A US Air Force sergeant who posed nude for Playboy magazine has been removed from active duty and demoted.
The move reverts Michelle Manhart to air national guard status, a move which has prompted her resignation, she says. “I’m disappointed in our system. They went too far with it.”
At the time the air force released a statement saying that her actions did not “meet the high standards we expect of our airmen”.
Yup. High standards. Uh huh. Meanwhile “Twelve percent of the women who graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2003 reported that they were victims of rape or attempted rape while at the Academy (NY TIMES).” Nothing serious was done about that, but I guess that’s OK by the Air Force standards.
29) I have absolutely no problems with nude models. I happen to like seeing the opposite sex. 🙂
Let’s say she didn’t use her uniform, the military could potentially have a bone to pick with her anyways on the sheer fact she’s a military officer if I recall correctly. The military could argue that her primary job could have been “compromised” since she has portrayed herself as a sexual object and everyone under her could view her as such. There would be a breakdown in the rank structure. Then the whole uniform technicality would be a moot point.
Pedro in #28 takes a more humorous approach, but that’s something the miitary takes seriously. Whatever the case may be, the military from my own personal experiences NEVER thinks in terms of what’s likely to happen. They pretty much have the mindset of what’s the worst possible thing that can happen in everything we do.
Given what Pedro has humorously pointed out and the military mindset with her getting deployed in a combat situation, it’s not surprising they did what they did and I don’t feel she has been victimized (not to say you’re saying this). She knew what she was doing and had ulterior motives for doing them. She’s getting what she wanted and her 90 seconds of fame.
#33 – There is no such thing as government property… That’s our stuff. That’s public property. It’s just a shame that I’m not allowed to take one of my submarines out on the weekend… But my point is that we shouldn’t promote the idea that the government is somehow an entity above citizens and we should remember that governments and militarys only stand because we allow it.
But Clinton’s impeachment really didn’t have anything to do with lying to a grand jury… After 6 years of batting zero, a tired a weary Clinton, who managed to give us the greatest peacetime economic expansion in history despite spending too much of his time fending off a Republican witch hunt, stumbled in a testimony about events that had absolutely no connection to the scope of what Starr was supposed to be investigating anyway, and the conservatives jumped like bums chasing a dollar in the wind to try to destroy thier obviously superior nemesis.
You can argue the points of law all day… But you cannot convince me or any other open-eyed American that Clinton’s impeachment was about anything remotely related to pergury… But that isn’t what this is about, I have digressed 🙂
#33 – Well… seems to me Clinton’s impeachment had nothing to do with sex, lying to a grand jury (I wonder if Bush would even appear before one, if someone somewhere had the guts to convene one), or illegal campaign contributions (something Republicans would never do, of course). His impeachment had everything to do with partisan politics and all the ugliness that goes with it. Period.
And of course you’re right that this tempest in a teapot is not entirely about her posing nude. It seems really to be about her bringing her uniform into it, as you and I both remarked. Though I am curious what the military response would have been if her uniform hadn’t come into the picture (however, um, briefly).
#35 – It’s just a shame that I’m not allowed to take one of my submarines out on the weekend
Wasn’t there a bit of a dust-up not long ago about rich people being allowed to take submarines out for joy rides, or something like that? Maybe you just need more money.
35) You’ve never been in the military otherwise you’d know that getting yourself sunburned would get you charged with “destruction of government property”. Military service members being government fact isn’t some theory, it’s a fact. What do you suppose G.I. stands for?
Is that what they call a recession and greatest number of corporate scandals under his administration? The “greatest peacetime economic expansion in history”? The question would be if he could lie about a simple affair, what else could he lie about with respect to national security and the Chinese illegal campaign fund raising? He got impeached not because of a witch hunt, he got impeached for lying to a grand jury…. Starr probably had every intention of setting up an argument for other things concerning Clinton and China.
Also “allowing” our government and military to stand is pretty much eroding away since the right to bear arms is systematically getting reduced and eventually removed. Your ability to keep our government and military in check is disappearing. Our country is evolving into what George Orwell talked about in 1984.
36) Well I’m not with either party, but it would be nice to see that the same litmus test be applied to both parties rather than if the person being accused is on the same party you are. I’m all for impeaching Bush so long as the same criteria is applied to the previous and subsequent administrations. But that’s the problem. Bush lied, but somehow Clinton didn’t.
Partisan is a beautiful description for this double standard. No one will have the guts to try and impeach Bush, because doing so will air out old dirty laundry that the previous administration would much rather forget about. I love how Jaime Gorelick sat on the 9/11 commission but didn’t recuse herself even though she took a lion’s share of the blame for the bad intel Bush & Clinton both ended up using. Getting and using bad intel doesn’t constitute lying…. Both administrations used it. Last time I checked, lying is willfully and intentionally trying to mislead someone of what they believe to be the facts.
I love how the liberal democrats demanded Bush go to the U.N. to get their blessing for military action, but those same democrats made no such demands when Clinton used the military for police action around the world. I also love how the liberals and media ignore the fact that the Clinton administration reduced our military to a skeleton crew and then criticize Bush for taking military action with not enough troops or equipment when the previous administration was at fault for that. Surely every “open-eyed” American can see past this…. NOT. Most Americans are sheeple and will have a complete memory lapse so it doesn’t matter what the previous administration did, they just know right now somehow Bush caused this whole mess and he LIED!!! 🙂
As for her posing nude without the uniform, the military probably would still have grounds that her behavior was unbecoming of a military officer and her actions could create a breakdown in the rank structure in her or any other unit she served with. Bottom line, the military had every legal and legitimate recourse for slapping her hand. If a guy had done the same thing, the punishments would have been more severe.
#35 – “There is no such thing as government property… That’s our stuff. That’s public property.”
hey, just because I own stock in Best Buy, doesn’t mean I can use their logo/delivery van/stock how I want. The Gov’t has to control some property to function, it may contradict public rule, but, it just has to be, ya know?
freedom requires responsibility, can’t be avoided.
Slight correction in first paragraph: Military service members being government property isn’t some theory, it’s a fact.
#22, Guyver,
But that probably wasn’t your point, your point was probably a secular progressive stance on how Christianity and its value system when applied are a bad thing or something to that effect. She didn’t get in trouble with taking off her clothes. It was her posing with her uniform in these nude poses.
No. I was referring to Lt. General Boykin, in full uniform, addressing an evangelical group and stating that he wasn’t afraid of the Muslims because “My God is bigger then their God”. That, to me, is debasing the uniform. That is not the conduct I expect from our leaders. Instead of early retirement, they promoted him.
Put this into perspective where the Air Force Academy was rapped for its religious pecking order. If you didn’t belong to a specific, right wing religion then you were passed over for promotion and favor. Even though it was known at the highest Air Force levels, the practice was allowed to continue.
That is the mind set that I believe contributed to this situation. Maybe you don’t get it, but there isn’t supposed to be ANY religion preferred over another by the American government.
#39 –
Of course… I’m not really suggesting that we all get to drive the tanks whenever we want… I’m saying it is ours. And I am right about that.
We should not meekly step up to the mic and softly suggest that it might be nice if the government would kindly fund a school program or buy a fire truck or hire a few more cops…
We should charge the mic and tell our servants in no uncertain terms what they are and are not allowed to do with our money.
Obviously its all more complex, but until the general population realizes that they are not only allowed, but it is thier responsibility, to participate in the process, we will as Guyver rightly said, slide into Orwell’s vision.
I’m not gonna beat the dead horse about Clinton… You didn’t like the guy.. Okay… But I make half now what I made during the glory days and I want him back. And anyone who would suggest the Republicans weren’t on a trail for blood for the entire 8 years of that administration is lying, no matter what we may say about the results of the investigations.
I would post her pic ALL OVER the city, and have a Micro dust in the paper, to check to see WHOM the intolerants are…
Those that destroy the Pic would/could be arrested…
41) I’m not sure if what you mean by “allowed to continue” was a matter of an overt endorsement of the practice or simply not doing anything about it.
In either case, if what you have described is 100% accurate they should be admonished and those in Congress (if they were aware of the matter) should be as well because what you’re talking about is fratranizing based on religious discrimination and this is officially not tolerated.
I do get that there is no religous preferential treatment from the government . Hence why I mentioned that you can be a Satanist in the military. This is completely allowed. However, secular progressives who take things to the extreme are against churches getting financial aid from the goverment for money ear-marked for soup kitchens and other charities that most churches and religions do the lion’s share of the work. And for what reason? A supposed favortism towards Christians? Who loses out? The poor saps who need to go to the soup kitchens in the first place.
Yet I also hear that in the more liberal parts of this country, a nativity scene is taboo in schools and public areas but the Jewish & Muslim religious symbols are okay. Is that how government supposed to be? This favortism thing seems to swing both ways. It should be all or nothing. I don’t care either way, just don’t cherry pick.
