UO

Pandril19

RTaylor12:

In a perfect world sure. But somehow I doubt that the psychotic religious zealots out there are going to ascribe to this pattern of thinking you descibe.

In general I think ordering our world in order to appease/control/speak to psychotic religious zealots is a losing battle and not the measuring stick I think we should be using.

(I'm actually kind of excited that I seem to actually have an UO this week.  :-)  )

reinedecajun

KUinCBUS:

reinedecajun:

Pandril19:

I believe the Boston bombing was a tragedy that the death toll understates.

However, I don't believe that putting someone's photo on the cover of a magazing (even Rolling Stones) inherently glorifies them.  I think interpreting things in context is a skill that American culture should embrace and practice more.

It totally glorifies him. I mean some peoples goal in life is to make the cover of the rolling stone. Like pp said if it were a picture of him in handcuffs it would be different instead they made him look like a rock star. Prepare for all the copycat crazies to come out and try to be just like him...rinse and repeat. 

I'm with Pandril19 on this. I don't get what all the hubbub is about. Should we be angry because Time magazine has had covers with the unibomber, Osama bin Laden, James Earl Ray, Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, Adolph Hitler and just about every other evil person on the planet? Was Time magazine glorifying them? (Also, for what it's worth, Rolling Stone also had a cover with Charles Manson.) 

And that makes this ok?  FWIW I consider Time a news magazine and expect covers of that magnitude. Rolling Stone what I consider to be a magazine for pop culture and the cover picture alone portrays him with airbrushed softness and beautiful curls. Way to beautify a fuuucking terrorists.

reinedecajun

sarasansh:

Pandril19:

RTaylor12:

In a perfect world sure. But somehow I doubt that the psychotic religious zealots out there are going to ascribe to this pattern of thinking you descibe.

In general I think ordering our world in order to appease/control/speak to psychotic religious zealots is a losing battle and not the measuring stick I think we should be using.

(I'm actually kind of excited that I seem to actually have an UO this week.  :-)  )

Let's be honest here--Rolling Stone is a paper magazine trying to survive in a digital world. They did the exact same thing Time did when it put a mother BFing her toddler on the cover. They knew the cover would cause shock and controversy, and cause people to run out and buy it. In the end to Rolling Stone it's all about the money. Right or wrong, that's what it is.

You'll notice they also released just the cover, but made very little to no mention of the title of the article, which is "The Bomber: How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed By His Family, Fell into Radical Islam, and Become a Monster." That certainly doesn't seem like a glorification to me. 

Um no...the mother breast feeding her toddler didn't blow up Boston and kill innocent people. And most people, wont read the fine print all they will see is the cover. If anything seeing his face on the cover makes me NOT want to even think about touching their magazine ever again. 

reinedecajun

andreab7412:

As a mom of a son I am thankful everyday those people ''sign up'' to go to war. Remember if they didn't there would be a draft. And to think we don't need to defend our country is a little rainbows and butterflies. War happens and we have to protect ourselves. I do agree there are things our government needs to but out of and realize it's not our business.

 

RTaylor12

reinedecajun:

sarasansh:

Pandril19:

RTaylor12:

In a perfect world sure. But somehow I doubt that the psychotic religious zealots out there are going to ascribe to this pattern of thinking you descibe.

In general I think ordering our world in order to appease/control/speak to psychotic religious zealots is a losing battle and not the measuring stick I think we should be using.

(I'm actually kind of excited that I seem to actually have an UO this week.  :-)  )

Let's be honest here--Rolling Stone is a paper magazine trying to survive in a digital world. They did the exact same thing Time did when it put a mother BFing her toddler on the cover. They knew the cover would cause shock and controversy, and cause people to run out and buy it. In the end to Rolling Stone it's all about the money. Right or wrong, that's what it is.

You'll notice they also released just the cover, but made very little to no mention of the title of the article, which is "The Bomber: How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed By His Family, Fell into Radical Islam, and Become a Monster." That certainly doesn't seem like a glorification to me. 

Um no...the mother breast feeding her toddler didn't blow up Boston and kill innocent people. And most people, wont read the fine print all they will see is the cover. If anything seeing his face on the cover makes me NOT want to even think about touching their magazine ever again. 

