backtop


Print 63 comment(s) - last by Bostlabs.. on Apr 10 at 7:10 PM


  (Source: boston.com)
A Marine review board has recommended the dismissal

A United States Marine may be dismissed from the military for posting negative comments about U.S. President Barack Obama on Facebook.

Gary Stein, 26, a meteorologist at Camp Pendleton, posted on Facebook that he refused to follow orders given by Obama. These comments were posted on a Facebook page called the Armed Forces Tea Party.

This isn't Stein's first bout of trouble in the military. The Marine, who has served almost nine years including a tour of duty in Iraq, also got in trouble for comments that he posted on the Armed Forces Tea Party page back in 2010. At that point, he was simply told to put a disclaimer on the page saying that it was in no way affiliated with the U.S. military.

But this time, the Marines believe Stein has gone too far. After posting that he refused to follow Obama's orders, Stein later removed the comments saying that he meant only unlawful orders.

Now, a Marine Corps review board has ruled that Stein should be dismissed with a less-than-honorable discharge for his Facebook comments. This decision came after a 13-hour hearing and one hour deliberation by the board.

This recommendation will be sent to Brigadier General Daniel Yoo, who is commanding general of the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot. He is then expected to make a decision regarding Stein's fate within 30 days.

The Marines are taking Stein's actions very seriously, considering the fact that Marines take an oath to defend the Constitution and obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which means Marines cannot partake in political activities while in uniform.

Stein was due to either re-enlist or end his enlistment at the end of July.

This particular case is just another reminder that social media is being watched very closely by overheads such as employers and schools. For instance, employees and applicants at the Maryland Department of Corrections were forced to hand over their Facebook emails and passwords so that employers could take a look at their employees' private lives. Later, the government simply asked employees to log into their Facebook pages right in front of them. In addition, an Indiana high school student was recently expelled for posting foul language on Twitter, even though he supposedly tweeted it from home.

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Should know better
By Beenthere on 4/9/2012 10:04:56 AM , Rating: 5
Anyone in the military should know full well they do not enjoy the same "free speech" while in service for obvious reasons. This guy should have accepted this reality after he was warned several times. Now he'll get booted and lose his rank and benefits. Not a very smart move IMO.




RE: Should know better
By rburnham on 4/9/2012 10:11:54 AM , Rating: 2
It's like any other job. You may not like the boss, but you still have to do your job.


RE: Should know better
By mcnabney on 4/9/2012 12:20:21 PM , Rating: 4
Seriously?

It is NOTHING like any other job. Service men and women knowingly sign away many of their Rights and Liberties while they serve. Your boss can't show up to your house and perform a search (unless we are talking about Apple), but that can and does happen in the military. All communications are assumed to be monitored. Hell, you can't keep your own firearm on base.


RE: Should know better
By Camikazi on 4/9/2012 1:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
Service men and women also work in jobs that are NOTHING like any other job. They need discipline and strict rules and regulations and NEED to obey or they die out in the field. That is rule one in any military, learn to obey and follow all directions if you want to stay alive and this is part of it.


RE: Should know better
By Jaybus on 4/10/2012 12:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
It's more basic than that. If a Microsoft employee refused to do anyhing that the CEO (Steve Ballmer) assigned him, everyone would understand why he was fired. How is this any different? The President is the Commander in Chief, more or less the CEO of the Navy (and therefore the Marines).

It's not a question of freedom. He has the freedom to refuse to do what his boss tells him. Of course, the boss also has the freedom to fire him for it. He's not going to prison. He's being fired for not being a team player and publicly stating as much. Oh well.


RE: Should know better
By lyeoh on 4/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Should know better
By foolsgambit11 on 4/9/2012 9:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
"It's like any other job" obviously referred only to the one aspect he was discussing - the inability to criticize one's boss.