What you’re talking about is a cliquish problem based on religious discrimination and isn’t a mindset of the military. That’s not to say it hasn’t happened as in your examples, but it’s officially not tolerated. It’s unfortunate that the “good ole boy’s club” kicks in when it otherwise should not.
As for Lt. Gen Boykin’s comments, I personally haven’t read about it and I don’t know if you’re quoting him out of context. Is he talking about all Muslims, or radical Muslims who use a twisted version of their religion as a vehicle to justify violence? In either case, the man is obviously one of the Christian faith speaking amongst those who share his viewpoint at a gathering of like-minded folks. Odds are he was referring to the radicals.
If you have a problem with military service members wearing their uniform while making religious comments, I suppose you want to eliminate all members of the cloth regardless of religion who serve in the military because they too wear the military uniform. The main thing is whether or not he was trying to incite violence which doesn’t appear to be the case.
Although, this General is more than likely not a person of the cloth, religious comments are not reserved for only members of the cloth who wear a military uniform. Sorry to hear that bugs you. Where the General would be out of line is imposing his views onto other service members outside the scope of an evangelical group. And last time I checked, if you’re religioius, you’re going to think your God is the biggest and best. Surprise Surprise. Doesn’t matter what religion it is last time I checked.
Until you get the psychic thought police involved, you will never change a religious person’s mindset of this. If you feel that is debasing, I hate to tell you that this is the case for ANY religion. Christians think their god is the best and nothing personal, if you’re not Christian but you’re probably going to hell. What do you suppose Mulims and Jews think? Part of having faith in your religion is “knowing” that others not in your religion have it all wrong. It’s a moot point and unless you’re a secular progressive to the extreme or an atheist this really shouldn’t bother you.
Unless you’re directly affected, pick another battle. There are much bigger fish to fry than whine about what a man of faith wearing his uniform at a religious event (which is authorized by the military) said. In the end, this girl did something she knew to be wrong based on standards explained to her when entering into the military. She received an easy punishment.
Guess what? If you thougt that this was bad, go get your tongue or other body part pierced if you’re in the military. It’s not allowed. You’ll be reprimanded. Let your hair down or don’t shave. It’s all the same. You don’t have a say in this if you’re in the military. There is no negotiating. You either conform or you get dealt with. There are those who do it and if they’re lucky to have a passive superior they can get a way with it…. but if they get caught and it’s found out that their superior knew about it they get punished more so.
42) There are things I don’t like about Bush either. 🙂 My ONLY gripe in the political realm is that different critieria is being used towards each particular party.
It really irks me when people call Bush a liar but give a pass to someone from the opposite party. If it’s bipartisan, there should be a lot more people called liars. Don’t believe me?, check out this site (run by Republicans): Click a person on the left and hear their before and after comments: http://www.gop.com/DemFacts/ThenNow.aspx
If Clinton got re-elected for a third term if possible, we would have still slid into a recession. I don’t think much would have changed for you financially other than that there probably would have been less scandals in corporations being prosecuted. There’s no guarantee you would have been able to make more money or lose less. The bubble was still going to burst. I don’t know how you can really pin that to ANY president since their powers of influence on the country’s economy is very limited.
Right. Lying about a blow job from a female of legal age to give one is at least as bad as lying about an international situation, leading to 3000+ American deaths. Have we passed the 9/11 mark yet? We’ve long since passed it if you count non-Americans too. And we’ve totally fallen for an al-Qaeda sucker play in the process (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3961). How could we possibly think lying about a blow job at an inquiry about a completely different matter was not as important?
Meanwhile, all these long comments have made the nice Air Force lady’s pretty picture scroll right off the screen. It’s outrageous.
#44, Guyver,
Boykin was responsible for Special Forces at the time. I don’t know what he does now.
The point is that he, Boykin, does get away with denigrating the uniform and gets promoted. A Sargent gets demoted and relieved of duty. Boykin insulted many of our allies as well as Muslim members of the military.
The difference being that Boykin is a male General while Manhart is only a female Sargent. The General has “God” on his side while the Sargent has some General jerking off in the can. So all the niceties you have espoused about the uniform are nice, when they apply equally.
A few years ago 60 Minutes did a story about an Air Force female pilot who was being charged with conduct unbecoming an officer. Her crime? She had an affair with a married enlisted man. At the same time, her commanding officer had been having an affair with a junior officer’s wife. She was drummed out, the Colonel had a note attached to his file for six months (I believe).
It isn’t the religion. It is the hypocrisy.
I’ll give you credit. You do make a good, well written argument. I appreciate reading such well composed thoughts.
