Virgo
I grew up in California with a single mother who was working all kinds of jobs to support us. I didn't know where I was going in life. My father was in the Navy. My step-father was in the Marine Corps. My grandfather was in the Army Air Corps. I come from a long line of military. I thought, 'What the heck.' So, at 17 years old, I left for basic training. I knew this was a good way to grow up, get an education, travel and become an adult. Plus, I got to shoot guns, so that was pretty cool. (laughs)
I decided to use the Air Force to my advantage. I wanted to do everything I could for them, because they were going to do things for me. I'd drop and do 20 because I love my country and I love the Air Force. I never said, "I'm going to piss them off and get out early." But I also told myself that if my dream jumped in front of me, I was not going to let it go. In my few first years with the military, I continued to model. When Playboy came calling, I didn't even hesitate. Nothing made me doubt what I was doing. I truly felt that I had done enough for my country and had such a great career record, that there would be no controversy.
*****
I was demoted from the Air Force on February 9, 2007, but this all started January 9th. I'd done the photo shoot with Playboy last April, almost a year ago. I've been modeling since I was about seven or eight years old. I've been in the military almost 13 years.
COMMENTS (86)
RATE THIS STORY
There are reports today that Vanessa Hudgens has been...
I thought covering the Democratic National Convention in my hometown would be a breeze....
Comments
Re: I'm going to be polite, but
By gospeedy, February 2, 2008 at 12:24Sgt Mac,
Kudos, you are right on target just like an AF smart bomb. We are taught in basic training all off-duty employment must be approved through our commander and the base legal office BEFORE we accept it. And your point regarding her EPR is also dead on. EPRs are inflated and her supervisor can only rate her based on what he/she has knowledge of.
I do have some compassion for Ms. Manhart though; she most definitely was used by Playboy. No one was going to buy the magazine to see her photos without the controversy. If she hadn't gone to her chain of command, it would surprise me if someone from the magazine didn't. They needed the scandal to sell the magazine. The only reason they agreed to do a pictorial on her is because they knew the scandal would happen with 100% certainty and boost sales of the magazine. I'm sure they have been very supportive of her the whole time and she probably still doesn't realize they just used her.
Ms. Manhart compares her pictorial to pictures of soldiers with their shirts off. That is hardly a similar comparison. I doubt any male military member (pardon the pun) could pose for Playgirl and not be separated from the service. I also believe if she had wanted to model swimwear for a catalog the AF would have approved a request for off-duty employment if it didn't interfere with her AF commitments.
I wish Ms. Manhart a happy and successful life after the Air Force. We are better off without her.
I'm going to be polite, but
By Sgt Mac, April 27, 2007 at 19:45I'm going to be polite, but frankly I am getting tired of hearing Ms XManheart cry about this. Folks, she KNEW she was wrong. See, you need to get permission to take on second jobs while serving in the military, and you need permission to make statements to media outlets before you do so. Did she ask her command if she could pose in Playboy? No, she by her own admission did it behind their backs and once accepted, THEN she went and told them about it. So, the military gave her their highest performance rating based on what they KNEW...not what she was sneaking around doing.
Next, she used photos of her, in uniform and on the job, to get herself into the magazine. That is what we call an endorsement, and the Air Force does not endorse any commercial product. I can go to the Republican or Democratic convention to support a candidate, but I can't do it in uniform. Guess where I learned that....BASIC TRAINING! Guess who instructed at Basic Training....Ms. XManheart.
Would the Air Force have told her no had she said "I want to pose for Playboy"? No one will know, because she didn't ask. Did she check what her rights were before she took such a bold step? Nope, but if she did she obviously didn't care to follow the warnings.
Let's not be stupid, Ms Michelle. You were trained in these matters so you could train others. After the fact, you didn't help your cause by making public statements to the media without consulting public affairs. You questioned leadership and even insulted them publically.
You are using this incident to stay in the "spotlight" in an effort to keep your 15 minutes of fame going so you can, "hopefully" propel your acting and modelling career hopes.
