a rank cutoff for earning the CIB. It was determined in WWII that special consideration should be paid to the infantryman because, then as now, it's the most dangerous job on the battlefield and the one that is the most physically and emotionally draining.

In my experience, the criteria I've seen for awarding the CIB has been higher than some I've noticed for the Combat Action Badge (CAB) for non-infantry MOSs. That said, I have written statements supporting the awarding of CABs for personnel, and I wouldn't put my name to the paper if they didn't earn it much like an infantryman would.

We reserve the CIB today for those in the 11-series MOS, plus Airborne, Ranger and SF personnel. The Combat Medical Badge also has a long battlefield pedigree and equally is esteemed for medics who brave fire to save the lives of fellow Soldiers.

GEN Petraeus, much like GEN Casey, Jr., became officers after Vietnam. By the time Desert Storm or Somalia rolled around, they either never deployed in a combat billet or had achieved rank too high for the awarding of the CIB (in WWII, it was reserved for regimental ranks and below, and today it largely affects brigade commanders on down, and they still must directly come under enemy fire and respond appropriately).

If you're a LTC and below today in the USA with an infantry MOS and you don't have a CIB, the troops will notice. But they won't notice while you're in your ACUs.

In the past with our BDUs and DCUs, a fabric CIB could be sewn onto the blouse. With the new ACUs, the CIB is a black metal badge. It's not allowed to be worn while in battle dress in OIF. There are practical reasons for this. Anyone who has ever worn SAPIs will tell you that they will scratch the badge to a shiny gold within minutes. Also, it would be uncomfortable to have a badge pressed into your chest while laboring under the plates.

Third, if you're eating chow with an infantry company on a COP or JP in Baghdad and you're wearing your CIB you're probably just appearing to be a total tool, because every guy there has earned a CIB, probably in his first of several deployments, and the senior NCOs likely have a star atop theirs from Panama, Desert Storm or Somalia.

[HFD]

AHSP,
Please don't try and defend this one. It is easily the stupidest editorial I've ever seen and the LA Times should take full responsibility for what they decide is worthy of their op-ed page. Hell, I might be the only liberal around here too, and even I think this is complete trash.

[Action Hero Sock Puppet]

I agree it's complete trash, HFD. But it wasn't written by a reporter and it didn't go through the normal editing requirements that would've better vetted it.

Plus, the guy seems to be a complete pussy to me. The better story to which he alludes was done last year by the Times of London as was actually, I thought, kind of important for non-military people who wouldn't know what all those awards are.

Heck, if you were to take off my ribbons and put them into a jumble on a table, I'd have a hard time remembering what everyone was and, especially, their order of importance. That's what the AR is for.

[MegaTroopX]

lone and incongruous hunk of cheap plastic in a region of pristine gilt

Actually, that "hunk of cheap plastic" is an indicator of one of the great things about our military - The equality. Doesn't matter if you're a PV1 or a GEN, you're all in the same Army.

But this elitist twit couldn't possibly get that.

[Deltabravo]

MegaTroopX, the writer is undoubtedly ignorant about that little plastic nametag that everyone gets. If it only cost $1 to make one, emboss the name on it and send it out, imagine the cost of nametags alone to the vast US Military, all branches.

Now, imagine if the US Military was to make them out of something that fit in with the rest of the "pristine gilt" at, say, $10 apiece. First, that would look faggy. But regardless of that, imagine those same people would raise a hue and cry about the waste of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to give nametags to all the servicemen and women... while children go to bed hungry across America, or some such comments. They would then demand the US military issue plain black plastic nametags with simple white script at a much lower price... say $1 apiece.

You can't win with some people. Don't even try.

[Moe]

AHSP said "First, most newspapers do NOT pay for op-eds. They are submitted freely much like letters to the editor. If LAT had a different policy they probably should disclose it. But at most newspapers, it's a freebie reserved for people of some note in a field of interest to the public."

You know that was what I thought until yesterday when I called the LA Times. in the conversation I said I know you didn't pay for this piece, and their response was "We pay all our writers." I clarified it was an opinion piece, and was told "We pay all our writers" Three times I queried, three times I got the same response.

Today when I read your post I thought they got the email wrong
maybe they got the " We pay all our writers " wrong too. So I called back, spoke with Deidre in the Op-Ed section (wonderful customer service skills, she may be the best thing about the LATIMES)who explained that they offer anyone from whom they accept an opinion piece an honorarium . I asked her if there was a price range. She made it seem like the minimum would be $100.00 and that they would pay more for a writer they knew. She did say they wouldn't pay $250,000.00 and that the writer wouldn't get rich off of the honorarium. Deidre said it's worked out between the writer and the editor and the writer could decline to accept the honorarium. So may be Matthew Debord said no keep your money! What odds do you think Matthew Debord saying "No" to the money would get in Vegas? Whatever the honorarium, I think for that "stupid" opinion piece a quarter seems too much!

[Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF]

The General was REPRESENTING the UNITED STATES ARMY therefore his uniform and accruements were more than appropriate. I will say that out of all the branches, the Army Class A's have to be the most decorated and embellished. I always figured it's because the US Army is the OLDEST branch of the military.

[SFCMAC]

Here's my love note to the girly man:

Dear Matthew,
I read your faggoty hissy fit on General Petraeus, and all things considered, not the least of which is your mealy-mouthed penchant for denigrating people far better than you, you're not fit to carry his jock or lick the boots of a real Soldier.
Stick with what you do best; critiquing whatever bottled douche comes out of France this year, before you use it.

