He's right in his characterization of my lack of social skills when dealing with public servants who are failing at a critical junction in the nation's history, and who are engaged in the profession of conflict where we blow people into pieces and watch their arms and legs fly in separate directions, set people on fire, and instead of protractors and calculators, we have nuclear warheads that can decimate entire cities. That being the background, Tony is correct that when criticizing my failing peers, doing so in a way that makes them comfortable and feel good about themselves isn't always, shall we say, a priority of mine. Tony also got some other things right about me in his recent LinkedIn article that people may want to check out.
I don't have LinkedIn since resumes are not really my thing, unsurprisingly I'm sure, but somebody I know stopped by to share the comments from his article with me. Depressing as expected. Much too accommodating for fascism masquerading as intellectual debate and absent the kind of responses such views deserve. Even now, even in this context, a polite and cordial seat is positioned at the table for those who hate our nation to its core; a center of gravity that has been exploited and led us to this day, but much more importantly, is leading us to a nightmare that will finally be undeniable to all.
For all Tony's faults cataloged on this blog over the years, providing a place for discussion of important matters when it comes to public service wasn't one of them (even though he banned me from those discussions). And then when one of his audience asked him why he was writing about me over on his JQP Facebook page and yet not allowing me to participate in the discussion, he repeatedly lied that he had not banned me. Tony Carr writes real purty, but he has the key characteristic of all bad actors. Insecurity that leads to dishonesty. And, of course, he likes to projects his failures on others who hold a mirror up to him. He likes to talk about truth, and debate and having a thick skin, but like any politician those are just talking points for him rather than actual values. He has to control the "debate." Control of information is the first step to ensuring truth doesn't rear its inconvenient head. Truth is fine, even useful for tyrants and oligarchs and propagandists, but only when it's controlled, otherwise, well, things get messy and truth has a habit of escaping its cage.
Such control of speech has turned the Internet from its promise of citizens discussing important matters, and using harsh words rather than soft bullets to build consensus and solve problems in our Republic, into the greatest tool of tyranny, propaganda, and mind control known to mankind. Just ask free speech champion Elon Musk, about that. When I criticized a sitting member of Congress (who Tony Carr has unsurprisingly praised), Elon banned my decade old account that had somehow survived those on the so-called-left operating the platform. Dozens of appeals later didn't matter. Because Elon knows, like any politician, that most people are morons (and he loves to employ hypocrites who say one thing and do another) and that you can simply claim values you don't have and then take actions that are the opposite with little criticism. Like Tony, he uses words that are useful even when he doesn't actually believe them.
And wise Americans should realize that words are easy. Action is all that actually matters. But if you can't even get words right, before you do your wrongful action and show yourself a hypocrite, you're a non-starter.
All this is just to say, Tony Carr was claiming to value free speech and debate while banning voices like mine before it was cool.
Despite the highly censored landscape of today, Tony shares some truth in his article that we can all agree on (well, with one caveat):
Alas, it jaded him. He's viscerally hostile to anyone he estimates to be morally lacking, whether he's ever met them or not. Especially USAF officers, hailing as they do from an obedience culture that adores deference and promotes those who ask the fewest questions.
He flames, trolls, and harasses hapless path-crossers for the sin of having their own opinions, unwittingly commanding mental compliance he knows is wrong. Rick enjoys conflict. He doesn’t observe rhetorical limits. He enjoys helping others acclimate to the discomfort he enjoys.
The one caveat is that me not agreeing with somebody and harshly telling them as much, is not me commanding mental compliance. I have no such power. However, if that option were available to me, I would most certainly exercise it when it comes to military officers and all other public servants. Get your thoughts correct, this isn't Burger King, you don't get to have it your way, think and act correctly when you do your job, anything less is unacceptable. While creativity and debate is valuable for how to best execute the mission, the basics of public service and our Constitutional limitations, our primary purpose spelled out in regulation ("to support the Constitution"), our law and our oath, aren't up for debate; it's not an academic circle jerk where you get to play cutesy with words to get the result you personally want (that just coincidentally meshes with your political affiliation), at least not in a sane healthy America, but of course we don't live there. Anyway, Tony's article is worth checking out and was a nice trip down memory lane. And, Tony, I had to share the image up top. It's one of my favorites and, after all, I'm a raging prick. But at least I didn't share the one making fun of the fact that, while you were a student at Harvard Law School no less, you thought you zinged me while only demonstrating you didn't know that Thomas Jefferson wasn't an author of the Constitution!
Oh, and for those who want to stop by and share your view that I'm a "total asshole" while collecting a like from Tony, you can do that on his Substack where he posts a similar article.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment