Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-28-2016, 10:51 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,676
Just to add to that -- right now, roughly three-quarters of young people are not considered fit for military service in the U.S. Some of that is due to obesity, some to poor education, some to criminal backgrounds, and some to physical disabilities. It isn't like hearing impaired people are being picked on -- the armed forces simply don't want most American kids.
  #52  
Old 06-28-2016, 01:45 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
In short, contractors are useful if things go exactly according to plan. In the military, though, things never go according to plan. Call my naive, but when things go pear-shape, I'd rather put my trust in someone who swore an oath.
I think maybe you're thinking the degree of contractorization is a lot higher than it probably is. One of my closest friends spent part of 2007 and all of 2008 in sunny Baghdad as a signals officer, and for all intents and purposes, he was the head of a small handful of IT guys for his battalion. They didn't contract that out.

However, the trash collection on the base was done by Filipino contractors, as was most of the food serving, etc...

I doubt that units in the field are served by contractor-run field kitchens either, nor are their vehicles refueled by contractor-driven fuel trucks.

Part of what Ravenman talks about isn't so much that US teenagers and young people are somehow now more inherently unsuitable for enlistment, it's that the military has force manpower targets that it shoots for, and one of the ways it tries to manage that is by tweaking the standards of inductees. Now that the Iraq war is over, and Afghanistan is winding down, the standards are rising- if they only need 60,000 new enlistees, they can afford to be more choosy than in say... 2006, when they'd take nearly anyone under 45 who could walk and chew gum at the same time.
  #53  
Old 06-28-2016, 02:25 PM
Gatopescado is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 22,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
They could take it to court, if they could get a hearing.
(golf clap)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
There are no situations in which being deaf is an advantage.
Kayne West concert.
  #54  
Old 06-28-2016, 06:35 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
Some of the past barriers were admittedly artificial and unnecessary (no women in the front line, etc) but the barrier against deaf people is plain common sense.
The past restrictions were all defended as common sense at the time.

Which is not to say that the restriction against deaf people is reasonable or unreasonable. But "common sense" isn't an argument. It's usually just a statement of status quo bias.

My opinion is that this in some ways boils down to where you stand on Deaf Culture, and whether deafness is a disability or a social class.

1. No one deserves a spot in the military if they can't hack it. It's a functional force, not a national work program.

2. The military, as an institution, has a pretty bad track record of rationalizing why certain social classes should be excluded from service.
  #55  
Old 06-28-2016, 06:47 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,401
If you can't run a certain distance in a certain time, you can't be in the Army. Why do they discriminate against us out of shape couch potatoes? Shouldn't they consider all we can offer? I mean, as long as we can offer it from an comfortable armchair?

The military is not a jobs program, it's not a method for awarding participation trophies to kids with low self esteem. We only need a certain number of people in the military. If we need more people we might have to lower our standards to the point where we're conscripting guys who can't walk across the room without breathing heavily, for the sake of national survival. We're not at that point, and maybe before we get to that point we might raise taxes a little bit to increase military pay to attract more volunteers who can actually fight? Or maybe our military is already too large and we should be reducing the numbers, in which case we only want the most qualified people. Which means if you can't pass the basic physical standards you don't get to join.

If the physical standards are bona fide standards, and aren't just a pretext for excluding otherwise high performing people, then the physical standards are reasonable. Being able to hear spoken commands on the battlefield is not a pretextual standard, it is a bona fide standard.

If you're deaf and want to join the military, it must be because you want to be a soldier. If you really want to be a cook, then why would you want to be a military cook? Being a cook in the military is something you want to do if you've been drafted and are looking for a job where you don't get shot at. But we don't have a draft, we don't have universal service, and fulfilling a national service obligation is not considered a rite of passage into full-fledged citizenship in the United States. So there you go.
  #56  
Old 06-29-2016, 04:54 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Oh, and as for disabled people... wasn't the greatest naval battle in history won by a man with two separate major physical disabilities?
His biggest battle wasn't so famous, but Half-man had three separate disabilities (hence the nick).

The founder of the Spanish legion was two for two, in part because his interventions in battle were more along the lines of "getting the local equivalent of a purple heart again" than "managing a huge battle".

This guy didn't just wear an eyepatch to look rakish.

All those are examples of people who got their wounds while already in service, but at the same time they're proof that one doesn't need to be "whole" to serve and serve well.

Last edited by Nava; 06-29-2016 at 04:55 AM.
  #57  
Old 06-29-2016, 10:21 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,798
According to this site on deaf people in ww2, some of the sign language used by the deaf was taught to US troops so they could use it as a way of communicating silently.