And let's face facts about that "firewall five" EPR and the promotion statement: As a "fellow instructor" that WON Instructor of the Year, I can get firewall fives and promotion statements by simply staying awake at work. You know it, I know it, and most every other enlisted person knows it: The EPR ratings are overinflated. It's harder for a supervisor to rate anyone LESS then a firewall five!
Good luck to you Ms XManheart...press on with your life...but stop pretneding and stop lying. I serve honorably and I follow the rules that were taught to me, that I also teach to others. You didn't. You have no integrity, and that might just get you into Hollywood afterall.
Michelle Manhart is a
By AFSSgt, April 6, 2007 at 22:24Michelle Manhart is a disgusting piece of trash, and a complete disgrace to the uniform, her fellow troops, and the entire nation. Her punishment should have been more harsh. I am glad the AF made the wise decision to get rid of her - we don't need trash in the military.
Tiffany - thank you for
By Heather Wallace, April 10, 2007 at 14:59Tiffany - thank you for weighing in on this issue, but we don't encourage trash talk. We can all agree to disagree, but let's be nice.
Tiffany, TY for your
By larsmith, April 10, 2007 at 18:02Tiffany, TY for your comments. Good to see a _woman_ who's got what it takes to call a spade a spade. Get used to the fact that the liberal media supports your right to mock and scoff and ridicule conservative positions but _not_ liberal ones. Your freedom of speech stops when you correctly identify a problem with a liberal ( licentious ? ) viewpoint or practice. If you support licentious living, feel free to speak your mind. If you are disgusted with the immorality and selfishness of some in the liberal camp, expect to be rebuked for calling it like you see it. Welcome to Orato.
If you are offended at how some call good evil and evil good, then I encourage you to keep speaking your mind here in Orato. Yes, you'll take trash talk for doing so ( they can dish it out but can't take it ) but then hopefully it'll be worth it.
To see ONE of the challenges I've tossed out, read the following :
http://www.orato.com/node/2059#comment-542
I completely disagree with
By Hope F, April 10, 2007 at 18:22I completely disagree with you Alan, I know big shocker. I am totally okay with you having an opinion on what Michelle has done, you can not agree with it and you can think it is garbage and you can say so and you have quite loudly, what I don't agree with is you attacking her as a person, a mother, a wife or a soldier. Again, you don't have to look at the photos if they bother you. You have something to say about anything that is written, good, bad or indifferent. You seem to be able to argue with anything. If you are so offended by what you see at Orato, why do you keep returning? Why do you find it so gratifying to argue with everyone even after you know that you will not change their minds to what you believe?
I'm hoping that Hope is
By larsmith, April 11, 2007 at 06:23I'm hoping that Hope is different from some here on Orato. I'm hoping she'll dare to take some of my challenges and make her position known on some of the questions I've posed to other people here. The issue, Hope, is not Michelle as a person ( etc ) but her _character_ !! Her character can be seen by what she says and does. The kind of "a person, a mother, a wife or a soldier" she is is determined by her character. If her character is reproachable, then an on-looker can correctly understand that she's less of "a person, a mother, a wife or a soldier" than she should be. If you're truly interersted in Michelle as "a person, a mother, a wife or a soldier", then you will take her aside and lovingly deal with her _character_ !! Instead of chastising me for making an issue of her character, use your time productively and help Michelle work on hers.
If you will take no other challenge from me but one, then take this challenge. Go public here on Orato as to 1) whether there's a Higher Moral Authority, our Creator, from whom we should learn morality and to Whom we will ultimately be accountable for our words, thoughts and actions.
If your position is that there is no Higher Moral Authority to Whom all people must ultimately answer, then both you and I are free to make up our own mind about right and wrong. Any and every thing which comes under the category of "perversion" is permissible. Everyone can do what they want, no matter how much others are opposed to it.
What's your position, Hope ?