This. The obvious distinction between Time and Rolling Stone has already been covered, but even if it hadn't been, what makes it ok just because other publications have done it? No one is trying to zero in on this particular Rolling Stone cover and say that this one is bad but the others weren't. It's one example in a history of questionable press tactics and just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it right. I'm a journalism major and all for free speech and whatnot, but that doesn't mean that these major publications with such a far reach can't exercise some social responsibility.

pinkangelmoon

dbliesmer:

I had some earlier this week and then forgot them.  But here's one... I think belly button rings are trashy, but especially after the age of 23-25.

This. I also think visible tattoos on women are trashy.  Not that I'm a big fan of them on men either...

SallySunrise

I think headbands are cute for children, not adults. Exercise ones are at least functional, so I kind of get those.

I actually prefer whole wheat pasta to semolina. I know many eat it because it's healthier, but don't love the taste. I do.

I think thin flip flops [old navy style] look silly unless at the pool or beach. Thicker ones with a little more "substance" are ok, because they offer more support like an actual shoe.

I had a funny one but I can't remember it now. Just wanted to change the subject.....

reinedecajun

pinkangelmoon:

dbliesmer:

I had some earlier this week and then forgot them.  But here's one... I think belly button rings are trashy, but especially after the age of 23-25.

This. I also think visible tattoos on women are trashy.  Not that I'm a big fan of them on men either...

I wish I was covered head to toe in tattoos...and men in tat's...yes please!

RTaylor12

Sally's first one made me think of a UO.

I can't stand seeing baby or toddler girls who barely have any hair with teeny little ponytails held together with a teeny rubber band. The kind that are like, three hairs that stick straight up. First of all it looks incredibly stupid, just wait a few months and give your kid legit pigtails; and second, it looks damn uncomfortable and I feel sorry for your kid.

RTaylor12

This has been covered on the board before, but I'm bringing it up again.

I also still judge parents of babies with pierced ears in public. Seriously, unnecessary. 

RTaylor12

KUinCBUS:

JodieLyn10:

KUinCBUS:

  Should we be angry because Time magazine has had covers with the unibomber, Osama bin Laden, James Earl Ray, Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, Adolph Hitler and just about every other evil person on the planet? Was Time magazine glorifying them? (Also, for what it's worth, Rolling Stone also had a cover with Charles Manson.) 

Impressionable teenagers (who lack the cognitive reasoning of adults) across America don't dream of having their face on the cover of Time Magazine.  It glorified Charles Manson then, and it glorfies the Boston bomber now.  Of the 12 magazines covers a year that Rolling Stone puts out, in any other year, all or most of those covers feature pop ICONS.

OK I see where you are going with this but I still don't understand the ire. Also, should we talk about the messages being sent by pop icons? How many drug abusers have been on the cover? It's hard to imagine that Rolling Stone has published very many covers at all with smiling faces of good role models.

*facepalm* drug abusers = mass murderers

snickersforeveryone

I'm on mobile, and the quote trees are killing me!

Jessie, I have to disagree with your assessment of these people who sign up for the armed services. My family had zero money for us to go to college. My uncle is in the Reserves and convinced my brother to sign up so that he could afford college tuition. My brother was 18. It seemed like an easy solution...this was a few years before 9/11.
When my brother was called up, he cried. He desperately didn't want to go. He bought all of us goodbye gifts, because he was fairly sure he wouldn't return...my brother has always been a peaceful kind of guy and couldn't imagine hurting anyone, even to save himself. But he honored his commitment to his country.
My brother did come back, but he's a broken shell. He saw horrific things while in convoys and guarding prisons. And he rarely talks about it. What he has said has sort of slipped from him and he always looks a little sick, like he wants the words back.
These people don't all go over there excited to kill the enemy. They go because they made a promise to serve in times of need. They don't get to decide when that time is, they don't get to decide where they go. They don't all murder people. Most just want to make it home to their families.
My brother and those like him deserve our thanks and any medal they get. It's a very small token to show them their service was appreciated.
Any life lost to violence is a tragedy, regardless of where it happens or who starts it.

RTaylor12

I am full of UOs today.

I think the trend of mustaches being on everything is weird and dumb. Who wants a freakin mustache on their phone case? Notebook? T-shirt? Not me.

Along the same lines, I also think the whole photo booth with props thing at weddings is getting old. It was cute the first few times we saw it on Pinterest and now it's just stale. The photographer who did our recent family pics made mention of bringing props to our shoot and I secretly hoped she would forget them. Luckily she never brought them up again.

