In political news of the weird: Ever wondered who would call into “Washington Journal” on C-SPAN? It turns out that Cher would. Saying “I know that I am an entertainer and from Hollywood and should have no conscience,” Cher called in at 4:20 a.m. Malibu time recently to advocate for helmet upgrades for U.S. troops. Cher gave $25,000 to Operation Helmet, which has provided 6,000 protective liners to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and she will be on Capitol Hill to promote the cause on June 14. And, hey, if her ex-husband could become a member of Congress, why can’t she care about helmets?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JWink on Jail consultants straining patience
- Monkeyhawk on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Health care reform would save state money
- XXX on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
9 Comments
That is much better than saying “Bush sucks” and spending millions on “Hate Bush” campaigns.
At least Cher is doing something positive and she is helping the troops. I think it’s great.
Thanks Cher!
She hates Bush too, Joe.
She was always the smart one.
Maybe we should invest in body armor and helmets for all the innocent Iraqi civilians who are getting it from all sides.
It’s good to see Cher doing something other than making a complete fool of herself for a change, however, having been one of the individual’s who tested her “Dr Scholl’s head insterts” when they were a new idea back in the 1980’s, the end result is that they will be banned once the military notices the massive increase in heat related deaths and injuries they are going to cause. The air space between the suspension webbing and the helmet are absolutely necessary. Of 105 of us that tested them we had one death and one permanent disablility because of them. They were also not suitable for airborne operations.
It’s too bad that such an operation is needed. Isn’t it the responsibility of the Commander in Chief to provide such equipment?
Oh, I forgot, “You go to war with what we choose to give you, not with what you need.”
It isn’t needed Ben. It was tried, tested and proven to be a fatal error. For it to be effective requires another companies model that was part of the first “land warrior system” we tested, which allowed for a connection to a water cooling system. The system works but simply was not idiot proof or heavy duty enough to handle the everyday abuse military equipment recieves in the field.What we are seeing here with this campaign is a failed concept attempting to gain new life by making themselves a 501c in order for people like Cher to create the appearance that soliders in the field are not recieving the equipment they need. It is really a rediculous concept, when one takes into consideration the lack of interest she and those of like mind payed to soliders in previous campaigns during the previous administration.
One Aside: Despite the claims of the inventor, the U.S. Army does not use his product. They simply have not forbidden soldiers from using it if they choose. REMF’s may well choose to wear it as they are seldom ever under a great deal of physical stress and they are quite comfortable. Kind of like a good motorcycle helmet.
Nick – I am not referring to this specific product; simply the decision to not provide all sorts of protective gear. This has been well documented over the past few years and was the impetus for the soldier’s question to Rumsfield and his response.
By all sorts of protective gear, I take it to mean you are referring to the extra steel plating for very light vehicles such as the hummers. In every conflict one of the solider’s first concerns is increasing his cover to the maximum level for the given mission. Could that process have been hurried along even more than it was. Probably so. It kind of reminded me of GI’s equipping their tanks with hedge cutters during WWII. Soldiers who fail to innovate and wait on breaucrats to do the right thing are almost all listed on the roles of memorials everywhere. Did it make a difference? It is highly doubtful. The act of increasing the armor of an unarmored vehicle with a piece of 1/4″ inch steel has no beneficial protection from an RPG or IED attacks. Hell, it won’t even stop a 7.62 round, but it makes good press to present it otherwise.If you are referring to the pinnacle body armor the Army banned, it recently failed it’s independent testing after the company delayed it’s trial in an attempt to negotiate different testing standards than what the speicifications called for. This for me, is more than enough justification to disallow troops to spend five thousand dollars on what may well be a substandard product. Again, it makes for good press and is easily twisted into whatever one with an agenda would like, but I will still put my faith in Army procurement over media, marketing and politically driven claims.