Poll: Should Poems Be Broadcasted on Aircraft Carriers?

[RZehr]

I never served in the Navy or the Marines, was never on a carrier, but I know enough that such nonsense has no place on such a vessel. Want to listen to that stuff? Keep it in your own quarters and to yourself.

About one third of the Old Testament is poetry. “Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Lamentations are entirely poetic in form. Most of Job and portions of Ecclesiastes are poetic, while the prose narratives in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers Deuteronomy, Judges and 1–2 Samuel contain substantial poetic sections. The prophetic books of Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah are composed completely in oracular prose [a combination of poetry and prose common in prophetic books]. . . . This is also true for major portions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel Hosea, Joel and Amos. In the Old Testament only Leviticus, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai and Malachi contain little or no poetic material” (A Survey of the Old Testament 2nd ed., Andrew Hill and John Walton)

Maybe the Navy should broadcast Psalms to Irans Revolutionary Guard in the Strait of Hormuz.

[Ken]

I never served in the Navy or the Marines, was never on a carrier, but I know enough that such nonsense has no place on such a vessel. Want to listen to that stuff? Keep it in your own quarters and to yourself.

About one third of the Old Testament is poetry. “Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Lamentations are entirely poetic in form. Most of Job and portions of Ecclesiastes are poetic, while the prose narratives in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers Deuteronomy, Judges and 1–2 Samuel contain substantial poetic sections. The prophetic books of Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah are composed completely in oracular prose [a combination of poetry and prose common in prophetic books]. . . . This is also true for major portions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel Hosea, Joel and Amos. In the Old Testament only Leviticus, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai and Malachi contain little or no poetic material” (A Survey of the Old Testament 2nd ed., Andrew Hill and John Walton)

Maybe the Navy should broadcast Psalms to Irans Revolutionary Guard in the Strait of Hormuz.

It would probably be familiar to them. Psalms is the holy book of Zabur in Islam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabur

[RZehr]

About one third of the Old Testament is poetry. “Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Lamentations are entirely poetic in form. Most of Job and portions of Ecclesiastes are poetic, while the prose narratives in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers Deuteronomy, Judges and 1–2 Samuel contain substantial poetic sections. The prophetic books of Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah are composed completely in oracular prose [a combination of poetry and prose common in prophetic books]. . . . This is also true for major portions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel Hosea, Joel and Amos. In the Old Testament only Leviticus, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai and Malachi contain little or no poetic material” (A Survey of the Old Testament 2nd ed., Andrew Hill and John Walton)

Maybe the Navy should broadcast Psalms to Irans Revolutionary Guard in the Strait of Hormuz.

It would probably be familiar to them. Psalms is the holy book of Zabur in Islam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabur

Well, there we go! Common ground!

[temporal1]

Maybe the Navy should broadcast Psalms to Irans Revolutionary Guard in the Strait of Hormuz.

The word, “broadcast,” whether on ship, or cast out abroad, reminds of Tokyo Rose. i would refrain from it.
https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-case ... tokyo-rose

[temporal1]

(i find) picking up+reciting lib political talking points, without any scrutiny whatsoever, proven unwise. “you do you.”

don’t fret, i’m sure poetry is alive+well in the military, and nothing new .. no matter baseless political smear campaigns thrown out (broadcast) far+wide, aimed at those just like you.

i suggest not jumping on every bandwagon. you’re not getting any younger.

I think you're frequently one of the worst examples of what you condemn in others.

no doubt you do. keep Jussie Smollett in mind. he makes a good object lesson for not rushing to judgment.

i don’t mean to be rude about Jussie S. He makes a good object lesson for how things are REGULARLY reported in the mainstream. The initial report(s) were damning about his claims, who wouldn’t have jumped on board to defend him??!!

Except, living not far from Chicago, his awful story didn’t add up (to me) .. altho, i couldn’t immediately put my finger on it.
It wasn’t long, thankfully, before his attempted HOAX was revealed.

This happens so often. There have been others following.

Thus, regarding Tuberville, i’m only vaguely aware, not interested, and waiting to see what unfolds in time.
While some revel in opportunities to find the most colorful and exaggerated words to condemn him they can dream up.
Mob mentality.

“Pride goeth before a fall.”

[barnhart]

It is so interesting watching as this sea change happens in real time.
Republicans becoming anti-military, anti-war, while Democrats become pro-military and pro-war.
While the military enjoys a more woke, liberal, inclusive reputation.
Republicans pro-Russia, Democrats anti-Russia.

It is interesting but not novel. I saw conservatives switch from Democratic to Republican in the south, I saw the immigration debate switch sides in the late 90's. Universal Medicare style healthcare switched sides. The blue collar white folks I work around were red white and blue forever 10 years ago and mocked me as anti American. Now they want to tear the government down and wonder why I am not angry at the system. I was mildly mocked for reserving support for the wars on terror by the same people who are pro -russia and hate the war in Ukraine. If you live long enough and keep your eyes open, you will see the pattern repeats.

I believe that. I was aware of the conservatives switching from Democrat to Republican - (Abe Lincoln?). But I've never seen it in real time except for now. I wonder how long these shifts take to make. 12 years? 20 years?

Maybe things are speeding up.