Trash talk only reflects
By Heather Wallace, April 11, 2007 at 08:48Trash talk only reflects badly on the person using it. Seems Michelle has a lot more dignity than some of her critics.
Tiffany - you just make
By Robyn Williams, April 11, 2007 at 08:57Tiffany - you just make yourself sound. Sounds to me like you're a jealous, fearful person. If you have a husband, he probably finds Michelle attractive and that just drives you crazy. And Allan - I've never heard of such a hypocrite. You claim to be all "godly" and then you promote other people calling women trash...Do you really think Jesus would promote that kind of thing? Jesus befriended prostitutes, or have you conveniently omitted that from your memory?
Robyn, tell me where I
By larsmith, April 11, 2007 at 11:08Robyn, tell me where I "claim to be all godly".
If you have actually read anything authoritative about Jesus, you will know that at one time, he called people hypocrites and at another time he took a cat-o-nine-tails ( scourge ) and drove "money changers" out of a temple court.
Now that you've stated "Jesus befriended prostitutes", how about you tell other readers where you learned that little bit of info. Refer them, as christians would say, to the chapter and verse ... or did you get that from some movie ? If you've gotten that perspective from a movie, even you will be ashamed. If you got it from "the bible", give the readers chapter and verse and discuss the context.
ie: did Jesus befriend prostitutes who continued on with their prostitution ... OR ... did he befriend ex-prostitutes ?
There's a big difference here, as you can see.
You've brought this issue up. Now let's see how you resolve it.
In "the bible", there was a woman "taken in adultery". What Jesus said to her was very judgemental. He considered that what she had done to be sinful !! We can know that because He's quoted as saying "go your way and ... " ... what does he say next, Robyn ?? Tell the readers here what the Jesus to whom you refer said to this adulterous woman.
The adulturess, found in
By Hope F, April 11, 2007 at 11:48The adulturess, found in John 8, that you are speaking of, yes the woman was caught in the very act of adultery and the teachers and Pharisees brought her to Jesus as a test. Jesus agreed that what she had done was against the law that Moses brought and that she was to be stoned...but there's more to the story. This is where Jesus stooped to the ground and wrote in the dirt...we don't know what...this is when He said something (depending on bible version) like "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and the crowd dispersed...Then Jesus asked the woman where her accusers were..."who condemns you?"...her response "no one sir" His response "Neither do I condemn you" "Go now and leave your life of sin"
Also, Luke 6:27-42 is a very long teaching on how you are to love your enemies and not be judging as to their actions.
Then there is the story of the bleeding woman. She was shunned by society and religion for being unclean...but was healed by touching Jesus
We are told to, when in conflict (of law or character) to go to that person first with another brother to talk to the person individually...It's the beginnings of the leadership philosophy "praise in public...chastise in private"
I would caution you, Alan, that I WILL NOT engage in a war of scriptural verses with you. But that I do understand the bible and sometimes the best way to help someone is to love them and lead by example. Criticizing someone indirectly is not rebuking, counseling or helping them. It is merely an opportunity to show those listening your level of piety and/or knowledge and is not pride a sin in and of itself?
Heather, I hoped against
By larsmith, April 11, 2007 at 14:01Heather, I hoped against hope that if I stuck around long enough, I'd find someone who'd actually engage in discussion and contribute something substantive. I'm thankful that Hope has finally done so. TY TY Hope !!
Jesus people whom Jesus "befriended" were ex-adulterers, ex-prostitutes, ex-tax collectors, etc. In case you've not read my earlier statement, I have committed adultery.
As for Michelle being called "trash", Paul the Apostle called himself a WORM. He recognized that he was a worm. Another passage refers to people being dung. Now, would you rather we call Michelle "dung" or would you agree that "trash" is a more complimentary term ?
I once was "trash". I once practiced perversions which merited that adjective. If there's hope for the likes of me, there's hope for Michelle. She needs the same attitude adjustment that I did ... and the same attitude adjustment I need every time I'm selfish, especially when I make immoral choices ( as I've discussed in another response a month or so ago ).