RTaylor12

KUinCBUS:

RTaylor12:

KUinCBUS:

JodieLyn10:

KUinCBUS:

  Should we be angry because Time magazine has had covers with the unibomber, Osama bin Laden, James Earl Ray, Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, Adolph Hitler and just about every other evil person on the planet? Was Time magazine glorifying them? (Also, for what it's worth, Rolling Stone also had a cover with Charles Manson.) 

Impressionable teenagers (who lack the cognitive reasoning of adults) across America don't dream of having their face on the cover of Time Magazine.  It glorified Charles Manson then, and it glorfies the Boston bomber now.  Of the 12 magazines covers a year that Rolling Stone puts out, in any other year, all or most of those covers feature pop ICONS.

OK I see where you are going with this but I still don't understand the ire. Also, should we talk about the messages being sent by pop icons? How many drug abusers have been on the cover? It's hard to imagine that Rolling Stone has published very many covers at all with smiling faces of good role models.

*facepalm* drug abusers = mass murderers

LOL. To suggest that I was equating the two is ridiculous. (Though I do believe that kids are more likely to do drugs than to bomb a marathon.) I was simply pointing out that Rolling Stone calls a murderer a monster and holds drug abusers up as heroes yet people get upset only with the murderer. I have seen some good points made on here. I see that there is another point of view, but to me it still seems like a lot of drama over nothing. 

The difference is that the drug abusers on the cover of Rolling Stone also happen to be incredibly talented musicians, known for many other things than the negative aspects of their lives. Rolling Stone isn't going to pick up a random junkie from the NY subway and put them on the cover. The only thing that made the Boston bomber "famous" is an act of terror. And yeah I'm pretty sure you were comparing the two, you still are.

reinedecajun

RTaylor12:

KUinCBUS:

RTaylor12:

KUinCBUS:

JodieLyn10:

KUinCBUS:

  Should we be angry because Time magazine has had covers with the unibomber, Osama bin Laden, James Earl Ray, Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, Adolph Hitler and just about every other evil person on the planet? Was Time magazine glorifying them? (Also, for what it's worth, Rolling Stone also had a cover with Charles Manson.) 

Impressionable teenagers (who lack the cognitive reasoning of adults) across America don't dream of having their face on the cover of Time Magazine.  It glorified Charles Manson then, and it glorfies the Boston bomber now.  Of the 12 magazines covers a year that Rolling Stone puts out, in any other year, all or most of those covers feature pop ICONS.

OK I see where you are going with this but I still don't understand the ire. Also, should we talk about the messages being sent by pop icons? How many drug abusers have been on the cover? It's hard to imagine that Rolling Stone has published very many covers at all with smiling faces of good role models.

*facepalm* drug abusers = mass murderers

LOL. To suggest that I was equating the two is ridiculous. (Though I do believe that kids are more likely to do drugs than to bomb a marathon.) I was simply pointing out that Rolling Stone calls a murderer a monster and holds drug abusers up as heroes yet people get upset only with the murderer. I have seen some good points made on here. I see that there is another point of view, but to me it still seems like a lot of drama over nothing. 

The difference is that the drug abusers on the cover of Rolling Stone also happen to be incredibly talented musicians, known for many other things than the negative aspects of their lives. Rolling Stone isn't going to pick up a random junkie from the NY subway and put them on the cover. The only thing that made the Boston bomber "famous" is an act of terror. And yeah I'm pretty sure you were comparing the two, you still are.

Rtaylor, marry me? Now!

RTaylor12

reinedecajun:

RTaylor12:

KUinCBUS:

RTaylor12:

KUinCBUS:

JodieLyn10:

KUinCBUS:

  Should we be angry because Time magazine has had covers with the unibomber, Osama bin Laden, James Earl Ray, Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, Adolph Hitler and just about every other evil person on the planet? Was Time magazine glorifying them? (Also, for what it's worth, Rolling Stone also had a cover with Charles Manson.) 

Impressionable teenagers (who lack the cognitive reasoning of adults) across America don't dream of having their face on the cover of Time Magazine.  It glorified Charles Manson then, and it glorfies the Boston bomber now.  Of the 12 magazines covers a year that Rolling Stone puts out, in any other year, all or most of those covers feature pop ICONS.

OK I see where you are going with this but I still don't understand the ire. Also, should we talk about the messages being sent by pop icons? How many drug abusers have been on the cover? It's hard to imagine that Rolling Stone has published very many covers at all with smiling faces of good role models.

