Suffolk (MA) University Law School professor Michael Avery tells us:

I think it is shameful that it is perceived as legitimate to solicit in an academic institution for support for men and women who have gone overseas to kill other human beings. I understand that there is a residual sympathy for service members, perhaps engendered by support for troops in World War II, or perhaps from when there was a draft and people with few resources to resist were involuntarily sent to battle. That sympathy is not particularly rational in today’s world, however.


But wait, he has more to say:


Since Sept. 11 we have had perhaps the largest flag in New England hanging in our atrium. This is not a politically neutral act. Excessive patriotic zeal is a hallmark of national security states… Why do we continue to have this oversized flag in our lobby?


That kind of “civil-military divide” cannot be breached. Suffolk University Law School should consider carefully just whom they allow in the front of their classrooms. One has to wonder if Professor Avery could explain his views to a man such as this. I have my doubts.

Posted by UltimaRatioReg in Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, History, Homeland Security, Marine Corps

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Someone should really make sure this guy has a passport and then fund his travels for four months. He cannot stay more than one week in any nation.

    One exception to his travels – he cannot travel in the Western Hemisphere, any EU state, member of NATO, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Israel, or South Africa. Any island nation with a population of less than 5-million is out of bounds as well.

    Each place he visits he has to host an open seminar on the subject of the dangers of ” Excessive patriotic zeal” in the host nation he is visiting at that moment in time. Prior to each lecture, his is not allowed to have access to a cell phone or recording devices present.

    That should fix his little red wagon. As openers, on his agenda I would suggest Belarus, the Central African Republic, Turkmenistan, Iran, Burma, and North Korea if he can manage it.

    Good luck!

  • How much Federal Funding does his school receive?

    The basis for Federal Funding of colleges/universities is to provide education for officers for the active, guard, and reserve…

  • Diogenes of NJ

    In a time of fiscal austerity, I fear that we can no longer allow university endowments to go untaxed. A rate equal to the corporate tax rate would be fair. The funds raised could be directed to the DOEd to administer the tax and to collect student loans.

    Not only would it go a long way in invigorating the University with a dose of reality; the feedback loop thus created would doubtlessly solve the underlying problem (one way or another).

    Don’t forget – it’s for the children.

    – Kyon

  • Eagle1

    He has the right to express his opinion – unlike many of the people in countries freed from tyranny by U.S. forces dispatched by the civilian leadership of this country.

    He may teach Constitutional law – but missed that part about how the civilian part of our government controls how and where the military goes, what it does and how long it stays. I wonder if he votes for the president, a member of the House and his senators?

    I wonder he has looked at various treaties that call for us to have bases “overseas?”

    He probably has a nice house and clean drinking water – unlike the victims of the Christmas Tsunami or the last Haiti earthquake. Remember the aid delivered by the U.S. military. That wasn’t a “law school” sitting off Haiti, professor, nor was it a gaggle of lawyers delivering food and water to Banda Aceh . . . or flocks of attorneys on the US Navy Hospital Ships Mercy and Comfort.

    He probably doesn’t need to worry about pirates taking over his yacht and killing him or his family or holding them hostage for months on end – unlike yachtsmen and merchant sailor in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean.

    He probably doesn’t worry about his medical care and doesn’t know about the military led medical visits to Africa and Central and South America.

    He probably can buy things in stores and doesn’t know about the “Christmas Drops” of necessities to Pacific Islanders.

    He probably teaches something like environmental law but has never been on an enforcement team with the Coasties. Or gone out in a hurricane to rescue some idiot who failed to heed the warnings.

    He probably wasn’t on the Gulf Coast after Katrina and missed all those military ships and helicopters and Seabees down there helping. He probably missed the news stories of Navy helicopters rescuing farmers in North Carolina after a hurricane flooded their lands . . .

    He probably has never heard a shot fired in anger because of his heritage and missed all that “post Cold War” stuff in Somalia, Rwanda, the Balkans, etc.” I guess he didn’t get the part about “Blackhawk Down” that our forces were there to help get food to starving people . . .