[Uncle Jimbo]

SFC MAC,

I am the king of name-calling here at B5, despite that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. We all know what they are and when you use fighting words like you did you do not help the cause. I don't care what you think or say in private or elsewhere in public, but I would appreciate some respect for this forum and for all people if you are going to comment. I will not delete your comment, but ask that you refrain from slurs that are inappropriate and in my mind low.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[SFCMAC]

Uncle J,

So, I guess the following comments from some of the posters are not considered 'crossing the line', 'slurs' or 'low'.

Posted by: jordan | April 10, 2008 at 01:52 PM

What a f*cking ASSHAT!!!

Posted by: HFD | April 11, 2008 at 08:58 AM

Plus, the guy seems to be a complete pussy to me.

Posted by: jordan | April 10, 2008 at 05:14 PM

I won't defend the op-ed because it was stupid. But I would say that the author of the opinion piece is NOT a reporter and he doesn't work for the LAT.
He also seems like a complete pussy.

I always have respect and will exhibit polite decorum for those deserving. Matthew DeBord does not deserve either. I'm an Iraq war vet and retired Soldier with 30 years combined service. I've had it to here with--dare I say it--"pussies" like him. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. I am unapologetically blunt and un-PC. If that is unacceptable, then I will refrain from submitting further comments. You own the site, so you set the rules.

Sincerely,

SFC MAC

[Uncle Jimbo]

Hey Mac,

As I mentioned I am name-caller in chief around here, but we all do know which words are beyond the pale. We try very hard to allow everyone to exercise their First Amendment rights, but we also try just as hard to avoid giving ammo to those who paint the right as intolerant. Calling someone a pussy is mean, but it does not rise to the level of fighting words and it deals with his actions as a crap writer, whine critic and all around wuss.

I would love to have you around and I believe you will enjoy the content and the commentary. But I don't think it is PC to show some restraint and to limit attacks to the many available epithets in usage.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[jordan]

Hey!? That wasn't me! I'm horrified. I would never use that..."p"...word. See, I can't even write it.

Commenters names appear below, not above, the comment. I demand reparations!

[Laughing Wolf]

SFCMAC, I will echo what Jimbo has said and feel you owe Jordan a beer (or drink of his choice) in apology for wrongly naming him in your post. That said, please consider the following:

First, we do try to keep this blog and its comments as family friendly as possible. This is a long-standing tradition, because we have had a lot of family members of those serving, immediate or extended, come here to get information. We try to show them the respect due to them (as opposed to some who post here who get the "With all due respect..." in its useful meaning). It is courtesy, it is consideration of others (and a means of acknowledging that others are real, which not all who comment here do believe), it is respect.

Second, we do have trolls here. Aside from the obvious ones, there are also those who come here to create problems or to discredit not just this blog, but milblogs (and by extension, all blogs) out of fear. Some do this by what can be termed false flag operations, coming in and talking in a bigoted and profane way as they imagine barbarians who are troops/conservatives/etc. would talk. Said comment can then be pointed to if it is allowed to stand/stand unchallenged to give basis to the claim that such is how everyone who posts here feels ("See what bigots they are!") Some are easy to spot, others not so much. Some, I suspect are paid in one coin or another (money, power, outside-directed self-gratification).

When one comes in as you did, it raises flags for being less than family friendly and for other considerations. If you are as you say, then I hope you will moderate your words to show respect to our readers (and to the host) and add to the discourse here rather than to provide ammunition to those who would deny discourse and seek to eliminate such forums as this site. Just some food for thought.

LW

[SFCMAC]

Re:
Commenters names appear below, not above, the comment. I demand reparations!

Posted by: jordan | April 11, 2008 at 09:07 PM

Jordan,
Mea Culpa and duly noted. I owe you a beer.

Laughing Wolf,

I understand the term "false flag", being a former Intel Analyst and Psyop person. I'm the kinda gal that usually has the same approach regardless of the site, which doesn't endear me to those who dislike what I (and we) stand for in the first place. Just the mere appearance of patriotism and anger over the likes of DeBord can and do ellicit the standard "bigot" or "barbarian" crap from leftwingnutbags. Eh, that's alright, because I have a few choice descriptions for them as well, which I use freely on my own blog. But, I digress. In any case, your point is well taken.

The best for last:

Uncle Jimbo,

In the future, I will tailor my posts to include the epithets acceptable on your particular site. I apologize, but sometimes it's hard to know where the line is, when it keeps geting moved. My forte is biting, sarcastic, blunt humor and speech, which may or may not translate very well, depending on the target audience.
I have to admit that I am intolerant; especially when it comes to nihilists who hate the country and military, but continue to reap the benefits and remain here just to let everyone know they're so miserable. I used to possess a modicum of restraint until the leftwing moonbats crawled out of the woodwork after the 2000 election. After witnessing the vile nastiness they spewed, I could no longer maintain the status quo, so I traded in my kid gloves for brass knuckles. Hence, the abrasive language. In anycase, I have visited your site often, I do enjoy the commentary, and have posted on here before. I will moderate future comments as best I can without being too risque.

Sincerely,
SFC MAC

[Laughing Wolf]

Speaking for me, I look forward to your participation in the comments.

LW

[Ledger]

I agree with UJ that the LA Times and their wine weenie Matthew Debord deserve a good smack down.

If you have ever followed the LA Times you will recognize the classic hit job when you see it.

They hire some free lance liberal lily to do a drive by smear job on a respected military man then the lily is gone like a cool breeze. The smear job has been completed – which is all the LA Times cares about – Debord gets his pay check.

Personally, I think DeBord can sit on his wine bottle and rotate.