*facepalm* drug abusers = mass murderers

LOL. To suggest that I was equating the two is ridiculous. (Though I do believe that kids are more likely to do drugs than to bomb a marathon.) I was simply pointing out that Rolling Stone calls a murderer a monster and holds drug abusers up as heroes yet people get upset only with the murderer. I have seen some good points made on here. I see that there is another point of view, but to me it still seems like a lot of drama over nothing. 

The difference is that the drug abusers on the cover of Rolling Stone also happen to be incredibly talented musicians, known for many other things than the negative aspects of their lives. Rolling Stone isn't going to pick up a random junkie from the NY subway and put them on the cover. The only thing that made the Boston bomber "famous" is an act of terror. And yeah I'm pretty sure you were comparing the two, you still are.

Rtaylor, marry me? Now!

You would have to ask Karm how she feels about plural marriage. 

Pandril19

nikki2223583:

I love the gestational diabetic diet. I am doing it this time around just to be healthy. I am down 5 lbs since starting last Monday with my positive test. I did not have it with Noah, so they say but his cheeks when he was born say I did. They think it was missed. And after that terrifying moment during delivery I am playing on the safe side if caution.

I was actually just this morning pondering pulling out my food/results log from my pregnancy and essentially following it again as a "diet" plan.   I think I was a lot healthier when I was treating GD through diet.

 

nesenotes

nikki2223583:

I love the gestational diabetic diet. I am doing it this time around just to be healthy. I am down 5 lbs since starting last Monday with my positive test. I did not have it with Noah, so they say but his cheeks when he was born say I did. They think it was missed. And after that terrifying moment during delivery I am playing on the safe side if caution.

Good for you! I was one pissed off pregnant lady when I had to cut out carbs 3rd tri. I never wanted cake more in my life, and I couldnt have it   But I did lose a ton of weight and only gained 14lbs the whole pregnancy. 4 came from the last week when I cheated every day. 

KarmB

As someone who knew one of the three killed, seeing the cover makes me sick. It is glorifying him. It's rolling stone a magazine for music. It is not time magazine. I have not scroll through everyone's responses nor do I think I will

snickersforeveryone

Jessie, I think that the whole issue is circular. The troops will never get the support they need medically or financially until more individual people believe they deserve those things. When people believe the troops deserve a pat on the back for bravely wading into the horrors of war, they will be outraged at their treatment upon returning home. When enough people care, things change.
I must agree, however, that a little hunk of metal is a poor substitute for real gratitude.
I'm sorry your brother has to be deployed. I know that fear and my heart goes out to you.

reinedecajun

KUinCBUS:

RTaylor12:

KUinCBUS:

RTaylor12:

KUinCBUS:

JodieLyn10:

KUinCBUS:

  Should we be angry because Time magazine has had covers with the unibomber, Osama bin Laden, James Earl Ray, Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, Adolph Hitler and just about every other evil person on the planet? Was Time magazine glorifying them? (Also, for what it's worth, Rolling Stone also had a cover with Charles Manson.) 

Impressionable teenagers (who lack the cognitive reasoning of adults) across America don't dream of having their face on the cover of Time Magazine.  It glorified Charles Manson then, and it glorfies the Boston bomber now.  Of the 12 magazines covers a year that Rolling Stone puts out, in any other year, all or most of those covers feature pop ICONS.

OK I see where you are going with this but I still don't understand the ire. Also, should we talk about the messages being sent by pop icons? How many drug abusers have been on the cover? It's hard to imagine that Rolling Stone has published very many covers at all with smiling faces of good role models.

*facepalm* drug abusers = mass murderers

LOL. To suggest that I was equating the two is ridiculous. (Though I do believe that kids are more likely to do drugs than to bomb a marathon.) I was simply pointing out that Rolling Stone calls a murderer a monster and holds drug abusers up as heroes yet people get upset only with the murderer. I have seen some good points made on here. I see that there is another point of view, but to me it still seems like a lot of drama over nothing. 

The difference is that the drug abusers on the cover of Rolling Stone also happen to be incredibly talented musicians, known for many other things than the negative aspects of their lives. Rolling Stone isn't going to pick up a random junkie from the NY subway and put them on the cover. The only thing that made the Boston bomber "famous" is an act of terror. And yeah I'm pretty sure you were comparing the two, you still are.

Sigh. Ok. What I was trying to do [perhaps unsuccessfully] was compare covers, compare frequency and accessibility of crimes, and point out hypocracy. I was not trying to draw comparisons between the crimes or, more specifically the criminals. I also don't believe that "good music" should excuse drug abusers, kidnappers or murderers [Led Zepplin and Motley Crue, I'm looking at you] for example, who have been featured on the cover of Rolling Stone, after their crimes, simply because people rock out to their tunes. It just seems strange to me that society is cool with that but not this.