    I guess his oil supply wasn’t interrupted by the mines in the Arabian Gulf, the attacks on the tankers, on the Kuwait and Iraqi oil terminals – so he doesn’t remember Roberts and Stark.

    I guess he has a TV, but probably missed watching the coverage where Saddam’s forces invaded Kuwait and came damn close to bagging the Saudis and that’s why we had to liberate Kuwait in Gulf War I.

    I guess he missed the part his history courses that explain why we have bases in Japan, Korea and Germany and why, when asked, we left our bases in the Philippines. I wonder if thinks Guam and Hawaii are “overseas” or part of America? I wonder if he could find Diego Garcia on a map?

    I guess he missed those “global force for good” ads and doesn’t understand that Marine thing about “no better friend . . .”

    In fact, the sad part of his comments is not that he made them, that but his underlying outrage is based in such ignorance.

  • Byron

    He needs to do convoy duty for a while in Afghanistan…and then spend six months on an FFG or a sub. This jackass has no clue what military men and women are like. The youngsters would probably kick his ass just for being a flipping idiot

  • Derrick

    Can someone submit his comments to the Dept of Education for reveal? Last I heard it was wrong for a teacher to push a political agenda in a classroom.

    Better yet, why not just file a law suit? He states that the military has sent men and women overseas to kill other human beings. That is simply false. The US military was sent by a democratically elected President to protect US national security interests. It is just a sad byproduct that people died in the process.

    I wouldn’t get emotional over a few comments. People that are admitted to post secondary institutions are smart enough to know an idiot when they hear/see one. 😉

  • Matt Yankee

    I know this line of thinking well. It is based first and foremost in his own contempt of self for being a coward. He hates himself more than he hates the military. He’s like the troll in the movie 300 only his disability exists within his mind. Also sad to think some kids might be influenced to think such trash. Not right.

  • “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

  • Grandpa Bluewater

    M.Ittleschmerz: Well said.

    That said, I (we, I trust?) are under no requirement to respect the judgement, intelligence, or grasp of reality of anyone who would spout such damnfool nonsense.

    I assume the man is demented or was drunk, so that I may have the best possible opinion of him after making such a statement. Perhaps his meds interacted with a really bad run of rotgut moonshine whiskey.

  • Byron

    “I assume the man is demented or was drunk, so that I may have the best possible opinion of him after making such a statement. Perhaps his meds interacted with a really bad run of rotgut moonshine whiskey.”

    And probably still has his card from the CPUSA….

  • Gramps – ah, but my commentary is as much about the “he’s an idiotic drunk” retorts as it is to some of Avery’s comments.

    Reread the whole thing, and then reread it again. There’s nothing in there that is that patently offensive. His “killers” statement is fairly accurate and true. His questions of “why the troops and not those hurting at home” are rational and sound.

    So, why the knee jerk vitriol from the commenters here? Almost every comment here has been “he” not “his argument”. He has an opinion, so what. So does everyone. But why not argue the merits of the opinion rather than cast aspersions on the individual who made the statement?

  • alfred_the_great

    Glad to see the vaunted First Amendment applies only to those you agree with. And you wander why he criticises you?

  • Eagle1

    Well, M, why don’t you start the defense of his comments by justifying the “kill people” comment?

    Are you suggesting, as he is, that the sole reason for our troops deploying is to kill people? The exact quote is, “I think it is shameful that it is perceived as legitimate to solicit in an academic institution for support for men and women who have gone overseas to kill other human beings. ” If so, I would suggest we suck at that job, as there are still a lot of people alive out there including thousands that we captured on the battlefield and turned loose.

    If, on the other hand, our mission was defend our country, as ordered by our civilian leaders, by killing those people who were trying to kill and replacing their government while helping to build up the infrastructure of their nations which we can turn over to elected officials of their choosing and then leave, what is the point in describing our troops as he did? You want vitriol? Re-read that portion of his letter again.

    Given the massive numbers of troops deployed to rebuild damaged infrastructure (or build it in some cases) and help establish the rule of law, accompanied by billions of dollars in financial aid – it seems awfully shallow to lump them all together with his phrase “to kill other human beings.” If we were simply killers, one or two small nukes would have done the job in a very short period.