But, it turns out, he's partially wrong. Officers are prohibited from talking about certain specific government officials, but enlisted service members are not bound in the same way. The Courts have decided that there isn't a pressing need to restrict enlisted political speech, and so they are free under the 1st Amendment, as long as they aren't representing the government when they make their speech.

So in fact, the military is unlike other jobs, in that you DO have free reign to criticize your boss, protected by the Constitution.

The problem here isn't that he was talking about the President (unless he's an officer, but then he would have been in serious trouble earlier, and a caveat that he wasn't speaking "as a Marine" wouldn't have saved him), the problem is that he claimed he wouldn't follow orders.


RE: Should know better
By knutjb on 4/9/2012 10:19:56 AM , Rating: 5
After 20+ years in the military I know everyone is told what inappropriate speech is and any comments on the president is best left to quiet, private comments out of uniform. Yes, there is a difference expressing your views in uniform. He blew it.

It has been a few years since I left the military and I still am very careful how phrase comments in public.

Those in prison have more rights than those in the military.


RE: Should know better
By FITCamaro on 4/9/12, Rating: 0
RE: Should know better
By FITCamaro on 4/9/12, Rating: 0
RE: Should know better
By Spuke on 4/9/2012 3:18:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
All the down ratings. Not a single defense for the cuts on military health care benefits. Because there is no defense for it.
There's always cuts after wars. Nothing to do with who's in office. We're finishing up a large one so there's going to be large cuts. Sure it sucks but that's the way it is.


RE: Should know better
By foolsgambit11 on 4/9/2012 8:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
Enlisted service members generally have more latitude to speak out against the government, including the POTUS, than they realize - yes, as long as they aren't representing the government at the same time. The issue here is that he wasn't speaking about his superiors, but about his intended actions - although the offense here would seem to fall under the general article, as best I can see.


RE: Should know better
By Ristogod on 4/9/2012 10:31:37 AM , Rating: 2
It's one of the reasons I left the military. You are expected to surrender too many natural rights and freedoms. I felt like I voluntarily entered our prison system when I was there.

The military isn't for everyone. I realized that I could do more for my country outside of the military than within it. Sure when you contribute to your economy and community in a healthy manner, it doesn't get you the blind admiration of the ignorant "Support the Troops" bumper sticker crowd. But I don't know if there's any saving those lazy thought based individuals.


RE: Should know better
By Gondor on 4/9/2012 11:14:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yet this is precisely how military works; everybody is expected to follow orders, not to question them.

Obama is currently commander-in-chief and while this guy may not like him it doesn't somehow make him right to disobey the orders that are not unlawful. If everybody had their way the chain of command would cease to exist and the military as a force would crumble. It's just like many other lines of work ... One can't be a professional basketball player who refuses to run, jump and shoot just because he dislikes his coach either.


RE: Should know better
By ssnova703 on 4/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Should know better
By mcnabney on 4/9/2012 12:23:25 PM , Rating: 3
Please cite an example of an active duty service member doing that without any response.


RE: Should know better
By Spuke on 4/9/2012 3:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please cite an example of an active duty service member doing that without any response.
I was in during Bush, it wasn't tolerated then nor will it ever be (and shouldn't).


RE: Should know better
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Should know better
By Spuke on 4/9/2012 3:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sounds like a guy blowing off some steam. And he should have every right to do so. If we ask them to die for our freedoms, they should enjoy those very same ones we do.
NOT ON FACEBOOK!!! We have/had plenty of opportunities for "blowing off steam". I've done my fair share as has any other soldier/sailor. But you do NOT bad mouth your Commander-in-chief in PUBLIC especially during a war. If it was me, he'd be swinging. Sorry.


RE: Should know better
By tng on 4/9/2012 4:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
Agree, how long will it take before people who are on Facebook will come to the realization that things you say there can be used against you?

I really am beginning to think that maybe Facebook is just another stage of Darwin's Law at work. Facebook is weeding out people who don't think before they speak publicly and their standing is therefore diminished and their genes don't move to the next generation.


