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!
So you got nothing.
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.
Wait, what do you think a comptroller does and why would you be deploying one to a war zone?
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.
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.
I knew someone on this thread had to have read Starship Troopers.
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.)
They can join as Military civilians, we already have too many non-trigger pullers in the military as it is.
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.
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.
FWIW, the Congressional Budget Office proposes even fewer soldiers, by replacing them with civilians:
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
A deaf person in close order drill would be interesting.
Ever been in the military? Hearing people can be pretty hilarious too.
No billets left in the Mobile Infantry, eh?
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