You are missing her point. It doesn't excuse them because they make "good music", but it does make a statement that they are there for something more than just their drug use, etc. Where as this bomber is there for just that..killing people. 

RTaylor12

KUinCBUS:

RTaylor12:

KUinCBUS:

RTaylor12:

KUinCBUS:

JodieLyn10:

KUinCBUS:

  Should we be angry because Time magazine has had covers with the unibomber, Osama bin Laden, James Earl Ray, Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, Adolph Hitler and just about every other evil person on the planet? Was Time magazine glorifying them? (Also, for what it's worth, Rolling Stone also had a cover with Charles Manson.) 

Impressionable teenagers (who lack the cognitive reasoning of adults) across America don't dream of having their face on the cover of Time Magazine.  It glorified Charles Manson then, and it glorfies the Boston bomber now.  Of the 12 magazines covers a year that Rolling Stone puts out, in any other year, all or most of those covers feature pop ICONS.

OK I see where you are going with this but I still don't understand the ire. Also, should we talk about the messages being sent by pop icons? How many drug abusers have been on the cover? It's hard to imagine that Rolling Stone has published very many covers at all with smiling faces of good role models.

*facepalm* drug abusers = mass murderers

LOL. To suggest that I was equating the two is ridiculous. (Though I do believe that kids are more likely to do drugs than to bomb a marathon.) I was simply pointing out that Rolling Stone calls a murderer a monster and holds drug abusers up as heroes yet people get upset only with the murderer. I have seen some good points made on here. I see that there is another point of view, but to me it still seems like a lot of drama over nothing. 

The difference is that the drug abusers on the cover of Rolling Stone also happen to be incredibly talented musicians, known for many other things than the negative aspects of their lives. Rolling Stone isn't going to pick up a random junkie from the NY subway and put them on the cover. The only thing that made the Boston bomber "famous" is an act of terror. And yeah I'm pretty sure you were comparing the two, you still are.

Sigh. Ok. What I was trying to do [perhaps unsuccessfully] was compare covers, compare frequency and accessibility of crimes, and point out hypocracy. I was not trying to draw comparisons between the crimes or, more specifically the criminals. I also don't believe that "good music" should excuse drug abusers, kidnappers or murderers [Led Zepplin and Motley Crue, I'm looking at you] for example, who have been featured on the cover of Rolling Stone, after their crimes, simply because people rock out to their tunes. It just seems strange to me that society is cool with that but not this.

It seems strange to you that society is cool with rock stars who are famous for their musical talent who also happen use drugs, but not with people who blow up innocent civilians and have done nothing else in their lives to warrant any attention? You really don't see the distinction?

I don't think anyone here said anything about being cool with drug use. It doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand.

(And I just lol'ed at the fact I just typed that when cajun and I are the ones on this side of the argument.) 

reinedecajun

RTaylor12:

KUinCBUS:

RTaylor12:

KUinCBUS:

RTaylor12:

KUinCBUS:

JodieLyn10:

KUinCBUS:

  Should we be angry because Time magazine has had covers with the unibomber, Osama bin Laden, James Earl Ray, Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, Adolph Hitler and just about every other evil person on the planet? Was Time magazine glorifying them? (Also, for what it's worth, Rolling Stone also had a cover with Charles Manson.) 

Impressionable teenagers (who lack the cognitive reasoning of adults) across America don't dream of having their face on the cover of Time Magazine.  It glorified Charles Manson then, and it glorfies the Boston bomber now.  Of the 12 magazines covers a year that Rolling Stone puts out, in any other year, all or most of those covers feature pop ICONS.

OK I see where you are going with this but I still don't understand the ire. Also, should we talk about the messages being sent by pop icons? How many drug abusers have been on the cover? It's hard to imagine that Rolling Stone has published very many covers at all with smiling faces of good role models.

*facepalm* drug abusers = mass murderers

LOL. To suggest that I was equating the two is ridiculous. (Though I do believe that kids are more likely to do drugs than to bomb a marathon.) I was simply pointing out that Rolling Stone calls a murderer a monster and holds drug abusers up as heroes yet people get upset only with the murderer. I have seen some good points made on here. I see that there is another point of view, but to me it still seems like a lot of drama over nothing. 