RE: Should know better
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Should know better
By FITCamaro on 4/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Should know better
By gladiatorua on 4/10/2012 12:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
It's not about freedom of speech. He openly declared that he would not follow President's orders.


RE: Should know better
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Should know better
By FITCamaro on 4/9/2012 1:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with you Reclaimer, unfortunately those are not the rules.


RE: Should know better
By Drizzt321 on 4/9/2012 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 5
You're missing the part of the oath that it says we (I'm a Vet) obey the President:

"...I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Literally saying he won't follow orders (even just 'some') is prejudicial to good order and discipline, and is a very, very serious offense. If he said "this order I won't obey and don't believe it's lawful", ok, he should go to his commanding officer and get it worked out. Most especially, he should not say things like that in a public forum. We get briefed all the time on things like this, so I have no sympathy with this guy.


RE: Should know better
By Spuke on 4/9/2012 3:25:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Literally saying he won't follow orders (even just 'some') is prejudicial to good order and discipline, and is a very, very serious offense.
Ding! Ding! Ding!


RE: Should know better
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/12, Rating: 0
RE: Should know better
By twhittet on 4/9/2012 7:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
Now you just hold on a minute. You can't turn something someone said on Facebook into a criminal act. So I could make threats to individuals or a group - but as far as I know, it doesn't count because it's just a comment on Facebook!

Oh....wait.......

Saying "it was just a dumb Facebook comment" doesn't excuse the stupidity.


RE: Should know better
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2012 8:02:47 PM , Rating: 1
Nice straw man.


RE: Should know better
By ritualm on 4/10/2012 6:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes you can. It's Facebook, not an AOL chatroom. If you want to post your tactless opinions as a service member and not get backhanded, you go anonymous or use an ambiguous handle . He did neither.

He made a comment that he refuses to follow orders - if you are his superior would you want him in your platoon? That alone is serious grounds for dismissal, but he clearly stated he will not follow (President) Obama's orders... when he was clearly sworn into the oath that he will follow the President's orders?

What partisan politics? You're an idiot.

Lesson learned: if you're going to criticize the boss in charge, anon is your friend.


RE: Should know better
By Bostlabs on 4/10/2012 7:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
Facebook is public (at least from what I've read about him posting his statements). He publicly stated that he will not follow the orders of the commander in chief.

He might as well been standing in front of Obama and saying "FU!" (I wouldn't mind doing that sometimes but I'm no longer an active Marine. :) )

That isn't done. And he KNEW it isn't done but did it anyway. I can't tell you how many times it was drilled into our head while I was in the Corps.

He screwed up and now he is no longer a Marine. And rightly so. Now he can speak freely on whatever he wants but now as a civilian.


RE: Should know better
By FaaR on 4/10/2012 10:09:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah right, you wouldn't be saying that if the President was a Republican. In fact if that were the case, this guy wouldn't even be getting discharged.

Right, because you have both soothsaying and mindreading mental powers, and therefore know how people will act in an alternative fictional universe. You're so fulla crud you even believe your own offal you're spouting.

quote:
This happened many times under Bush I'm sure, I don't recall hearing about people getting discharged over it.

If it happened so many times why don't you mention some of them? Maybe the reason you didn't hear about it is because they DIDN'T HAPPEN? But no, I'm sure you never even considered that. In your mind, it's all evil Barack Osama Bin Laden's fault. You loonie.

quote:
The people that live and die so our free speech is protected shouldn't have less freedom of speech than we do. That's absurd.

To use your own method of rethoric, I might counter that with you wouldn't be saying that if it was a Republican in the White House; then you'd condemn this sort of behavior like Rush Limbaugh attacking a birth control pill-popping college student... Everybody knows this is true. Lol!

It's easily argued that claiming in public you won't be following your commander-in-chief's orders is detrimental to general troop morale, if not borderline treasonous. You don't join up to the military if you're not willing to take the consequences of that action.

quote:
Military servicemen take an oath to the Constitution and the country, NOT the President.

