Ridiculous.

This piece of shit should be ranked lower than the Meritorious Service Medal and higher then the Commendation Medals.

Actually, it doesn't even need to exist.

pacino wrote:want a medal ranked higher than a purple heart?:

The new blue, red and white-ribboned Distinguished Warfare Medal will be awarded to individuals for "extraordinary achievement" related to a military operation that occurred after Sept. 11, 2001. But unlike other combat medals, it does not require the recipient risk his or her life to get it.

Officials said the new medal will be the first combat-related award to be created since the Bronze Star in 1944.

A recognition of the evolving 21st Century warfare, the medal will be considered a bit higher in ranking than the Bronze Star, but is lower than the Silver Star, defense officials said.

The Bronze Star is the fourth highest combat decoration and rewards meritorious service in battle, while the Silver Star is the third highest combat award given for bravery. Several other awards, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, are also ranked higher, but are not awarded for combat.

when do the Starship Trooper-like ads to join the military begin?

Not really.

Awarding of medals is based off of job performance (Acheivement, Commendation and Meritorious Service Medals), valor (Bronze Star, Silver Star, Distinguished Service Cross, Medal of Honor) or "I was there" (campaign medals, Service Ribbons) medals.

A Purple Heart is awarded for wounds or injuries sustained in combat or a terrorist incident. Different award from the above.

There's some blurring of the lines because the Commendation Medals and the Bronze Star can be awarded for meritorious achievements or they can be awarded for valor (with the addition of the "V" device).

Medals and ribbons are a reflection of our identity as a military professional; similar to a "where have you been and what have you done" kind of manner. I can look at a person's medals and determine within a minute if this dude has been to war, been overseas, how well he's done in tough jobs, etc...

Our Officer Record Briefs are our curriculum vitae; this has all of our assignment history, our awards, our education (military and civilian) and our combat history.

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:just noting it's technically ranked higher

Ok, but a purple heart is sort of a different thing. I guess much like academia (and it's funny how similar academia and the military seem to be) acquiring medals is sort of like acquiring publications on your vita.

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Republicans and Democrats don't just think differently, they actually use their brains differently

FTN alert

Just to be clear, the finding is that Democrats tend to use the insula, which is used in the monitoring of one's internal feelings, when assessing risk, while Republicans tend to use the amygdala, which is the brain's threat response center, for the same task.

Democrats engage their emotions when facing risk, and Republicans feel threatened by risk. It would be stereotypical if it wasn't true, I guess.

That's not what that says. It says democrats "monitor" their emotions, not "engage" them. Huge difference. It suggests that democrats become aware of their emotions and watch them, which is what I think is the most effective approach in that situation. A person should be aware of their emotions in time of stress/threat. It leads to better decisions. It's not like we're still living in the wild with threat of lions, and tigers and bears. It sounds to me like republicans are a bunch of overreacting whimps, crapping themselves at first sign of threat.

Not said in the write-up is much about the amygdala. The amygdala is involved in fear conditioning and stimulation of the area leads to anxiety and fear responses, often violent ones. So yeh, if you should find yourself in a room of neuroscientists, don't go around bragging about republicans having overactive amygdalas. It does explain an awful lot though, I have to admit.

Monkeyboy wrote:

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Republicans and Democrats don't just think differently, they actually use their brains differently

FTN alert

Just to be clear, the finding is that Democrats tend to use the insula, which is used in the monitoring of one's internal feelings, when assessing risk, while Republicans tend to use the amygdala, which is the brain's threat response center, for the same task.

Democrats engage their emotions when facing risk, and Republicans feel threatened by risk. It would be stereotypical if it wasn't true, I guess.

That's not what that says. It says democrats "monitor" their emotions, not "engage" them. Huge difference. It suggests that democrats become aware of their emotions and watch them, which is what I think is the most effective approach in that situation. A person should be aware of their emotions in time of stress/threat. It leads to better decisions. It's not like we're still living in the wild with threat of lions, and tigers and bears. It sounds to me like republicans are a bunch of overreacting whimps, crapping themselves at first sign of threat.

Not said in the write-up is much about the amygdala. The amygdala is involved in fear conditioning and stimulation of the area leads to anxiety and fear responses, often violent ones. So yeh, if you should find yourself in a room of neuroscientists, don't go around bragging about republicans having overactive amygdalas. It does explain an awful lot though, I have to admit.

This quote was interesting:

The causal arrow seems likely to run in both directions—which would make sense in light of what we know about the plasticity of the brain. Simply by living our lives, we change our brains. Our political affiliations, and the lifestyles that go along with them, probably condition many such changes.

Extending this a bit--I've observed that ideologues and fundamentalists seem less intelligent than more open minded folks. I suspect the causal arrow can flow both directions there as well.

Yeh, it's just an extension of the nature/nurture debate. The brain and it's effect on behavior is no different in that it's probably a mix of the two.

Monkeyboy wrote: It says democrats "monitor" their emotions, not "engage" them. Huge difference.

Only in the politics thread.

"I am sad."
I perceive myself to be sad."
"I am undergoing physiological responses often associated with sadness."



I'm just poking fun at the findings. Democrats get sad and angry about a threat, and notice how sad they got. Republicans lash out at a threat before they realize they're even experiencing an emotional response. If you can't smirk at those findings, I think you might be a Republican.