Deaf people in WW2 served their country by doing war bonds and working in war related industries which back then was almost as important as the front.

I read where many deaf young men did do some drill and were prepared to fight if the need ever came.
  #58  
Old 06-29-2016, 09:37 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,389
Most of the dispute in this thread is about volunteer vs. conscription. In a volunteer military like the United States,' there is no good reason to accept a deaf applicant unless she or he has some exceptional skill or ability to offer the military. The military could simply turn the deaf person down and accept any of many, able-bodied, healthy-eared applicants that are next in line.


This thread has me wondering: What about similar occupations such as paramedic, firefighter, or police officer? Do those jobs allow deaf people?
  #59  
Old 07-01-2016, 06:37 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Most of the dispute in this thread is about volunteer vs. conscription. In a volunteer military like the United States,' there is no good reason to accept a deaf applicant unless she or he has some exceptional skill or ability to offer the military. The military could simply turn the deaf person down and accept any of many, able-bodied, healthy-eared applicants that are next in line.


This thread has me wondering: What about similar occupations such as paramedic, firefighter, or police officer? Do those jobs allow deaf people?
They do encourage those persons to learn some basic signs. For example, make like a gun with both hands, now put your thumbs together with your pointy fingers parallel. That sign for a police officer means "Show me your license".
  #60  
Old 07-01-2016, 10:13 AM
Chihuahua is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
That's the thing, though: we all agree that you need men and women in uniform, and the only difference between us is that you think we need as few as possible, relatively speaking, and I think we need as many as possible.
Yes. That is the problem. You don't appear to acknowledge or comprehend the difference between the US and Israeli militaries. The US does not need or want as many soldiers as possible. The US is actively reducing the size of its military. The US is already kicking out soldiers who are experienced, fully qualified, and physically able, for no reason other than we are reducing endstrength. Since we want FEWER soldiers, rather than MORE, there is absolutely no reason to accept a candidate who does not meet the standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
All those are examples of people who got their wounds while already in service, but at the same time they're proof that one doesn't need to be "whole" to serve and serve well.
Two points here.

1) You are making the same fallacy as Alessan. I don't recall anyone ever saying that a person who was not "whole" was just worthless. The Army already accepts people who are not in pristine condition. I myself required a medical waiver to join. The difference is that we are distinguishing between those who can complete all of the required tasks (like me) and those who cannot (deaf people).

2) The Army already retains soldiers who have these kinds of disabilities. There are infantrymen out there with one eye, and I know of some service members who have prosthetic legs. And you are quite correct. Their disabilities do not preclude them from performing required tasks, and even fighting in combat. So, as before, the Army is very carefully assessing disabled people and the choice to exclude deaf people is built on well-founded necessity and not just bigotry against the handicapped.

Last edited by Chihuahua; 07-01-2016 at 10:14 AM.
  #61  
Old 07-09-2016, 01:23 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,676
Update: the Congressional Budget Office did a study about replacing 80,000 military personnel with civilians to do non-combat sort of jobs. The cost savings would be between $3 billion and nearly $6 billion annually.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/08/repla...ns-report.html
  #62  
Old 07-09-2016, 03:19 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
The US military is the wealthiest military in the world, by far. If we wanted deaf people in the military, we would have them with no loss of effectiveness. We just don't.

Welcome our trans soldiers!

I wish congress would force the DoD to actually account for its budget. As it is, the only part of the budget congress has any idea about is personel, so of course that's what get's targeted. How about we apply a little fiscal responsibility and accountability to all those pork barrel weapons programs? We could afford deaf interpreters for every deaf person wanting to join the military.
  #63  
Old 07-09-2016, 03:59 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
I wish congress would force the DoD to actually account for its budget. As it is, the only part of the budget congress has any idea about is personel, so of course that's what get's targeted. How about we apply a little fiscal responsibility and accountability to all those pork barrel weapons programs? We could afford deaf interpreters for every deaf person wanting to join the military.
What part of the DoD budget can't you get "any idea about?" Do you have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just tossing stuff on the wall?

And we can "afford" interpreters now, but DoD isn't a social program (yet).
  #64  
Old 07-09-2016, 04:03 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
We could afford deaf interpreters for every deaf person wanting to join the military.
Can we afford assistants for every blind person wanting to join the military?
  #65  
Old 07-09-2016, 04:06 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
What part of the DoD budget can't you get "any idea about?" Do you have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just tossing stuff on the wall?