You stated "Criticizing someone indirectly is not rebuking, counseling or helping them." When Jesus is quoted as saying "Ye hypocrites ...", was he not criticizing people ? ( you'll find the context in Matt 5-7 tho I think the actual verses are in Chapter 7 ). Then check out Matt 23:33 and tell me if you still believe your comments.
You stated "We are told to, when in conflict (of law or character) to go to that person first with another brother to talk to the person individually...It's the beginnings of the leadership philosophy "praise in public...chastise in private"
Read the context of that passage and you will find that it says that when a brother transgresses against ME. Michelle hasn't transgressed against ME. The verse you used is out of context in this case. Read it carefully and you'll see what I mean.
You stated "But that I do understand the bible and sometimes the best way to help someone is to love them and lead by example."
There's an old proverb which states something about about the kiss of an enemy and the wounds of a friend.
I'd respectfully suggest to you that I've shown her more real love than has the people who condone and/or encourage her actions !! Think about it. Read all I've stated. Remember, the written word bares with it neither body language nor tone of voice. Try reading what I've typed without imputing to my words some assumed body language or tone of voice. See if you can find in there the wounds of a friend.
Allan 1) Twice now you've
By Hope F, April 11, 2007 at 17:33Allan
1) Twice now you've mentioned ex-something (ex-tax collectors, ex-adulterers etc)...I would argue that the adulteress was not an ex-...until meeting Jesus. It is written that Zacchaeus was "a tax collector". I do not have the time to take this to the original language to see if this refers to past or present tense. A more definitive phrasing would be that he was "the" tax collector, but the context of the story implies that it references a present tense situation.
2) Paul called himself a worm. The self actuallization of our failure before God is an altogether different situation than that of a judgemental statement on the relative value of another. The arguement of the degree of compliment instilled by a derogatory comment is laughable. It is still a comment designed to create an analogous value to something of little value.
3) I am happy that you are saved. While I will make a statement that there is but one path to Heaven...there are many paths to the point of salvation. Perhaps the road to your finding grace is different that that of others. Similar perhaps...but different.
4) Direct vs. Indirect commentary. Yes, I will concede that Jesus was not speaking directly to specific individuals in the story you are referencing...therefore He was speaking indirectly. However he was speaking DIRECTLY to the group of people. The intent here ( and I think you know it ) is that there is a difference between addressing a person or group directly and speaking indirectly to them by speaking through or to other persons.
5) Handling conflict...I was not quoting direct scripture. I was quoting the concept. That concept is that you are to direct your concern of offence to the person and not talk about the conflict/transgression to others in the congregation. There should be direct communication. (See #4)
5b) "Michelle has not transgressed against ME." How true. Why not let any moral trasgression be between her and He who may or may not find transgression in her actions?
6) "Sometimes the best way to help someone is to love them and lead by example." I still stand by this. The key word is sometimes. There are no absolutes in guidance.
7) The wounds of a friend... would it were that we all had friends to lovingly correct us when we needed it. Are you Michelle's friend? Do you know her? Is it your place to induce the wounds of a friend to someone to whom you are not a friend?
8) I infer no tone to your writing. I am merely looking at the words and arguements and responding,
I think I'm done for awhile/
Hope, you stated "I would
By larsmith, April 12, 2007 at 06:38Hope, you stated "I would argue that the adulteress was not an ex-...until meeting Jesus." You stated that Jesus "befriended". Did he "befriend" this adulteress ? Or did He simply treate her graciously, with mercy ?
I'm still looking for your reference for your position regarding those he "befriended". Can you point me ( or other readers ) to references which make it clear that he befriended certain groups of people ?
RE: the woman "taken in adultery", Jesus' words near the end of that story were "neither do I condemn thee". It would be redundant for Him to do so. See John 3 re: "condemned already".
Some infer from the "neither do I condemn thee" that Jesus didn't "judge" or "criticize". He is the Ultimate Judge ( see the Book of the Revelation, among other passages ) ... and I've already shown a couple passages where it might be reasonably inferred that He did indeed criticize.
