On Wednesday, 16 December 2009, military blogs went silent in support of C.J. Grisham and to underscore that, milblogs are coming under extreme scrutiny from within. Troy Steward, writer of the Bouhammer blog and co-host of You Served Military Broadcast wrote:
While senior leadership has embraced blogging and social media, many field grade officers and senior NCOs do not embrace the concept. From general apathy in not wanting to deal with the issue to outright hostility to it, many commands are not only failing to support such activities, but are aggressively acting against active duty milbloggers, milspouses, and others. The number of such incidents appears to be growing, with milbloggers receiving reprimands, verbal and written, not only for their activities but those of spouses and supporters.
C.J. Grisham wrote a top-rated military blog called A Soldier's Perspective for many years. He was an Army Master Sargent decorated with a Bronze Star with a "V" device to denote valor, and his blog was known for his incisive writing style and unflinching opinions. He wrote about his battle with PTSD to encourage others to seek help. C.J. was always very careful to assure readers that his opinions were solely his, and not those of the U.S. Army. However, in recent months he was compelled to give up his blog when a personal issue spilled over onto his military blog. The story behind this protest is one that Hugh Hewitt says should be covered by both old and new media.
The unraveling of C.J. as a top blogger came when the J.E. Williams School in Huntsville, Alabama decided to introduce the idea of uniforms. The Grishams were concerned that the investment parents would have to make would be cost-prohibitive. So C.J. studied the issue and ended up reading a lot of dry, academic studies on the effectiveness of school uniforms.
I read through EXTREMELY boring academia studies that talked about "stratified samplings," variables, and controls. I read countless news articles and some published university debates. I read laws, laws, and more laws.
What he found was there was no difference in terms of performance and success. These two factors were mostly influenced by parental involvement.
He and his wife went to the P.T.A. meeting to discuss their findings. However, both the principal and the president of the P.T.A. decided to ignore Robert's Rules of Parliamentary Procedure and skip the public debate.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Ruvy
Kanani,
One of the problems with a volunteer army is that you will not have the support you deserve of a country that ought to be outraged at the suppression of freedom of speech - and at the cover-up of same by the shits in the US military who did it.
In this country, filled with reservists, the army gets closer scrutiny, and its attempts to shut down elements in it who do not agree with the party line are front-page news.
One could not have imagined this problem in the early 1970's when a volunteer army was adopted because Americans would not support the imperialist policies in Washington, and refused to be drafted. But now, Americans' support for getting around the truth of issues, and ignoring the fact that refusal to serve in the military if the policy was deemed wrong by the American people was a boots on the ground referendum, is biting you all in the ass.
Failure to acknowledge truth ALWAYS has a price, and usually a high one.
2 - Joanne Huspek
Wow, amazing post, but filled with many truths. As an Army brat, and later for a short time an Army wife, I know of what you speak. It was 30 some years ago when I decided to question my ex's commanding officer regarding a few issues I had. (I know. Poor form.) I was young and headstrong and didn't have much sense. For my questions and opinions, I was rewarded by having the US government clandestinely follow me around for a few years until the divorce went through.
This oppression of opinions is not just in the government or with the military. I am sorry to say I am afraid to speak my mind in front of certain groups of people because I know what the response will be -- disapproval bordering on hate. On one hand, I think it's wise to keep your mouth shut, but on the other hand, respectful dissent is the only way to change.
3 - Kanani
Joanne, now that's just bizarre! What did they think they were going to learn by tailing you?
I think that restraint is merited in many situations. But self censorship is different and can lead to utter frustration and ...looniness.
"All these people talk so eloquently about getting back to good old-fashioned values. Well, as an old poop I can remember back to when we had those old-fashioned values, and I say let's get back to the good old-fashioned First Amendment of the good old-fashioned Constitution of the United States -- and to hell with the censors! Give me knowledge or give me death!" -Kurt Vonnegut
4 - Eddie Black
I found this article while surfing for information (official or otherwise) about rules of posting on a blog as I am creating an online support blog for spouses of military veterans. I couldn't stop reading this blog... it was like a train wreck. I kept wanting to say "no way... anyone else see this train headed for the washed out bridge?"
But free speech is not part of the military. We defend it but we do not have it. We are marines and soldiers 24/7/365 and it is a credit to C.J. for removing the posts under orders. I do not know how I would have handled it.
In my working with people with PTSD, plus my own experiences with people who have attached their negative labels onto me due to my combat vet status, I find the story to be common. Because of some of the aspects of PTSD and/or combat stress injuries (notably with anger) and our general military cultural attitudes of communication styles, it is easy for someone to feel they lost their right to be angry, and they 'stuff' their emotions.
Good luck C.J., wherever you go.