[temporal1]

It is interesting but not novel. I saw conservatives switch from Democratic to Republican in the south, I saw the immigration debate switch sides in the late 90's. Universal Medicare style healthcare switched sides. The blue collar white folks I work around were red white and blue forever 10 years ago and mocked me as anti American. Now they want to tear the government down and wonder why I am not angry at the system. I was mildly mocked for reserving support for the wars on terror by the same people who are pro -russia and hate the war in Ukraine. If you live long enough and keep your eyes open, you will see the pattern repeats.

I believe that. I was aware of the conservatives switching from Democrat to Republican - (Abe Lincoln?). But I've never seen it in real time except for now. I wonder how long these shifts take to make. 12 years? 20 years?

Maybe things are speeding up.

Things shift, the internet has a way of speeding things up AND shortening-eroding memories, and more.

Additionally, there is the annoying new-ish reality of “career politicians,” “uniparty,” “legacy” politicians, that have been allowed to develop over time (probably as a result of no stated term limits in Congress). These politicians, claiming to be 2 parties, but, in fact, have become 1 party representing themselves, first, forgetting their primary obligations to “the people:” Legal citizens.

Similar and worse has happened in Canada.

The “built-in” prevention is for the people NOT to keep voting them in. It’s a mystery to me why this does not work.

i’m not sure i like stated term limits, or age limits. i don’t have great ideas about what to do.

In former times, i noticed parties shifting. This uniparty stuff is worse than that. Pretending not to be.

[ohio jones]

Maybe the Navy should broadcast Psalms to Irans Revolutionary Guard in the Strait of Hormuz.

It would probably be familiar to them. Psalms is the holy book of Zabur in Islam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabur

Well, there we go! Common ground!

Common ground? In a thread on aircraft carriers?

[RZehr]

… so we need more chiefs? Seems to me the officer corps basically has become the equivalent of “welfare queens” except for wealthy, well-connected people.

Tell us that you know nothing about the military without telling us that you know nothing about the military....

It is fine if you have a conscientious objection to military service. Many Anabaptists do. But that isn't a license to denigrate the choices and professions of others.

Are you familiar at all with the state of the officer corps?

The question is a very good one of why MORE generals are needed in peacetime than when at war.

I still don’t understand why the military needs MORE Generals today in peacetime PLUS all the technological advances in communication, than they did in 1944 when fighting a global war, and it’s millions of soldiers and obsolete communication and war fighting tech. Does this mean that if the US gets into another World War, the need for Generals, logically, will DECLINE? Or is it more likely that the military brass just keep lining their own pockets regardless of need? Which seems more plausible? What would Ockhams Razor say?

[Ken]

Tell us that you know nothing about the military without telling us that you know nothing about the military....

It is fine if you have a conscientious objection to military service. Many Anabaptists do. But that isn't a license to denigrate the choices and professions of others.

Are you familiar at all with the state of the officer corps?

The question is a very good one of why MORE generals are needed in peacetime than when at war.

I still don’t understand why the military needs MORE Generals today in peacetime PLUS all the technological advances in communication, than they did in 1944 when fighting a global war, and it’s millions of soldiers and obsolete communication and war fighting tech. Does this mean that if the US gets into another World War, the need for Generals, logically, will DECLINE? Or is it more likely that the military brass just keep lining their own pockets regardless of need? Which seems more plausible? What would Ockhams Razor say?

There is no relationship between war and peace in the number of generals required. And we don't have more generals today than we did in the past, we have far fewer. It isn't a war and peace issue, it is an advancement of technology and mechanization issue.

What we do have is more generals per total number of soldiers than we did in say WW2. But that is because unit sizes have shrank due to technology and mechanization. Such that an Army Division today commanded by a 2-star major general might be 25% or even 50% smaller than one in WW2. That is because technology has eliminated to many manual labor jobs that existed in an Army division during WW2. All the clerk typists, radio and switchboard operators, line cooks, motor pool mechanics, and riflemen. Now many of those jobs have vanished due to mechanization, technology and outsourcing. In contrast, that same Army Division might contain $5 billion worth of equipment and technology (helicopters, drones, high tech tanks and armored personnel carriers, self-propelled artillery, etc.) where the same Army division during WW2 might have only had a few million dollars worth of equipment: mostly a fleet of trucks with canvas sides towing artillery filled with riflemen (grunts).

So the nature of the armed forces has changed. Todays military is vastly more high tech and mechanized and vastly more deadly. So todays generals are responsible for vastly more equipment and firepower and command units that are vastly more mobile and deadly than the equivalent ones in the past. But that also have less people. So their responsibility has changed, but the demands of command have not. you still want highly trained and experienced generals commanding an Army division today as you did in WW2 even though it contains less soldiers because it is vastly more deadly and contains 50x or 100x more expensive and deadly technology. And still does basically the same thing as back in WW2.

Every other aspect of society has changed in the same way. Businesses used to have whole floors of typists and clerks taking dictation, typing correspondence, and filing things manually. Now it is all computers and virtually no one has their own secretary just to take dictation and type letters. Logging crews used to have choker setters and fellers working the woods on foot cutting down trees individually, bucking them by hand, and loading them by hand. Now machines to all of it. Every industry is the same and so is the military.

It is actually a good thing in some ways because today we risk expensive equipment rather than endless numbers of lives.