    As far as being a “war prone” country since the end of the Cold War? His quote: “In the last ten years we have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary foreign invasions.” Well, oddly enough, we were attacked 10 years ago and responded to remove regimes that supported that attack. I don’t know, perhaps the professor felt we shouldn’t have attacked Iraq just because they violated most of the agreements made after Gulf War I – although surely a law professor ought to understand that punishment for such violations eventually must be more than a strongly worded letter of protest. Disturbed by the lack of “weapons of mass destruction?” Even a first year law student should understand that when Saddam said he had them that constituted evidence that was used against him.

    Don’t like the invasion of Iraq? News flash: The troops didn’t order themselves to deploy. They followed orders from elected civilians and a vote in Congress. You want to withhold support of those giving the orders? Don’t give money to our elected representatives and vote them out of office. But why not support some 19 year old soldier in the field who was 9 years old when that civilian decision was made or at least politely refuse to donate?

    In the Balkans, we were part of UN force, in Somalia part of a UN force, in Libya we were part of a NATO force, in Kuwait we responded to the invasion of ally by Iraq and were joined by a large coalition. In the waters of the Arabian Gulf, to hazards to our vital national interests and to our allies.

    War prone? World policeman may be a better term . . .

    As far his remark, “Excessive patriotic zeal is a hallmark of national security states.” Nice talking point for those who want to imply that any show of patriotism is a prelude to the rise of the Nazi state here in the U.S. – I would say that excess cynacism about patriotism is a hallmark of a closed mind who can’t seem to understand why some people love the freedoms of this country enough to do something simple like fly a flag in appreciation. Last time I checked, there are no Gestapo agents mandating goose-stepping conformity around here.

    I just wish he had as much respect for the free speech and association rights of the people who solicited donations and had honored those rights by ignoring the email instead of going all political and demanding everyone else conform to his view of things. All he does is preach: “I think it is shameful . . .” “Perhaps some of my colleagues will consider this to be an inappropriate political statement. But of course the solicitation email was a political statement, although cast as support for student activities. The politics of that solicitation are that war is legitimate, perhaps inevitable, and that patriotic Americans should get behind our troops. ” “We need to be more mindful of what message we are sending as a school.””Why are we sending support to the military instead of Americans who are losing their homes, malnourished, unable to get necessary medical care, and suffering from other consequences of poverty?”

    I find all of that “patently offensive.” You, of course, can hold you own opinion.

  • Diogenes of NJ

    As an authority on the Constitution, professor Michael Avery understands that the 1st Amendment protects him from the Government (as in Congress shall make no law…).

    It doesn’t protect him from me.

    A man who will not stand for something, will fall for anything.

    – Kyon

  • Eagle1 – sure. But, honestly, I think people are seeking offense here rather than taking offense.

    When we, as military professionals, go overseas we DO tend to go forth and kill people. Plain and simple fact. We might dress it up in other words, but that is part of the mission set. Getting offended when someone states such, just because one doesn’t like how its said, is silly.

    He’s got a beef with the “support the troops” stuff. Newsflash, so do a lot of other people – some of them troops!

    Anyway…paraphrasing what I have been told is a Ben Franklin saying – if both of us agree on everything, then one of us is irrelevant.

    None of us should strive to be irrelevant – but I do think we should be able to debate the merits (which you did, Eagle1), and the not the individual. For me the latter is a sure sign of a weak argument.

  • Let me try to be clearer. What the professor has done is libel the troops. He states it is “shameful” to support our troops because they are nothing but killers. It is this libel which has stirred the anger against the professor and his words.

    While it is partially true that our missions may require us to kill people, it is more true that any killing is not done simply for killing’s sake (unlike, say, that sort of “sport” undertaken by Saddam’s sons).