The difference is that the drug abusers on the cover of Rolling Stone also happen to be incredibly talented musicians, known for many other things than the negative aspects of their lives. Rolling Stone isn't going to pick up a random junkie from the NY subway and put them on the cover. The only thing that made the Boston bomber "famous" is an act of terror. And yeah I'm pretty sure you were comparing the two, you still are.

Sigh. Ok. What I was trying to do [perhaps unsuccessfully] was compare covers, compare frequency and accessibility of crimes, and point out hypocracy. I was not trying to draw comparisons between the crimes or, more specifically the criminals. I also don't believe that "good music" should excuse drug abusers, kidnappers or murderers [Led Zepplin and Motley Crue, I'm looking at you] for example, who have been featured on the cover of Rolling Stone, after their crimes, simply because people rock out to their tunes. It just seems strange to me that society is cool with that but not this.

It seems strange to you that society is cool with rock stars who are famous for their musical talent who also happen use drugs, but not with people who blow up innocent civilians and have done nothing else in their lives to warrant any attention? You really don't see the distinction?

I don't think anyone here said anything about being cool with drug use. It doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand.

(And I just lol'ed at the fact I just typed that when cajun and I are the ones on this side of the argument.) 

 

Touche 

nesenotes

I HATE when men wear loafers without socks. So gross. so so gross.

thumper11

mrsmckinky:

RTaylor12:

This has been covered on the board before, but I'm bringing it up again.

I also still judge parents of babies with pierced ears in public. Seriously, unnecessary. 

Aww, don't judge!  If we ever have a girl, I plan on doing it.  It's a Mexican culture thing, and I like it.

I hate the gladiator sandal look as well.  Way too many straps...looks a little S&M to me.

Not just a mexican culture thing...  I got Emma's done!  and we were matching earrings. Yupp.  I'm that mom. 

thumper11

Pegleg715:

I LOVE THE COLD! That's my UO. Below 60 is awesome. Below 40 is better. Below 20 PERFECT!

ok, below 10 and I start to get cranky again...  

I LOVE the cold too!  I lived in AK for 3 years and miss the cold assss winter where we had to plug our cars in.  I mean, I'm trying to get DH to apply for oil jobs up there... he's not biting. 

Kdoy705

Trixi282:

Jessie11LU:

Eaf, my brother is going to afghanistan in august. Im not happy about it, neither is he. However, as much as i dont like him going to a war i absolutely do not support, i also feel like hes just doing his job. I want him to come back alive, i am very scared to lose my little brother. He went into the service to have a career and go to college, not because hes trying to be a hero, not because he wants to serve his country, not because he wants to somehow protect our freedom from being threatened. That deserves medal? I dont think so.

According to the government, that doesnt even deserve a decent salary, good healthcare, mental health services, a better hospital than the VA. No according to the government, my brothers life is worth a piece of metal and his name on a plaque. People who do nothing but pop out babies and smoke crack are treated better than my brother will be after he gets back. Thats ok to you? Thats not to me. If my brother is going to experience taking someones life, he doesnt deserve a medal. He doesnt deserve a pat on the back. I will not ever see going into the service as a noble thing to do until the country i live in recognizes that a persons life is more valuable than a medal or a ribbon or a name on a plaque.

My brother was active Marine and served 2 tours: 1 in Afghanistan and 1 in Iraq.  I completely agree that (especially 8 years ago when he got out) the military has done a sh*t job of bringing our soldiers back and getting them the therapy and training they need to become civilians again.  My brother has faced a lot of demons and a lot of other issues re-adjusting to civilian life without any help from the military, as was promised to him, but never delivered.  And the majority are severely underpaid.  I cannot argue with those points.

However, in response to parts of the bold... I actually work in healthcare architecture/design and have done a LOT of work the past 6 years for the DoD(department of defense).  They are trying really hard to change the current healthcare for our active military soldiers and their families.  I'm very proud of the three hospitals (2 in the USA, 1 on an army base in Korea) that I've worked on that are trying to change the face of their healthcare. 

One of the projects I worked on has won awards for using Evidence-Based Design principals to make the healing environment a better place for patients and their families and support systems.  2 of the 3 projects were over 1-Million square feet of clinics, in-patient services, and other spaces (administrative) that are all designed to better the care and environment that is provided.

My company has done a handful of other projects (one I'm working on currently is for the Navy, all active military again) for the DoD, and the VA (which I have also worked on extensively).  They are trying very hard to make positive change... and although it's still lacking, they are making progress, and I see it every day with the work I do.

Wow, cool and interesting job!!! Congrats on your award too