As for whether or not I am Michelle's friend, I've never met her. I might say, however, that if we did meet ( for example, in the work place ) I expect that she would find me as friendly as the next co-worker. Where I work, I'm not only seen as having some rather controversial perspectives but I'm accepted as being one who serves and supports our other staff members. Believe it or not, I'm in customer support and have had the privilege of receiving EMail and letters of thanks ( besides the phone calls to my boss, combined with people telling him in person ) expressing appreciation for my deliberation in serving the customers patiently and thoroughly. I'm not the bad-boy that some here on Orato presume me to be. Unfortunately motives are imputed to people who speak out. I've been involved in enough forums to have learned that long ago.
Even Heather and Paul would get along with me just fine, in the work place.
That aside, I've been chastized ( tho gently ) for having responded as I did to a person who called Michelle "trash", and I'm being held to account for that. I can understand why.
Now, Hope, tell us your opinion about the rightness or wrongness of her actions. Were her actions a good choice ? Were they moral ? Would the Ultimate Judge approve of and/or condone Michelle's choices ?
It seems that you have a higher degree of comfort pointing out where "the messanger" is to be rebuked more than the woman about whom this article has been written. What's up with that ?
Allan Quote: I'm still
By Hope F, April 12, 2007 at 07:39Allan
Quote: I'm still looking for your reference for your position regarding those he "befriended". Can you point me ( or other readers ) to references which make it clear that he befriended certain groups of people ?
-I never stated that He befriended anyone...the term befriended came from another. I was taking issue with your reference to ex-... in regarding the adulteress and the tax collector. I maintain that they were in the present tense.
-You make a solid case for the idea of judgment. However, I maintain (another statement of personal faith/opinion) that the judgement was against the sin, not the person.
-I do not know you nor do I know your affability at work, home or church. The description, however, is moot to the idea of whether or not you are Michelle's friend and in a position to provide the "wounds of a friend". As I have told you, I do not infer tone. I just respond to the arguements.
-My position on the rightness/wrongness of Michelle's actions involve compex opinions on faith, the law and ethics. Because of the elements of my faith, and my statement of unwillingness to enter into a scriptural war with you, I will hold them to myself and not hijack this thread further. Perhaps another time when I am more available to do so.
I will tell you this, regardless of whether Michelle's DECISIONS are congruent with what I would do or not wor what I feel should be done...I lover HER, respect HER and will support HER. Just as I would anyone whom I call friend, family or brother/sister in God.
-As mentioned previously, I am addressing your words and arguements. You seem like an intelligent, well spoken man. The thing that concerns me (and the reason I rejoined the discussion) was this:
Your arguements and statements are well written and organized and your conclusions follow your arguements convincingly. Sometimes, however, your final conclusions are just far enough from correct ( from my opinion or fact ), or far enough away from your premises, or your premises are just stated enough or not enough ( read: not the whole picture) that I am afraid some will miss the error. When most people speak incorrectly, or make mistakes (and we all do) it is usually painfully obvious. You make much more subtle errors. That is a tribute to your intelligence. Because of this (the subtlety) and the strength of your writing, it seems that most people choose not to enter into debate with you. In this case, I felt it necessary to speak up.
I do not dislike you or hold any ill will towards you. That too, is against my beliefs.
Now I know I am done for a while
Hope, you stated "I lover
By larsmith, April 12, 2007 at 12:23Hope, you stated "I lover HER, respect HER and will support HER. Just as I would anyone whom I call friend, family or brother/sister in God."
Is Michelle what some christians call a "born again christian" ? And are you also ? According to the christian faith, that's the only way she could be your "sister in God". Correct ?
You say "I lover HER, respect HER and will support HER.". Check out 1 Corinthians 5 and read it thoroughly. What are brothers / sisters in God / Christ to do when a brother / sister is involved in certain immoral practices ? Support them ? Respect them ? It's not love when we "support them" when they're engaged in immoral activities. I have no idea how a person can respect someone who's practing immorality of any kind.