And we can "afford" interpreters now, but DoD isn't a social program (yet).
Of course it is. Blacks, women, gays and now trans. Deaf is going too far?
  #66  
Old 07-09-2016, 04:08 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Can we afford assistants for every blind person wanting to join the military?
Sure. Take the F-35's budget.

I'd rather have a deaf person watching my back than an F-35.
  #67  
Old 07-09-2016, 04:11 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
Sure. Take the F-35's budget.

I'd rather have a deaf person watching my back than an F-35.
This forum is for serious debate.
  #68  
Old 07-09-2016, 04:14 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
What part of the DoD budget can't you get "any idea about?" Do you have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just tossing stuff on the wall?
Do you have any idea what you're talking about or you just run around saying what, what, what? That's an amazing gotcha you got there. Does it ever actually work for you? Do you know anything about the military or DoD or accounting or congress or anything at all?

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...ance-Its-Books

That's just one link it took me all of one second to google up.
  #69  
Old 07-09-2016, 06:31 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
Do you have any idea what you're talking about or you just run around saying what, what, what? That's an amazing gotcha you got there. Does it ever actually work for you? Do you know anything about the military or DoD or accounting or congress or anything at all?

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...ance-Its-Books

That's just one link it took me all of one second to google up.
You have no idea the difference between a budget and an audit do you?

And yes, I'd guess I have more than a little idea about how this works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
I wish congress would force the DoD to actually account for its budget. As it is, the only part of the budget congress has any idea about is personel, so of course that's what get's targeted.
Congress knows (and so could you if you knew what you were talking about) exactly what the budget buys. So Congress has more than "any idea" about the budget. Its public and it's online.

Audibility is a whole different thing. And not what you think it is.

My God you are all over the map.
  #70  
Old 07-09-2016, 06:34 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post

My God you are all over the map.
So you have no idea. Got it.
  #71  
Old 07-09-2016, 06:41 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
So you have no idea. Got it.
OK smart guy. What budget doesn't Congress have any idea about? What specific budget doesn't get approved by Congress? What specific budget isn't reviewed by Congress after it's executed? Please be specific.

Because in my 15 years of working DoD budgets as a military Officer I can't name one, so I hope you can help me out on this.
  #72  
Old 07-09-2016, 06:47 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
So - again, do you think deaf people should be allowed to be fighter pilots? Air traffic controllers?
Not everyone has to be Rambo. The military has plenty of obese men running out the retirement clock behind a desk. There's plenty of room for people who do nothing but read, write, think, and transmit information.
  #73  
Old 07-09-2016, 06:53 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
Do you have any idea what you're talking about or you just run around saying what, what, what? ... Do you know anything about the military or DoD or accounting or congress or anything at all?
It is completely clear that your knowledge of DoD, accounting, or Congress is no deeper than what you can google.

Each year, DoD produces probably tens of thousands of pages of budget documents for Congress to explain not only the proposed budget, but the budgets of the next four years. I would guess that two-thirds of those budget documents deal with weapons programs, either in R&D or procurement.

An audit of the Pentagon is in all likelihood a huge commitment of time that will have very little positive results. We know where the money starts - with the annual appropriations bill - and where it ends - with buying F-35s, civilian manpower, and so on. But an audit is essentially focused on how the money gets from point A to point Z, and also totally irrelevant questions such as what is the current value of an asset of a B-52 bought in 1961. Why the value of that aircraft has fuck-all to do with stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

If you can provide further evidence of your "expertise" on DOD budget matters, I very much look forward to engaging with you on the extent of your knowledge.
  #74  
Old 07-09-2016, 06:56 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
You'll get that, when you give me a dollar value on why Deaf Peeps can't serve their country.
  #75  
Old 07-09-2016, 07:12 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Look what came across my FB feed: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016...publici-buffer
  #76  
Old 07-09-2016, 07:14 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
You'll get that, when you give me a dollar value on why Deaf Peeps can't serve their country.
It's rather pitiful when someone accuses others of not knowing anything about a topic, and then can't even make a case for their own "expertise."
  #77  
Old 07-09-2016, 07:16 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,446
Now you're just linking random articles on DoD??