Well, they do in fact swear an oath to the president, so not sure exactly what you're on about, other than your general spiel of "Obama is evil, nobody should have to follow him" and so on that you're usually on about.


RE: Should know better
By Starcub on 4/9/2012 12:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds to me like he did the right thing and got rewarded for it.


RE: Should know better
By Salisme on 4/9/2012 12:45:53 PM , Rating: 1
He is not going to lose any benefits. In six months his less than honorable discharge will be automatically upgraded to honorable and he will get a new DD214. He will then be able to receive full benefits.


By ssnova703 on 4/9/2012 12:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
When Bush was in office, you had countless reports of people bashing him publicly, soldiers, rappers(NAS, Eminem, etc.) etc. it was like a trend, but it was freedom of speech... you get one guy who speaks out against the President within the military and this happens. I'm not saying I condone the guy's attitude.

America is losing it's freedoms by the day and everyone is rushing to give away more.




By mcnabney on 4/9/2012 12:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
Plenty of civilians, no active duty service members.


By rpsgc on 4/9/2012 12:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
How dare you insult great Comrade Obama!

Seize him!


By Spuke on 4/9/2012 3:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
I challenge you to show me where an active duty soldier or sailor bashed the President in public and did not receive any punishment.

quote:
America is losing it's freedoms by the day and everyone is rushing to give away more.
This has NEVER been a freedom that soldiers or sailors enjoy.


By ritualm on 4/10/2012 6:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
Eminem held concerts in Iraq?

You're an idiot.


By jimbojimbo on 4/9/2012 12:02:14 PM , Rating: 4
I was an active duty Marine for 5 years and we've always said that you can complain during your first enlistment but if you reenlist you fully know what you're in for so you lose your right to complain. I'm no fan of Obama but hey I got out.

In my units if you got caught like this you wouldn't necessarily get discharged but you'd get every crap duty assignment possible as well as getting voluntold for every crap task to make your life miserable.




By Beenthere on 4/9/2012 1:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
Being booted has nothing to do with who the President is or what party is in office. You could expect the same for any military person who continues an online political campaign after being advised this is unacceptable. Even Generals are relieved of command for inappropriate comments.




Orders and Insults.
By drycrust3 on 4/9/2012 4:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
posted on Facebook that he refused to follow orders given by Obama.

Not having served in the military, I thought that you had to have extremely good reasons for refusing to obey orders, e.g. your senior officer was extremely ill and not capable of issuing orders, you were ordered to shoot innocent people, the orders are suicidal, etc. In other words, there are higher orders or laws that defends your decision to not obey a lower order.

My reading of this from other news websites is Stein was held responsible for editing posters for the movies "The Incredibles" and "Jackass" so they insulted President Obama, and produced other pictures which insulted the President, who is his Commander in Chief, and then posting them on various Facebook pages, which is a public forum.
While Facebook could be regarded as a new phenomenon, the fact is Stein should have been aware that not so long ago US General McChrystal was dismissed because his subordinates insulted the President and questioned his orders when it was reasonable for those subordinates to believe their comments would be published (well, they were being interviewed by a reporter).
As I see this situation, just like McChrystal's subordinates who talked to the Rolling Stones reporter, it was reasonable for Stein to believe his President insulting pictures placed on a public forum with world wide access could easily gain wide attention.
Because the pictures insulted the same president that had dismissed McChrystal, this left the most senior officers in the US Marine Corp with little doubt as to the potential for them loosing their jobs because the circumstances were almost the same: a subordinate insulted the President and got wide publicity because of it. I think those senior officers would have reasonable grounds to believe, like McChrystal, that it was either them or Stein that got the "less than honourable discharge".