How about checking out 2Tim 4:2 and see how it fits into the conversation. Does it apply to your friendship with / love Michelle ?
I'd be happy to give you my EMail addie ( Or Heather Wallace can give it to you, if it's not available here on Orato ) if you wish to conclude this off-line.
From my perspective, I believe it's healthy for other readers to read what you have to say HERE. You're one of the 1st to actually contribute in a meaningful and constructive way. Don't stop now !!
I warned you that I would
By Hope F, April 12, 2007 at 12:44I warned you that I would not get in to a scripture war with you and I will not. The only reason I posted on this blog to begin with was because people were judging her, in my opinion, unfairly. I stand by her now and always. I will leave you to your opinions, as is your right, but my opinion is now and will always be that she is a wonderful, caring and loving person.
If ever there was a person
By larsmith, April 12, 2007 at 13:52If ever there was a person who showed promise in being able to put me in my place and/or pin my ears back, it was ( is ? ) Hope and I've been looking forward to discourse with her on this ( if not other ) topics. I'm truly disappointed that she's decided ( long ago ? ) to withdraw just as she was making progress.
I don't say that either sarcasticly nor flippantly.
RE: Michelle Manhart I have
By John Humes, March 28, 2007 at 18:11RE: Michelle Manhart
I have been following blogs and comments regarding Michelle Manhart at several forums on the internet.
Orato, in my opinion, has published the most complete and fair account of what has transpired.
The comments that have been posted for the most part seem to forget one major point. That is that Michelle DID NOT get her request for a "Court Martial". What the Air Force in fact did do is to completely disregard her basic rights under the UCOMJ.
It is very scary as to what has happened to Michelle. It could happen to anyone who is in the military. No trial, just a lynching.
And at the end the final form of injustice is to make Michelle report to a reserve unit in IA.
To me the issue is not that she posed in Playboy but that she was completly denied her rights.
All of us that have served in the military should be raising thier voices in protest. Please write your representatives in the Senate and Congress.
And YES, I have been doing so and more.
Thanks for reading my comment. Now, how about taking some action.
John
John, Have you got
By larsmith, March 29, 2007 at 05:58John,
Have you got information from the AF which confirms your statement :
"That is that Michelle DID NOT get her request for a "Court Martial". What the Air Force in fact did do is to completely disregard her basic rights under the UCOMJ"
Or are you just repeating what you've heard "here and there" ??
My concern here is that judgments are being made against the military without all the facts.
Hadn't been by in a week---
By Steve139, March 29, 2007 at 21:31Hadn't been by in a week--- just thought I'd drop by and see if Allen was still raving like a lunatic.... yup lol! Keep it up buddy... The world needs nuts like you... if for no reason other than to make the rest of us feel normal haha. Hi Michelle--- BTW Allen your response to me will only go on others ears... but I may check back in a week or so to see if your as insane as we all think.
Steve,A week or so ago, you
By larsmith, March 30, 2007 at 06:43Steve,
A week or so ago, you stated "I am a Christian". Then you show your real colors with this recent childish tirade which shows your lack of self ( if not christian ) control.
If you're a christian at all, then you're a typical christian ... you're a hypocrite !!
The original language in which the christian bible was written uses a word which means "Little Christ" and that word has been "translated" as the word "christian".
Now tell me ... what part of your spiteful and openly rude comments do you believe the real Christ would have used ? Which part of your comments would you feel most comfortable reading to your christian reverend or to your christian congregation ?
The saddest thing about most christians today is that they're so much like the non-christians that it's difficult to tell the difference.
Mind you, the same could be said for Republicans. Most of them are Democrats who pretend they're Republicans so they can get voted in. They don't really stand for much that matters ... and those Republicans who're worth much at all are few and far between.
Now that you've relieved yourself of those pent up feelings and emotions, how about actually contributing to the discussion in some sort of constructive manner.