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote: It says democrats "monitor" their emotions, not "engage" them. Huge difference.

Only in the politics thread.

"I am sad."
I perceive myself to be sad."
"I am undergoing physiological responses often associated with sadness."



I'm just poking fun at the findings. Democrats get sad and angry about a threat, and notice how sad they got. Republicans lash out at a threat before they realize they're even experiencing an emotional response. If you can't smirk at those findings, I think you might be a Republican.

Again, that's not what it says about democrats. Monitoring emotions is not the same as engaging them. Where does it say they get sad or angry about a threat? The insular cortex is involved in awareness of internal states, among other things. It suggests democrats are more perceptive about what they are feeling. It does not suggest they feel more or feel any particular emotion.

As for the study, I didn't read it so I can't really evaluate the validity of their findings. Did you find and read it?

OK, you win. Democrats perceive themselves them to be sad, but aren't actually sad.

Why are you being so obtuse? It doesn't say anything about what they are feeling. Maybe they are feeling happy or relaxed or confident. The insular cortex's ability to monitor your emotions allows you to have the opportunity to realize when your emotions are influencing your decision making. That's significant, I think. The study also suggests, based on what the amygdala does, that republicans have arousal to an area involved in fear and anxiety conditioning and that often leads to aggressiveness and violence.

But maybe the study is crap. I really don't know.

I made a joking post making fun of both Democrats and Republicans, and you dissected my word choice where (in my opinion) it didnt even matter. If you can't smirk at those findings, I think you might be a Republican.

I thought the word choice completely changed the meaning of the study, so I said something. I do not typically pick on the word choice of other posters.

I guess I'd be more willing to smirk if the country wasn't suffering for your party's fear obsession.

It will be interesting to see if this gets replicated.

Monkeyboy wrote:I thought the word choice completely changed the meaning of the study, so I said something. I do not typically pick on the word choice of other posters.

I guess I'd be more willing to smirk if the country wasn't suffering for your party's fear obsession.

It will be interesting to see if this gets replicated.

done

oh, you mean if the study gets replicated

I am neither sad nor afraid

I am hungry, and would like to be drunk

Nate scores the conservative cred of the plausible 2016 Republican contenders (from a piece focused on Rubio), measured against a hodgepodge of benchmarks.




That Barry Goldwater was something

dup

Steve Rattner, former car czar, current douchebag and fraudster:

He was accused of using “pay to play” practices while raising money from a New York state pension fund when he was still at Quadrangle. In 2010 he paid more than $16 million to Andrew M. Cuomo, who was then New York’s attorney general, and the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle the civil cases without admitting or denying wrongdoing.

He was “banned from appearing in any capacity before any public pension fund within the State of New York for five years” and for “associating with any investment adviser or broker dealer” for two years, according to the suits. As the case proceeded, he stepped down from his position in the Obama administration.

TWO YEARS?! WE GOT HIM!!!!

If there was a question about his current status — and whether the chattering classes had moved on — the guest list of his 60th birthday party this last summer, overlooking Rockefeller Center, may provide the answer: Mr. Bloomberg, Barry Diller, Jamie Dimon, Harvey Weinstein, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Ralph Lauren, Brian Roberts and Fred Wilpon, among others, were all in attendance.When Vice President Biden held his holiday party in December, Mr. Rattner was there. And at the home of Hillary Clinton last month for her farewell party from the State Department, where Mr. Rattner’s wife, Maureen White, works, he was there, too. (His wife was the finance co-chairwoman of the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.)

*throws up* that DC/Manhattan bubble refuses to pop.

That may be a truism. But at the time of the scandal, Mr. Cuomo used particularly pointed language: “Steve Rattner was willing to do whatever it took to get his hands on pension fund money including paying kickbacks, orchestrating a movie deal, and funneling campaign contributions.”
In the S.E.C.’s case, David Rosenfeld of the New York regional office said then that Mr. Rattner “delivered special favors and conducted sham transactions that corrupted the Retirement Fund’s investment process.”

One friend who never left was Mr. Bloomberg. When news of Mr. Cuomo’s case against him first broke, Mr. Rattner sent him an e-mail to give him a heads-up about the situation. Mr. Bloomberg’s reply? “The only thing wrong with you is your golf game.”

In an interview, Mr. Bloomberg said, “Steve is a good friend. You stick by your friends. And I don’t worry about what people say.” And despite all the chatter about Mr. Rattner, Mr. Bloomberg added, “I never heard anyone say they wouldn’t invite Steven Rattner to a party because of what was happening.”

David Axelrod, who was President Obama’s senior strategist for his re-election campaign, said in an e-mail of Mr. Rattner, “Whatever happened in New York didn’t obviate the great service he rendered.” He added: “Steve did an extraordinary job for the administration and the country in helping to shape the auto plan, which was a clear success.”

Yes, David, it does.

jerseyhoya wrote:Republicans and Democrats don't just think differently, they actually use their brains differently

FTN alert

I read that as saying that politics corrupts your brain

He's also raised $125,000 for his PAC selling water bottles for $25 a pop

Sounds criminal

china announced today that they're gonna start implementing a carbon tax

is Rick "Obama [is an] anti-war, Government Nig-" Santorum really going to run again? lovely party the GOP has got there.