    If in the process of taking Fallujah (deemed by higher authority as necessary part of the pacification of Iraq), the enemy had surrendered or run away, the mission (“take Fallujah”) could have been accomplished without any death whatsoever. Since the enemy chose to make a stand, however, our troops, following their orders to take the city, had no choice. Either way, once the taking of Fallujah was accomplished, our troops did not then kill all the inhabitants and refugees and then salt the earth (that being a Roman thing and not an ordinary mission of the U.S. Army or Marines). Then the effort was made(actually, it was made before and after) to allow the city to rebuild with U.S taxpayer dollars to some extent.

    My effort in the earlier comments was an effort to show the libel as the clear misstatement of fact that it is. Our purpose in sending troops overseas is not to “kill human beings” but to fulfill our mission as directed by the civil authorities. This, as stated, may or may not involve killing. But the selection of the strategic mission which then generates all the tactical missions is never the decision of the 19 year old Lance Corporal (despite that he may be a “strategic corporal”).

    The professor is, in effect, blaming the hammer for the decision to drive nails instead of taking on the decision maker. Why? All because someone sent him an email asking him to consider a donation to support the troops overseas. Good gracious!

  • Jay

    So….we’re worried about a Professor exercising his free speech? Yawn. Slow news week? I wouldn’t worry much about what any Professor says, offensive or not. I expect college students, especially post-graduates at Law schools to be emotionally mature, intellectually curious, and able to listen to, and to learn from a range of opinions. The military-civil divide (which is a healthy tension) really took off when the draft ended. Want to end the divide? Bring back the draft.

  • I take great offense to Avery’s comments. He has engaged in character assasination against members of the US Military.

    Character assassination, as defined by Wikipedia – “is an attempt to tarnish a person’s reputation. It may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.”

    By narrowly defining members of the US Military as those who have “gone overseas to kill other human beings.” Avery deliberately misleads and manipulates.

    Firefighters carry halligans and on occasion use them. Would you not take umbrage at someone who defined firefighters as “those who enter peoples houses suddenly and not always with the homeowners knowledge, in order smash holes in walls and ceilings”?

    Further, is there not also a problem because Avery is *not* just some drunk on a soapbox. He holds a position of authority in his classroom. Isn’t that an aggravating fact here?

    I am offended that Avery, who is paid, in part, with “Yellow Ribbon” money is slandering the very troops who risked and/or gave their lives to achieve the “Yellow Ribbon” benefit.

  • Derrick

    It’s not worth anyone’s while to post long comments on this. There will always be people that will criticize others in a way to hurt their feelings…that’s the beauty of democracy.

    This issue is best handled by the courts. Just ask the FBI to press charges against that particular individual for slander and other related offences and let the courts take it from there.

  • Jay

    This is a non-story. Professors in ivory towers exercising their right to free speech? I expect better from USNI — who is vetting these blog postings?

    College students, especially the bright post-graduate ones accepted to law schools should and can be exposed to all manner of free speech and opinions — and are smart enough to formulate their own opinions and to make decisions on their own.

    The real problem with a military-civil divide — is lack of “ownership” by all facets of our society. If you are serious about ending the divide, bring back the draft. Or, keep an all-volunteer force — and tax those who don’t serve — some amount more to pay for it — so they experience some sacrifice as well.

    Advocating that any college “should consider carefully just whom they allow in the front of their classrooms” smacks of censorship, and plays into the very hands of those you disagree with.

    We are better than that.

  • Jamie

    It has been my observation that folks in academia like this never emotionally leave graduate school; they dress the same, carry a backpack, etc. They never actually leave the nest, so they feel quite secure in spouting the opinions that will keep them in favor with the others in their closed society.

    Like most people, the most dangerous thing they will ever do is drive a car, and they have little concept of what is like to work in an environment where one knows that your life and survival can constantly depend on a trust in the sense of duty of others.

    They are to be pitied because at the end of the day, very few of them will be able to point to some great undertaking that was greater than themselves.

  • Grandpa Bluewater

    MI: Incapacity due to chemical imbalance is a defense, of sorts. See Gibson, Mel. Thus my wish to think the best possible. Others have summarized the libel and reason for being offended as well as I could, I just lured you into the field of fire from their ire.:-)

    My killer instinct just got the best of me.