No problems with the results
By evo slevven on 4/10/2012 1:02:14 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter the person when in office. Additionally application of constitutional rights that an individual citizen have aren't applicable. Likewise there have been no "unconstitutional orders" handed down. Further more the ability to disobey orders within a situation do not extend to political ideology or belief; it's limited to the narrow set of scenario where atrocities and crimes are liable to occur.

I also think that connections made from this marines actions to Nazi's and WW2 are both inappropriate and as far away from the truth as possible. Stein may not agree with the president let alone like him, but his actions were indeed disrespectful and he was already warned. It's also getting idiotic to draw connections between freedoms of liberty and speech to an enlisted marine; one is entitled to specific rights and liberties while the other is not.

As the british say "mine is not to question why, Mine is but to do or die". Until something in the area of My Lai, extermination camps or concentration camps come up then we can bring up the "not following orders" argument again. But the President hasn't yet done anything that would warrant an unlawful order.




Too obvious
By ritualm on 4/10/2012 6:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
"Gary Stein, 26, a meteorologist at Camp Pendleton, posted on Facebook that he refused to follow orders given by Obama."

and...

"Armed Forces Tea Party"

He won't follow Obama's orders because the President is not white, simple as that. It's the only reason why the overall Tea Party movement exists.

He won't follow orders. Huge red flag in the military. In short, he's stupid.




Obama the Islam lover?
By dark matter on 4/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: Obama the Islam lover?
By anactoraaron on 4/9/2012 2:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa there buddy. Ease up on the kool-aid.


He was just defending the constitution!
By Ristogod on 4/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: He was just defending the constitution!
By chromal on 4/9/2012 10:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
Which Marine orders were issued by the POTUS that you feel were unconstitutional? In other words, put up or shut up.


RE: He was just defending the constitution!
By Ristogod on 4/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: He was just defending the constitution!
By nolisi on 4/9/2012 10:55:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
imposes and supports laws and regulations that oppose core constitutional limitations?


Proposing laws that *you* feel violate the Constitution and Obama issuing orders that violate the Constitution are two very separate things. As of yet, I'm unaware of any manner in which Obama has been shown to have legally and unequivocally been guilty of violating the Constitution.

You forget we have a political process to sort this stuff out and much of our social ideology stems from a cultural context. Laws that the POTUS might propose/support might violate the constituion- but that's why we have a political/legal process, to work this stuff out. There are a lot of people who feel that something like the healthcare law does violate it. But again, that's for our legal system to work out as a whole, not a few members of a far right group who tell us the government should be small, except in cases where it comes to legislating the definition of marriage and womens reproductive rights.

Guess what happens if I state openly that I'm not going to follow my bosses direction because I *feel* they violate the constitution? How many people will come to my defense when my @$$ is fired?


RE: He was just defending the constitution!
By tng on 4/9/2012 1:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As of yet, I'm unaware of any manner in which Obama has been shown to have legally and unequivocally been guilty of violating the Constitution.
Well, that is technically true, but he signed into law the last NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) late in the afternoon on December 31st 2011 while no one was watching.

Hidden in the bill was a group of laws that let the President as CinC have the MILITARY (any branch the president assigns) arrest US citizens and detain them indefinitely without trial or charges. The detainee just has to be labeled as a "terrorist" and there is not really a definition that is given in the law, so they can name anyone for any reason they choose.

While I am normally not a ACLU fan, they do have a point when they called this unconstitutional (along with a group of law professors from Harvard who reviewed it).

Everybody and their mother protested the Patriot Act when Bush signed it into law, but hardly anyone even knows about this. No one will protest this until a marine shows up on their doorstep and they disappear forever. Reminds me of Soviet Russia, Hitler's Germany, Iran...

Of course don't take my word for it, look it up yourself. I find it amazing that there have not been protests about this, but the left who would normally do that protesting can't see anything that this president does as wrong.

Bad times are coming for the US...