How's your list of budgets not reviewed by Congress coming?
  #78  
Old 07-09-2016, 07:22 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
How's your argument against Deafs in the mil coming?
  #79  
Old 07-09-2016, 07:29 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,676
The fact that Congress and the Navy want another Littoral Combat Ship that the Secretary of Defense doesn't want is stone cold proof that Congress doesn't have any insight on why weapons are being bought. Am I describing this correctly, lev?
  #80  
Old 07-09-2016, 07:33 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Is there a reason the Sec Def couldn't be, you know, deaf?
  #81  
Old 07-09-2016, 07:58 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,676
Hold on - you start talking about how you're an expert in the defense budget after making several strident statements, and when challenged on your statement, you want to change the topic away from your budget expertise? Come on.
  #82  
Old 07-09-2016, 08:03 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Hold on - you start talking about how you're an expert in the defense budget after making several strident statements, and when challenged on your statement, you want to change the topic away from your budget expertise? Come on.
Ooh, you got me. I just dropped off the turnip truck onto this board today!

How about you address the OP? Do you have a reasoned opinion on why the DoD budget can't accomodate Deafs? Are we broke? OMG, we just can't defend ourselves if we let those Deafies in! Our budget can't handle it! OMG!
  #83  
Old 07-09-2016, 08:08 PM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,446
So you got nothing.
  #84  
Old 07-10-2016, 04:08 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
Ooh, you got me. I just dropped off the turnip truck onto this board today!

How about you address the OP? Do you have a reasoned opinion on why the DoD budget can't accomodate Deafs? Are we broke? OMG, we just can't defend ourselves if we let those Deafies in! Our budget can't handle it! OMG!
You haven't addressed why the government should pay more for something than we have to - but you implied that you had a better handle on the defense budget than others.

So let's get to the issue as I have framed it a few times in this thread already. Comptrollers come in military and civilian flavors. We know for a fact that the military flavor costs substantially more, even though they do exactly the same work 99% of the time. There's a few situations where we need military comptrollers - hard to force civilians to deploy to a war zone - but in general, we should have few military comptrollers and more civilians ones, and save the money for something useful.

Are you under the impression that there's something less dignified about being a civilian comptroller? I don't. I'd bet you anything that there are quite a few civilian comptrollers with various disabilities, and I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't be doing a fine job.
  #85  
Old 07-10-2016, 04:23 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 28,948
Wait, what do you think a comptroller does and why would you be deploying one to a war zone?
  #86  
Old 07-10-2016, 05:42 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,676
I guess they are more often called financial managers, but they match money to programs. The Air Force has a dedicated officer career field to financial management, as well as contracting and I believe acquisitions as well. To my recollection, the Navy tends to train mid career officers in these fields, and I can't remember what the Army practice is.

One Air Force financial manager I know was deployed to Baghdad to work in relation to the Commanders Emergency Response Fund program to conduct small humanitarian projects.
  #87  
Old 07-10-2016, 08:51 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,389
The people who think the military should accept deaf people still have not given a reason why a deaf person should be given admission priority over the many able-bodied applicants in line behind him or her.


Sure, a deaf person can be a clerk. But a non-deaf person would make an even better clerk.

Last edited by Velocity; 07-10-2016 at 08:53 PM.
  #88  
Old 07-11-2016, 05:49 PM
Dendarii Dame is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 15,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe?
I knew someone on this thread had to have read Starship Troopers.
  #89  
Old 07-11-2016, 06:26 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net View Post
If they aren't when they fo in, they might be when they come out.

I spent some time working in a Veterans Service Office, and one of the most common disabilities that we dealt with was service-related hearing impairment, mostly tinnitus. Seemed like it affected nearly half of the veterans. Korea & Vietnam era ones had it from big guns going off nearby without any hearing protection, later vets also had IED's going off near them.
This is getting off-topic, but I have a relative who works for the VA, and their contention is that so many veterans claim tinnitus (ringing in the ears) because (1) it's one of the few compensable service-connected impairments that is completely subjective; and (2) all the service organizations (and other veterans) tell veterans to put in claims for tinnitus.

In particular, my relative says that an astoundingly high percentage of recently separating veterans put in claims for alleged tinnitus. This might be understandable if it was due to IEDs or other explosions, but the vast majority of those claiming tinnitus have never even seen combat.

(Then you have vets with undeniable hearing loss like my grandfather, who was an artillery officer in WWII, who never put in a VA claim for anything.)
  #90  
Old 07-11-2016, 08:39 PM
drewder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
There are all kinds of jobs in the military, so find a place for them, and be proud of them.
They can join as Military civilians, we already have too many non-trigger pullers in the military as it is.
  #91  
Old 07-11-2016, 08:40 PM
drewder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
This is getting off-topic, but I have a relative who works for the VA, and their contention is that so many veterans claim tinnitus (ringing in the ears) because (1) it's one of the few compensable service-connected impairments that is completely subjective; and (2) all the service organizations (and other veterans) tell veterans to put in claims for tinnitus.