  • WiseLatina2theRight

    As a mother of a Midshipman at USNA…daughter of Korean War Veteran (Army,Combat), daughter-in-law of a U.S. Navy Vet …I am deeply offended by the character assassination by Avery. One does have to look at his backgroud. He studied in Moscow during the Cold War period, member of the ACLU, and the National Lawyers’ Guild (Communist lawyers’ organization). He’s had nothing but contempt for law enforcement and the military his entire professional career. To go so far as to attack people sending small tokens of appreciation to our soldiers is beyond the pale. I’m wondering if he doth complain as much about people sending gifts to the terrorists we are holding in prison?

    I challenge everyone who has commented on this blog to send a letter directly to Avery and the Administration at Suffolk University.

    Prof. Michael Avery
    Suffolk University Law School
    120 Tremont Street
    Boston, MA 02108-4977
    e. [email protected]

  • Derrick

    Overreacting to someone’s comments, no matter how offensive they are, will only give them publicity and their 2 seconds of fame, that they so desire.

    The best way to educate such people is to ignore them. 😉

    As for draft, I don’t think the purpose of enforcing a compulsory service act should be to help formulate peoples’ opinions on the military, because that could be counterproductive. I do think a compulsory service act would be a good way to reduce the cost of personnel in the military though.

  • Byron

    @wiselatina: there was no doubt in my mind that he still had a membership card to the Communist Party of the United States of America…

  • As a member of the military I find the Professor’s words rooted in willful ignorance, but I take no offense from them because, honestly, why should I care what he thinks? I swore an oath to defend with my life his right to do exactly what he did, and I feel that servicemen and women should hold themselves to a higher standard of appreciation and understanding for the very rights he was exercising. Just because we find his view distasteful does not mean it is any less valid than yours or mine. If we purport ourselves to be better than how he characterizes us, then let’s act like it. Responding with equally ignorant and hyperbolic opinions of Professor Avery, his thoughts, his employer and his profession lowers us to his level, does nothing to discredit his argument and, in fact, only bolsters it.

    Let’s act like the professionals we are and ignore him. Anyone who agrees with his viewpoint isn’t likely to change their mind (especially as a result of responses like this), and anyone who disagrees sees it for what it is. As someone stated above, these tirades only give his comments more publicity and give us less credibility.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    The reason to care what this man thinks is because he is in a position to teach and influence young minds. Had he been someone who drives a bus, or someone who made his living in another line of work, there would be no reason to mention him or his views.

    But, as we have seen elsewhere time and again, his viewpoint is all too common among those whose job it is to educate our children in all levels of education. If we don’t believe those biases enter into what is presented in a classroom, and how it is presented, we ignore a basic tenet of human nature.

    Having our children being taught at all levels, including higher education, by people who openly espouse hatred and disdain for our Armed Forces is having and will continue to have consequences.

    As for the validity of the argument, one can indeed say that the Professor’s argument is less valid than another. If taken to its logical conclusion, it is shown to rely upon assumptions that have been proven by history to be terribly wrong.

    One other thing. This professor’s views and words are open to criticism. Doing so is OUR right. Valid criticism of his words and actions do not “lower us to his level”. The freedoms we fight for, we also may partake in.

  • Diogenes of NJ

    You’ve got that right, shipmate. This is the oath: “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

    As I mentioned before, the only right that nimrod has is the right not to be interfered with by the Government. If Christiaan swore an oath to defend Avery it must have been a side deal. Since I turned in my canoe club membership card, I’m off the Gov’t clock. I don’t remember relinquishing the oath. Avery is an enemy, domestic. Most of us still stand ready to defend our country. It’s about time we cover Christiaan’s back.

    Don’t fall for the perverted 1st Amendment argument the left deals out. Read the Constitution and remember the oath you took.