RE: He was just defending the constitution!
By tng on 4/9/2012 2:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
BTW just for clarity, the new laws allow the military to arrest people on US Soil, which is clearly unconstitutional. It also lets not just Obama, but any POTUS that comes after him, what amount to dictatorial powers over individual US citizens.

While Obama himself may not ever call the Pentagon to have some US citizen on US soil arrested and detained under this law, can we trust the next person in the office? Or the next? At some point someone will abuse the law, just a matter of time, just like it was found that individuals at the FBI had been using the Patriot Act inappropriately.


RE: He was just defending the constitution!
By Spuke on 4/9/2012 3:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BTW just for clarity, the new laws allow the military to arrest people on US Soil, which is clearly unconstitutional.
NO they do not. I looked it up myself. Hype and hysteria.


RE: He was just defending the constitution!
By tng on 4/9/2012 4:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NO they do not. I looked it up myself. Hype and hysteria.
Hate to disagree with you, but here is what Forbes said about it...

quote:
President Obama said “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

Worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial. There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague.


There are more credible sources out there, but I would call that more than just hype and hysteria.

The fact that these laws act hand in hand with provisions in the Patriot Act, makes me think that at some level the people in power in DC are becoming afraid of what the populations reaction will be if the economy really does go into depression.


RE: He was just defending the constitution!
By Spuke on 4/9/2012 4:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hate to disagree with you, but here is what Forbes said about it...
Hate to disagree with you but the final provision of that bill did not have that in there.


By tng on 4/9/2012 4:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Really, then what did the President sign, and made the comment about?

He had originally wanted the provisions out of the bill, but then did sign it. In essence what the President signs is the final version, otherwise it would not have made it to his desk.


By retrospooty on 4/9/2012 11:06:38 AM , Rating: 4
"So you can't grasp the concept of Marine's taking an oath to defend the constitution, yet they take orders from a man who imposes and supports laws and regulations that oppose core constitutional limitations?"

Your so off base its not even funny. This is a military matter. Your view on the constitutionality of some of Obama's other decisions is 100% political, and has nothing to do with military. Military personal are NOT to speak out against the president, or any superior for that matter on ANY political issue ever. It has to be that way and always has been.


RE: He was just defending the constitution!
By tayb on 4/9/2012 10:58:30 AM , Rating: 1
“The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect, his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces.; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies – all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”

-Alexander Hamilton

War has not been declared so how can the President give ANY legal combat orders?


By GatoRat on 4/9/2012 11:08:00 AM , Rating: 2
The President of the United States is ALWAYS the Command in Chief of the armed forces.

You totally miss Hamilton's point which is that in spite of the president's position as Commander in Chief, it is the legislature that reserves the ability to declare war, raise money for the armed forces and create what is now the UCMJ, of which section 88 dictates that a soldier must not make disparaging remarks about the President of the United States.


By mcnabney on 4/9/2012 12:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm, you do know that the US has not declared war on any nation since 1941, right?


By Commodus on 4/9/2012 10:43:16 AM , Rating: 3
The problem is, of course, that you can't simply say something is unconstitutional, refuse to follow orders because of that, and yet stay in the military.

Imagine if you accuse your boss of running a sweatshop, have questionable evidence at best to support it, and refuse to work... but you still want that paycheck every two weeks, please. Your boss would not only be well within his rights to fire you, but he would stand on such higher moral ground that you would have ruined any legitimate criticisms you might have had.

Something like Obama's health care plan isn't grounds for dereliction of duty, and certainly not the false claims that he wasn't born in the US.


By GatoRat on 4/9/2012 10:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
The constitution makes the President of the United States the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The president is this marine's ultimate commanding officer. A effective military is a disciplined military. Military personnel must honor the positions of authority, even if they disagree personally with the individuals in those positions.

There is a great line in Band of Brothers, when Major Winters meets his former commanding officer, who doesn't properly salute him, and says "we salute the rank, not the man." That is how is must be.


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki