COMMENT AT MY SITE. I have a growing, and deeply disturbed following. You’d fit right in!!!!

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Jane, you make me laugh, often, and, yes, it’s disturbing what’s going on in our country. I’m trying to say that I’m “disturbed” in a variety of meanings, one disturbed, as in “who wants to be a normal personality? boring, boring, boring”. But seriously, I’m very disturbed at the lack of seriousness displayed by the leaders on both sides.

I meant to write to you not to “switch” parties, instead of ‘swich’, blech. I hate it when I don’t pay attention.

I’ll look into commenting on your site. There are a few with my handle on other blogs, totally unrelated.

p.s. off topic – we need to talk about Fred – I met him once and have followed his political moves for years. Best always,

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 7:14 PM

1. The bandwidth is a real concern. Been over there tending to those pipes and know what the infrastructure looks like. There is no difference between which network and which pipe it traverses. In other words they run on the same pipes in different channels.
2. Some of the critical applications run on the unclassified networks – such as medical apps designed to ensure that no matter how remote a troop is, if he or she is injured access to their records is a keystroke away.
3. four or five days in the desert by a couple of people is not sufficient to counter your concerns about the MSM (and not nearly enough people to do it right)
4. My area of expertise is comm and network security. I don’t presume to tell your husband how to lead marines or you how to run a blog or site as I have no experience with either. I don’t recall you mentioning that you have expertise in comm.
5. All military personnel are expected to work through their PA officers to avoid divulging information that may not be appropriate. We are briefed on it periodically as well and can be held accountable for disobeying those instructions.

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 11:08 AM

I read your post and disagree slightly with your view. I am not against soldiers being allowed to share their experiences but only when they are safely back in the US and can do so with the confidence they won’t accidentally share a detail that could damage current operations.

With all respect, Bradky >>>>>>>>>

With the exception of the greenest PFCs (who I can ASSURE YOU DON’T HAVE TIME TO POOP, much less TYPE), these men are PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS with a TAD more to lose than a promotion if they can’t tell what is “safe” to tell and what is not. They are trained to know that better than you would be in the same situation. It is what they do.

Again, my Marine, and all his buddies MAKE IT THEIR BUSINESS TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. Hell, he doesn’t tell me anything regarding troop movements, plans or equipment. And I sleep with him.

Secondly>>>

Never you mind about BANDWIDTH. How Lame is THAT argument. And the MWR (Moral Rec and Welfare) computers are on a DIFFERENT Lan than these “secret machines” you are so worried about.

The NiprNet is the UNCLASSIFIED military computer network. The SiprNet is the “Secret” or Secure Network. I assure your little arm chair worry stone need not be rubbed on THAT score.

And with regards to “consorium” of bloggers. We did that. Michelle went. but the MSM STILL HAS the corner on the “press pass” review and dispensation market that is like understanding DIGG. It is Greek, but set up to protect Liberal interests. And YES, EVEN AT THE PENTAGON.

Lastly, Bradky,

The Department of Defense computers and bandwidth are technically “work” computers, you are right.

But more than a few Officers I know TOOK THEIR OWN MACHINES to Iraq and THE DoD WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO SUPPORT MILBLOGGERS WHEN THIS SHIP WASN’T SINKING AND MILBLOGGERS WERE NOT POINTING OUT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS BEING A P*SSY THE EMPEROR IS NAKED.

And THAT. IS. A. FACT.

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Great job Jane – and, no one, but no one, can say it like you do! Thanks for being as strong as you are.

P.S. when you write that best-seller, I sure hope you won’t swich sides to market it :) Respectfully and thankfully,

Entelechy on May 3, 2007 at 2:23 PM

::blushblush:: ….and THANK YOU.

COMMENT AT MY SITE. I have a growing, and deeply disturbed following. You’d fit right in!!!!

NAKED?!

DAMN! You’re tough.

csdeven on May 3, 2007 at 12:15 PM

I’m a FED. UP. TO. THE. GILLS. Marine wife.

That’s why you read all the way to the end, right, sweetie?

ALWAYS a punch line.

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 11:08 AM

I read your post and disagree slightly with your view. I am not against soldiers being allowed to share their experiences but only when they are safely back in the US and can do so with the confidence they won’t accidentally share a detail that could damage current operations.
Another consideration is that the bloggers are using government networks from the theater and technically should not use them for unofficial purposes, which is what a blog is. That’s the legalese but the practical reason is that the networks are carrying operational traffic, images and data that the troops at “the tip of the spear” need unfettered access to. Unofficial traffic and bandwidth heavy things like mpegs and pictures stress the finite amount of bandwidth available.

An additional comment for those concerned that the MSM is not doing its job objectively is that there is nothing stopping a “consortium” of bloggers from putting their resources together to send some journalists of their choosing to report the news. I’m not trying to be a smart alec about that but our troops are there to fight – not feed the blogosphere and people should recognize that.

Great job Jane – and, no one, but no one, can say it like you do! Thanks for being as strong as you are.

P.S. when you write that best-seller, I sure hope you won’t swich sides to market it :) Respectfully and thankfully,

On October 1979 I signed on the dotted line and started a career which spanned 22 years. When I signed that line I understood that in order to protect the rights of American citizens I was giving up some of my own rights. It’s still the same today the only difference is technology. Regulations and policies have changed to keep up with the times.

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 11:08 AM

NAKED?!

DAMN! You’re tough.

Not that any of you will care. I’m just a CAPITAL “D” , “Dependent”.

PPfffttt….

Bradky on May 3, 2007 at 7:26 AM

hahahaha! I’m just waiting for you to offer to give us all the phone number to your former CO so we can verify your “expertise”.

LOL!

that soldiers should write a report about members of the media who try to solicit critical information.

How ’bout save the paper and just let the guys pop ‘em in the chops?

csdeven on May 3, 2007 at 7:04 AM

Grow up

interview the soldiers who are Muslim to let them explain how they resolve their occupation and religion

Yeah, that’s intelligent. The real fanatics LIE and have no compunction about doing so.

This is one area I have a lot of inside knowledge about….

I spent a couple of decades in the military and can speak with some expertise on this subject.

Take my word for it about the cyber challenges the military is encountering.

I used to make a living doing this kind of analysis….

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

And I concur with Griz that See-Dubya does great work.

All personal emails are screened now, under that policy, too.

amerpundit on May 2, 2007 at 8:16 PM

All e-mails, in any company or government office here in the U.S. is subject to the same rules. That means, they are the property of the company or the office and the proprietors have a right to inspect them. How much of it actually gets inspected is determined ‘as needed’.

This became so in the major Microsoft case, when hundreds of part-time employees were forced to be hired and paid back in benefits, based on their (until then) uninspected e-mails. The owners can also set retention guidelines and can delete old e-mails on a routine basis (ex. all older than one year).

- The Cat

Shame on the people for not backing the troops.

Shame on the Whitehouse for not selling their policies better.

Shame on the media . .well for being what they are.

Shame on Congress using the troops as political pawns.

Shame on the military for still after (how many years since Veitnam?) learning their lessons about PR.

- The Cat

P.S. Put together a panel or something and get the best milbloggers together and let them do a blog project. Give them a military cencor (to filter out potential ship sinkingness) as an ombudsman

One test I would apply is to see how the rules for blogging might differ from rules for writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper. I would equate those actions as being on the same level of speech. Is a soldier required to get his CO’s approval for a letter to a newspaper?

crosspatch on May 2, 2007 at 10:27 PM

The differences as I see them are (a) the letter to the editor is normally reviewed by the staff and has to be selected or approved for print (b) If selected the time before being put into print is a matter of days (c) the enemy (in this case terrorists) does not have the resources to efficiently monitor every newspaper in print to look for possible nuggets (d) newspapers cannot be googled the way that blogs can and at anywhere near the efficiency or speed of internet searches (try googling “hotair.com crosspatch” and you get an idea)

In short blogs are near real time and easily searchable where letters to the editor are not.

Part of the reason could also be partisan political comments or opinions posted about various politicians and parties.

One test I would apply is to see how the rules for blogging might differ from rules for writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper. I would equate those actions as being on the same level of speech. Is a soldier required to get his CO’s approval for a letter to a newspaper?