    – Kyon

  • YNSN(SCW) Pawlikowski

    Far-left college professor espousing less-than-rosy views about the United States Military? Distasteful and painfully naïve? Check. Heinous or surprising? Hardly. A non-story, a harmlessly misguided teacher spouting what we believe to be ignorant views in a sea of similar voices. I certainly hope people don’t get this spun up over every radio personality that gets their rocks off as well, by spouting such childish drivel? C’mon, don’t give him the validation of offending you – he’s patently ridiculous.
    – YNSN(SCW)

  • UltimaRatioReg

    YNSN P,

    Misguided? Would seem so. Harmless? Not so sure of that.

  • Sperrwaffe

    @UltimaRatioReg- Beware, the next is full of sarcasm:
    So you don’t have a lot of confidence in American Youth being able to discriminate teachings like that? Who is raising your kids to be educated, self confident, independent and open minded? Do YOU raise them or your teachers and professors? Do I have to worry about the United States and its educational level, youth and parents? Sorry, I had to out it like this.

    Let me tell you some stories from my country. Just to tell you this in advance. You would go nuts, when you would have to talk to most of our professors and even politicians…:

    I can understand that people are offended by the views and expressions of Prof. Avery. But in a democracy with a strong constitution like yours you have to live with that. Why do I keep it that simple?
    I will give you two examples:
    First of all, the overall support for your Members of the Services is strong and unmatched. When I was at a conference, waiting for the bus transport for the conference dinner, suddenly there was a beer at our table with complements from a guy at the hotel bar. “Good Job!” he said. He didn’t care about the fact that my comrade and I were not from the US and that I had left the service. He had just seen the uniform my old friend was wearing and wanted to have a talk with us. To be honest I was amazed about that.
    This brings me to my second example:
    In Germany you would receive raised eyebrows and whispering when you would enter certain places in your service dress. You are not welcomed looking like that.
    Our former President Mr. Koehler issued the phrase of “friendly lack of interest” for the German Armed Forces, the members and their families. Take away the “friendly” and sometimes replace it be an “unfriendly” you reach the truth.
    When our recruits pledge their allegiance/official oath in a public ceremony at their base town you have to protect the compound. Not from terrorist attacks, but from protesters calling them “Killers” or worse, sometimes throwing eggs and other stuff.
    This can even happen at funeral services for those who lost their life doing their duty. My wife’s MP-Company almost had to mind more about those crazy idiots, then concentrating on giving their lost comrade (who sacrificed his live for the protection of his general) and two other soldiers their last honor.
    Do people in the US protest at your funeral services in the communities like that? I wonder?

    What I want to say with these examples is that you can be proud of the support for your troops in the US, even if you disagree with the decisions of your government. You are proud of the sacrifice the members of the service and their families make. Just look at all the benefits, study programs, discounts, welfare issues and so on. These are all things which don’t exist in my country.
    Remember the Vietnam War? You learned from that situation for those veterans who had to endure a lot when coming home. In Germany we are still like that…..

    Sorry, but I think you have to endure such people like Prof. Avery. Suck it up!

    That does not mean that you cannot have a discourse about these views. Or criticize someone presenting his views in a way Prof. Avery does.

    Just my two cents from a foreigner point of view…
    From a country where politicians go nuts when they see a promo video like this:
    for our armed forces.
    You have no idea what is happening right now…again…

    Best Regards from a German Navy Officer now Reserve…

  • UltimaRatioReg


    Thank you for your insights. Endure the Professor Averys of the world, we will. But we must be aware that they are teaching our children, at all levels of education. While protected from the interference of the government by the magnificent First Amendment of our Constitution, they are not protected from rightful criticism from those in and out of uniform that they disparage.

    Left in a cloistered environment in which people like Professor Avery are not at all held accountable for these disparaging words (and sometimes actions), they will have a similar effect on the opinions of the young people to the very instances you describe in your country.

    As I state above, when such opinions are close to the norm in all levels of education, and remain without counter or accountability, there will be consequences. As your country would seem to already know.

