Skip to comments.From 'Hurt Locker' to 'Paper Chase': A look at the newest military service members at HLS
Posted on 01/20/2013 3:00:04 PM PST by PieterCasparzen
Graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 2007, Alexandra Mealer J.D./M.B.A. 16 wanted a career path that would challenge her intellect.
She became a specialist in defusing bombs.
As opposed to other things that were more about how strong you are, this was about how smart you are, says Mealer, who, as an Army captain, spent 14 months in Afghanistan, first as a platoon leader in Kandahar, then as a company commander in Bagram responsible for 600 soldiers and civilian contractors. Youre trying to take things apart, having to make quick decisions as safely as possible. There was an immediate satisfaction to the work, she adds. We spent a lot of time with IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) in villages where people live. When you remove it safely, you get immediate feedback, which is nice.
Perhaps surprisingly, the military's Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) program has many more applicants than available slots, with only the best accepted. This year, Harvard Law School has at least two of its graduates among its ranks. Like Mealer, U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Gregory Saybolt LL.M. 13, who spent two years in Bahrain as an EOD specialist, enjoyed deploying the brainpower that the job requires. His unit went into Iraq several times, diving to search rivers and dams for underwater explosives. It was a good mix of tough physical and mental challenges, says Saybolt, a certified Navy diver and a lawyer in the Judge Advocate Generals Corps (JAG). After earning his LL.M., he will serve aboard an aircraft carrier advising on the international law of the sea.
(Excerpt) Read more at law.harvard.edu ...
With all due respect to these officers, their rank precluded them from getting anywhere NEAR an IED. They simply gave the orders to the enlisted folks who got their hands dirty and did the actual work. If I were the officers I’d make that clear instead of taking credit for the dangers others faced.
>>When you remove it safely, you get immediate feedback<<
When you don’t the feedback is just as immediate.
>>When you remove it safely, you get immediate feedback<<
When you don’t the feedback is just as immediate.
the unit political officer there to insure allegiance to the fuhrer. Just like the Russians and Nazi's did. Political officers are there to basically gut the armed forces. F@#@ing Lawyers.
Are they all Indians? Paleface Lizzy Warren is an Indian, you know. She might have been their legal ethics instructor.
Ha, ha, ha, ha...I laughed so hard I almost cried!
Ummm ... One got immediate feedback if they didn’t remove said IED safely..... As in KaBoom !
Sounds crazy right ?
Some food for thought...
Wall Street backed the Bolsheviks.
Why would big capitalist monopolists actually want a statist government in power ?
How did Trotsky get from the U.S. to Russia when the revolution broke out when he had no passport ?
Lenin and Trotsky brought some money with them to Russia when the Revolution broke out...
Revolutions always need funding.
Investments were made in the USSR throughout the Cold War.
The Council on Foreign Relations is the the means by which U.S. foreign policy is controlled. Check out CFR’s early history.
Wall Street has controlled the boards of directors of newspapers since the early 1900’s.
Education: yes, the intercollegiate socialist society - 1905 was making plans. However banksters realized that the top universities are the pinnacle of the whole system. They send their kids there as well as anyone they want to work for them. The Ivy Leage sets the direction of education.
These guys put a lot into endowments and foundations. Carnegie, Rockefeller are the biggies. The bankster statists always want to avoid tax, and these foundations can work on helping get things done for them and the capital can be invested but grow tax free.
Wars and revolutions galore in the 20th century, all requiring government borrowing and presenting the opportunity to get government working for them.
They want to merge all governments into one that they put into place. The only one where the population might really put up a fuss is America. China and Russia are already run by elites; they can do business there with a captive market. Europeans gave into union, they could be merged easily from there. The muslim countries are no problem to merge. Those “revolutions” were all backed by the one world government program (just read CFR’s material and the State Departments and the Soros foundations material).
The whole 20th century, the banksters backed the collectivist revolutionaries or governments; they use whatever local wackos they can who want to lead the government. If the guy gets too annoying, one of their “guys” (Harvard, etc.) winds up “going home” and “leading his nation”. Nazism did much business with a few Wall Street firms. General Electric is an arm, they had a German subsidiary. The muzzies will get a rude awakening if one world government happens. How would Stalin or Hitler tolerate them ? How do the Chinese tolerate problems ?
Wilson - their guy.
FDR - their guy (deep roots)
Truman - played ball
Ike - Their man
Kennedy - played ball
Johnson - played ball; they dumped him
the list goes on...
The same CFR “advisors” show up across 2 and 3 decades. Albright first worked for Carter.
It would seem silly if it wasn’t so illegitimate and tragic.
They’re just working on America, and the only real resistors are getting older every day.
The under-40 crowd will fold unless they are clued in.
IMHO, we don’t have much time left.
I used to think exactly that.
Until I found out that Wall Street financed totalitarianism throughout the 20th century.
How could capitalists be communists, I wondered ?
These financiers are monopolists, that’s the key to understanding it. You have to think about it from the point of view of a multi-billionaire who has engineered a monopoly for himself. He hates competition. He is increasingly drawn to the easier large investment instead of many small ones. He is invariably drawn to become the backer of politicians and have government working for him instead of bothering his monopoly. He finds a convenient enormous investment and fee earnings potential by becoming the banker to the government itself, the mechanism that creates and manages a market for government bonds. The government receives spendable cash for the bonds. He soon figures out that he can do this with many governments around the world. The politicians in all the debtor nations can then be backed by him financially - and media influence if he sits on the boards of media companies - to remain in power. He can spend his money to trash candidates that won’t go along with his loan-shark grip on the country. He can move capital from country to country, financing the building of manufacturing plants, infrastructure projects, etc.
