I don't get this point. If you write something worthwhile and you are a total dirt ball not worth the bars on your collar, you will be written up as a dirt ball. The content of what you write matters less than your actions over a year. What is wrong with that. But most of you are not dirt balls. You write something controversial, innovative, or critcial, but are a decent officer, you shouldn't have to read about insolence in a fitrep. Frankly, I don't think you would. But you would have to refrain from using "fuck" and be just a little bit respectful. If a JO can manage that , then I expect he would be OK. I hope so.
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not buying. I only read the ENS and first JG article, but something is weird. One need look no further than this forum to understand that in the military, few people care how great your ideas are until you have a little street cred. But for an Ensign to jump into a funding debate (as in, our funding is inadequate and this creates, by extension, inadequacies in our training) just smells funny. I'm just saying, I don't think that the "Strategic Ensign" would get a lot of respect these days. I think that, if anyone cared or noticed, it would be more like the "Lead Ensign" treatment.
That article is BIG STUFF, though. He's jumping the whole chain of command and taking it straight "to the people" by saying, in effect, "I and my fellow SWOs have been inadequately trained because our training has not been properly funded." If nothing else, it certainly serves notice and definitely makes it less surprising, to me, anyway, that he is where he is now.