In particular, my relative says that an astoundingly high percentage of recently separating veterans put in claims for alleged tinnitus. This might be understandable if it was due to IEDs or other explosions, but the vast majority of those claiming tinnitus have never even seen combat.

(Then you have vets with undeniable hearing loss like my grandfather, who was an artillery officer in WWII, who never put in a VA claim for anything.)
A person need not have been in combat to have been exposed to load noises.

Last edited by drewder; 07-11-2016 at 08:40 PM.
  #92  
Old 07-11-2016, 09:10 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net View Post
If they aren't when they fo in, they might be when they come out.

I spent some time working in a Veterans Service Office, and one of the most common disabilities that we dealt with was service-related hearing impairment, mostly tinnitus. Seemed like it affected nearly half of the veterans. Korea & Vietnam era ones had it from big guns going off nearby without any hearing protection, later vets also had IED's going off near them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
This is getting off-topic, but I have a relative who works for the VA, and their contention is that so many veterans claim tinnitus (ringing in the ears) because (1) it's one of the few compensable service-connected impairments that is completely subjective; and (2) all the service organizations (and other veterans) tell veterans to put in claims for tinnitus.

In particular, my relative says that an astoundingly high percentage of recently separating veterans put in claims for alleged tinnitus. This might be understandable if it was due to IEDs or other explosions, but the vast majority of those claiming tinnitus have never even seen combat.

(Then you have vets with undeniable hearing loss like my grandfather, who was an artillery officer in WWII, who never put in a VA claim for anything.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewder View Post
A person need not have been in combat to have been exposed to load noises.
I understand that. I'm a Navy veteran who spent years in submarine engineering spaces with screaming-loud turbines. I also know that from the start of my service some 30 years ago, all Navy personnel were (and still are) mandated to wear hearing protection, and the other services are no different. My stepfather served in the Army starting in the 1970s, and I remember playing with his custom-fitted earplugs. With few exceptions, there's little excuse for any recently-separated non-combat* veteran to have suffered hearing loss from their military service.

And indeed, the number of recently-separated veterans who are found to have actually suffered significant hearing loss is relatively low. Note that hearing loss can, of course, be objectively tested. However, that's not what recently-separated veterans are claiming--instead, they're all claiming tinnitus.


*Combat is an whole different category, of course. Nobody knows when an IED or firefight is going to occur, and worrying about hearing protection is the least of your concerns in such a situation.
  #93  
Old 07-11-2016, 11:38 PM
Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Submariners - including cooks - have to be able to understand a lot of verbal instructions that have nothing to do with fighting an enemy.

Suppose there were a nuclear reactor accident - is someone supposed to interpret with sign language for him the whole time?

It gets even worse in situations where the cook cannot see people. Suppose the cook is taking a shower, but there's a fire aboard the ship. Someone begins pounding on the door of the shower, shouting, "Fire! Get out of the shower right now!" But the deaf cook, taking his shower, can't hear a thing.
I don't have an opinion one way or another about how the military is managed.

But when I worked in the mines, emergencies like that were communicated with onion gas. Nobody could hear anything while they were working, and nobody would see anything while they were working, but if you took the time to look around after you smelled onion gas, you'd see that you were already the only one left.

Last edited by Melbourne; 07-11-2016 at 11:38 PM.
  #94  
Old 07-13-2016, 04:52 PM
Chihuahua is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,389
FWIW, the Congressional Budget Office proposes even fewer soldiers, by replacing them with civilians:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/08/repla...ns-report.html
  #95  
Old 07-16-2016, 08:14 AM
Soulcatcher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 73
Why exactly would any deaf folks actually want to be in the armed forces? The argument seems to be to just give them a desk job. Plenty of desk jobs to be had as a civilian. Want to do it for the pride? Where is the pride in only getting in through special accommodations? For patriotism? Serve your country in some other way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #96  
Old 07-16-2016, 09:27 AM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
A deaf person in close order drill would be interesting.
  #97  
Old 07-16-2016, 09:45 AM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
A deaf person in close order drill would be interesting.
Ever been in the military? Hearing people can be pretty hilarious too.
  #98  
Old 07-16-2016, 07:35 PM
Ranger Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe?
No billets left in the Mobile Infantry, eh?
  #99  
Old 07-19-2016, 03:18 PM
T.M. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: England
Posts: 658
When on active service you need fully functioning people around you. If a deaf person cannot hear the order get down you end up with a dead person
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017