  • Sperrwaffe


    Sorry for the teasing… 😉
    Thank you for your answer. Now I understand your point of view a lot better and I can support it.
    Actually I was somehow bewildered by some of the rather harsh outcries in this blog.
    You can not imagine how hard it currently is, for German Soldiers to endure such things. Politicians send them abroad, and then they deny them almost everything. And the Support is just one thing…Robust Mandate, ROE’s, even worse equipment..
    However, our soldiers endure and serve. Because that is what they chose to do.
    Currently there is a heavy discussion at a German Blog( which means: Eyes Front) about the video mentioned. One Member of parliament issued his view, why he thinks the video is inappropriate. They like us to be well drillers, but please not fighters…Well, he still gets heavy fire from all participants.
    But enough of that, this would clearly get to far away from your topic.
    Hope you may never have to endure our strange pacifist (better hypocrite pacifist) driven society…

    And thank you for the great discussions here. I enjoy them a lot.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “Hypocrite pacifists”. That is a GREAT descriptive term.

    Most welcome to drop by here any time. And thanks to YOU for your insights.

  • Diogenes of NJ

    An opinion from the time of locker clubs and liberty cards – I’ve been down the path that says just ignore them – it doesn’t work.

    A suggested reading: (pay attention Pawlikowski).

    I sympathize with Sperrwaffe. Indeed, there were times in the United States in which it has been much worse. I ignored them when a hippie deposited a hockher on my dress blues as I walked through San Francisco International Airport.

    Avery and his ilk are protected by their institutions. UltimaRatioReg knows from where he speaks. My ROE’s say that their institutions are legitimate targets.

    Today’s cliché: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – doesn’t mean that it’s not true.

    Have courage – besides, I’ve got nothing better to do.

    – Kyon

  • AT1 (AW) Charles H. Berlemann Jr

    “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – commonly assoicated with Voltaire, aka François-Marie Arouet, the enlighted French writer during the Enlightenment period would apply here.

    Though what this professor states is horrible, ill advised, ill informed and in general making himself out to be similar to the backside of a pack animal. That does not excuse our own behaviors to dive down to his level with similar insults or to call on him to be treated as an enemy of the state. Primarly, because this only opens the door for him to use ad hominem attacks about our own character or our own intelligence with regards to being in the military. The perfect way to engage with this man is to calmly and succiently have a logical debate on the merits of what he has brought up as topics. That is nationalism, military service and the willingness of one to serve for the greater good. The way to make this debate work we need to engage these professors, show them the number of people who have had successful careers in the military. Show how nationalism and pride in one’s country can lead to great number of things being accomplished. Keep the tone civil and above the belt, show our opponents to be the raging lunatics out there will impress the rest of the civilian world about the righteousness of our jobs. We should also direct that the jobs we do are just as important as what the US Coast Guard does (no one seems to question or critique thier roles in American Society), Fire fighters (ditto) and the various levels of law enforcement (of whom recieve just as much as hate from the teaching establishment as a soldier). Make our opponents physically state they hate firemen, police, the FBI, Coasties and all other manner of people who work behind the scenes to provide civilization to the masses. It will be amazing how quickly the debate turns from having to defend ourselves and our choice of living to those that feel a need to have civilization vs having no civilization.
    I should note that when I have entered in these discussions with teachers and present the civilization vs non, they immediately jump towards Mad Max society; at which I mention maybe not that more like the timeframe between the Romans and the rise of the city states during the early middle ages. I bring up that civilization depends on more then just a common form of language between people and common regional affiliation. It also comes from having to accept a common form of governance with the security apperatus that comes with that as well.

  • Fouled Anchor

    Law Professor Quits Job After Colleague Calls Care Packages for U.S. Troops ‘Shameful’

    I like this quote and I applaud Major Roughsedge for taking a real stand on this matter.

    “It’s basically like a 5-year-old throwing a temper tantrum,” he told the station. “That is not how we teach our students to rationally look at the issues…We want rational adult discourse and that is not something I would tolerate in my class and it is not something the school should tolerate from one of its professors.”

  • Byron

    I saw that…I’d really like to shake that guys hand.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Indeed, Byron,

    It seems the good Major also thinks the University should choose more carefully whom they put in the front of a classroom.

    A handshake and a beer, if he is drinking.