Do people on here even realize that your basically off the whole subject of Michelle Manhart. Learn something from #27 who actually does have a point on this. Michelle Manhart used this as a publicity stunt. Maybe no one would’ve given her a chance to pose if she had not mentioned her position in the U.S. Airforce. It’s obvious she took advantage of it.
Also, it’s stupid to say that it gives good publicity to the U.S. Airforce to market that women can be beautiful to join. As if they would say to themselves “Oh! I can’t join because I’m too beautiful”. Their are even men out there that actually think women are hot just being in the uniform without having to pose nude.
People find all kinds of reasons to attack the military, when their are people dying out there trying to protect their country. Is it for nothing??Yet on the other end Men are groping over Michelle Manhart. Fools! You think if she was in front of the enemy. They would actually care. She could take off all her clothes and they’ll just shoot her down. Picture that!
Not to mention..She knew the risks on posing nude in uniform…If she did her own research…She should’ve learned from the other 2 women that did the same…Yet, she quoted “I’m dissappointed in our system. They went too far with it”. BULL!
Yeah, she served 10years. That still doesn’t qualify her to take advantage of it…The truth is she probably already wanted out and this was her last chance of making herself known.
I wonder if she is a member of the mile high club?
none of the military will prosecute male recruits who rape or molest female recruits, but they DO court martail males who rape or molest other males.
We never passed the EQUAL RIGHTS AMMENDMENT…never radified, so this inequal justice is just fine in the eyes of the military.
Uhhh, the ERA was written the year after women got the vote (1920’s), and during the 70’s there was quite a push to get it passed and radified. It was three states short…and has never seen daylight again. The meda was all into Phyllis Shaffly’s bullshit about how it meant that women would have to use the same BATHROOMS as men, and other trivial things. Old bat. So, yeah, women get raped in the army, navy the airforce and marines. Not big deal…we’re not EQUAL. Duh! Thanks a lot Phyllis and the talk-a-big-game NOW women.
46) Oh so true, just because he would like about a sexual act doesn’t mean he’d lie about possibly participating in what would have legally been a treasonous act at the highest level. Don’t forget to mention that more Americans die in the United States in one year than all the American soliders who have fought in Iraq since 2003. At least this way you can put things into perspective. This war is one of the lowest casualty wars we’ve ever had… and I don’t say that as those each lost life wasn’t a significant loss.
48) Again, I don’t know much about the Boykin situation. If his situation were more publicized I think he would have paid dearly for this if what you say is accurate. From my experiences, Spec Ops guys can tend to be egocentric anyways.
I have observed when all else is equal in the military, the male has gotten punished more harshly than a female. Also, the examples you mentioned I don’t deny happend, but they are not the military’s policy of things. Adultery is officially not tolerated and you can easily have the book thrown at you for that. If adultery was committed between both service members then both indivduals would be punished… if one was more senior than the other, the senior one would be punished more harshly regardless of gender.
One thing you did point out in the second “affair” situation was that the two members were in the military while in the first it was not. In the case of a superior officer having an affair with an enlisted service member, this is also not tolerated since this is considered an abuse of power. I happened to be around in such a situation and the admiral sent fhe female officer back stateside possibly to be processed out of the military. The male enlistee got no punishment because he was a subordinate and therefore not responsible for what happend. This is how the military does things… it turns a blind eye to who is female / male in situations like this because whoe ever is the senior ranking person is the one at fault, because they had “command” of the situation.
Fraternizing between the ranks is forbidden, even for a senior enlisted with a junior enlisted… I have seen the envelope get pushed on this, but this is frowned upon and can yield the same results if the difference in rank between enlistees is quite large.
Had it been a male officer and a female enlistee, the male officer would have been punished more harshly than your female officer in the reciprocal situation (from my experience). Again, I don’t deny what you say took place, but I would not try to say your cases are the norm (which is why you saw it on 60 minutes) they are the exceptions and they got away with murder so to speak . So what they did was under the radar, and when they were apparently caught they knew someone up the chain who covered their rear, but had they been caught could have also gotten severely punished. Again this is not the norm and I hope this is not what you’re implying.
I too have seen the hipocracy in the military so I don’t disagree with you there. It happens. Not always, but it can and does at times. It’s not the military that’s at fault although they get the black eye, it’s the specific individuals who abuse their power / authority that create situations like what you describe. There are formal rules and consequences for their actions.
49 / 50). Yes, you’re right.
53) You’ve obviously not served in the military, if you have I’d be most surprised based on your viewpoint. My experiences beg to differ.