I think this is mind-boggling. But I take everything away and look at a few simple statements that are simple historical fact that have no rational explanation.
J P Morgan founded the Council on Foreign Relations.
Why would a bank want to found a foreign policy think tank ?
Ok, I investigate actual real history.
I look at the influence of the Council on Foreign Relations on the U.S. State Department and U.S. Presidents. I look at specific names in both and the length of time and significance of their influence.
It is still mind-boggling to me, but it’s simple historical fact.
I thought exactly what you said until recently - I could not get my mind around capitalists, the mega rich, being against free markets and for totalitarianism. It makes utterly no sense from my point of view as a business-oriented person. Rockefeller and Stalin ? Makes no sense. Why would big business not starve out totalitarianism until it collapses and replace it with a free market framework ?
From the multi-billionaires point of view, it gets difficult to find things to invest in when you get that big a pile of money, and still get a return on investment. Buffett talked about that problem constantly over the past decade regarding BH. They need big businesses that fit well with them to buy. They have way too much capital to invest (in their mind) to be able to invest in hundreds or thousands of small businesses.
Government regulation is a pain. Invariably they wind up backing politicians to have politicians working for them instead of against them. I highly recommend Titan by Ron Chernow. As his business was growing, JDR Sr. became annoyed at guys who would not sell out to him and were not operating as efficiently as Standard Oil was. By the turn of the century, SO made Microsoft look a mom and pop. So Chase was handling enormous amounts of depositor cash (a liability). Chase was, in effect, “SO’s bank”. J P Morgan had put together mergers as an investment banker and controlled boards all over in addition to having his enormous amount of capital needing to be invested. They’re operating all over the world at that point.
Eventually, mega banks get to the point of wanting a monopoly on lending to the government (this was early 1900’s, with the Fed, Inc Tax, Wilson, etc.). It serves both purposes: it’s only one deal, but it’s a massive one, so it is highly profitable, and the debt they are marketing is “top quality”, backed by future tax revenues collected with the authority of the government. The other side of the coin is it gives them enormous political influence because they are ones the government then needs in order to continue deficit spending. Thats why Paulson could simply demand a check for hundreds of billions of dollars and a President said ok - if the mega banks go broke - the community banks can’t market anywhere near 1T in Treasuries every year. The deficit spending would hit a hard stop.
Collectivism, in practicality, results in a corrupt oligarchy, not a government where the leaders of the “poor people” or “the masses” take over.
No one at the top confiscates money from the mega rich because the people at the top are the mega rich.
It’s not the “State” taking over in a “revolution”. It’s the toppling of a government with its replacement by the billionaires “man”, as is happening the arab spring.
China - run by a ruling elite set of mega rich.
Russia - run by a ruling elite set of mega rich.
Nazi Germany - run by a ruling elite set of mega rich.
Islammies - run by a ruling elite set of mega rich.
They all would borrow using tax-backed bonds and use the funds by buy infrastructure and equipment sold by establishment interests. Or better yet just let the establishment interests come in and build plants. The head of state just wants to stay in power, the establishment is providing jobs, the aura of success and money as necessary. The establishment also has U.S. foreign aid providing the funding so it comes from U.S. tax-backed bonds (U.S. foreign aid engineered by the “policy geniuses” at CFR goes back a Long way).
Our establishment funded the Bolsheviks and Hitler rising to power. Hitler was nationalist, so was contrary to one world government in that respect. But he was conquering other nations, which was combining nations, which is the strategy of one world government. Tons of business was done between the establishment and German corporations all during the 20’s right through the war. I recommend Antony Sutton’s detailed research on this.
The islammies, though they are being propagandized now that they are going for some future glory of dominating other nations and having control of the whole world, like German citizens in the Third Reich will find that they are simply under the thumb of a brutal regime themselves. If one world government were to come to pass, nations will find that the glory has all gone to those at the top of the one world government, which would only include their local wicked masters.
Whenever the mega rich want to replace a political leader it’s simply a matter of funding a “revolution”. It may take time, but mega rich have time. Iran deals with the mega rich via the establishment’s people in Russia, Qatar, etc. The establishment will gladly deal with any extremists to get the job done of taking over governments on it’s century long journey towards one world government. The establishment, being able to shape U.S.foreign policy and public opinion, via their men at State Dept and newspaper Boards of Directors, respectively, can always gin up a war against a bad-boy dictator who gets too big for his britches with them. The establishment is concerned about overpopulation and therefore has no problem if their tyrant puppets exterminate swaths of the citizens under their rule.
Ultimately, as we see in China and especially Russia, the mega rich rulers have their own private armies to protect themselves once you get well along into a totalitarian regime and morality becomes a dream of the past. But knowing they can have a private army, I guess the one-world government banksters feel that they would have a happy existence, though to most it would seem just as much a nightmare as being their lowest subject. One just has to look at these States, like North Korea, devoid of anything uplifting or edifying to see that it’s not a very smart goal. But to a monopolist, they then have the ultimate monopoly and that’s what makes sense to them as the easist way to a continued return on investment. Also, from their point of view, the see how well they run a company like General Electric and think that it would be easy for them to just run everything; it’s simply pure arrogance. They obviously don’t get that companies in America which prosper are staffed people with some remnant of the values and perspective of early America. All those sophisticated planning and designing jobs that enable our high standard of living are done by people whose productivity would drop through the floor under a totalitarian government.