As a "christian", you have in this forum called Orato a wide-opened opportunity to present solid christian principals, to show Godly morals, to be a "light shining in darkness" and the best you can do is to act like the non-christians ? You're an embarrassment to the real christians ... so much so that I doubt you're a christian at all. Kind of like democrats who're pretending to be republicans.
Allen, Yes, there is
By John Humes, March 30, 2007 at 23:20Allen,
Yes, there is reliable information regardaring Manhart. I will not post it here so don't ask.
John
Yes, John. I can see how it
By larsmith, April 1, 2007 at 06:11Yes, John. I can see how it would be totally unreasonable for Orato readers to ask you to post here reliable information regarding Manhart. Far be it from Orato readers to expect _balanced_ coverage of this situation.
Chuck P..in response to your
By Michelle Manhart, March 27, 2007 at 20:42Chuck P..in response to your questions....
"Then she isn't telling all the truth" YES I am.... "according to the UCMJ any military member has the right to trial by court material in lew of a Article 15 or any other UCMJ punishment." "if she had gone to trial by court material then the punishment could/would have been worse. She accepted the article 15 on her own choice. Is this not correct Michelle?"
This is where I think you are misreading the article....I DIDN'T get an Article 15...that is what I am saying, I didn't get a court martial or article 15 or anything but a bunch of broken red tape!
"was it worth it?"
Yes, more than you can imagine. I cannot expect you to understand why I did it or why it was worth it but beyond a shadow of a doubt it was.
Then she isn't telling all the truth, according to the UCMJ any military member has the right to trial by court material in lew of a Article 15 or any other UCMJ punishment. I will be happy to provide the exact Article if you wish, but that is the facts. Bottom line, is she knew by using pictures of her in her uniform was wrong. If she had gone to trial by court material then the punishment could/would have been worse. She accepted the article 15 on her own choice. Is this not correct Michelle?
Is that you gave up worth all the "fame"?
What happens when Playboy is done with you? You had such a good future with the USAF, but you threw it away for your 15 mins of fame.
You say 15 min well that might be your opinion but you are wrong. You say I had a good future with the AF again your opinion...you never can tell you future...so you nor I can say for sure whether I had a good future in the AF. I dont live for tomorrow I live for NOW! There is no such thing as Playboy being done with anyone. The one thing that PB has over the military is that once you are a member of the family you always are and they know the true meaning of family cause they accept us for who we are!
Furthermore, I have signed to host a reality show...I also have several modeling contracts in line...I have also signed to do two movies and before you get you mind in the wrong arena...They will both be at your local theatre. One is with Columbia Pictures I am sure you have heard of them.
You may not like what I did and that is your opinion but I ask you nicely not to judge my character because that is nothing you have been opened to looking at yet...
There are wrongs and rights in a lot of circumstances, I am not asking people to agree with me if they dont...if someone has an abortion there will be ranted opinions on that too..but does that make that person a BAD person...NO, they just made a decision at that moment that they themself will have to live with....I am over joyed to live with my decision...yesterday, today and anyday in the future that I am lucky enough to embrass....
Finally, AGAIN and just for the record (this is not towards all of you)...I have not cheated on my husband....I guess it is just easy to assume that everyone does that sort of thing in todays age...but some of us are just happy where we are, it is funny how people in the eyes view get accused of all sorts of things...maybe I should go shave my head too and see where that gets me....Rumors are just that...and unless you and I slept together then all you have is just that RUMORS. Stick to the facts....or just go out and follow your own dreams...so you dont have to live negatively through mine!
Michelle, one sign of a
By larsmith, March 28, 2007 at 06:39Michelle, one sign of a person's selfishness is that they live for TODAY.
I'm confounded that someone can refer to PB as a "family" ... other than when I put that comment into perspective. I mean, the word "family" is a very common word among the mafia as well. Kinda puts your perspective into persepective.
Michelle, if someone murdered someone you know and love, "does that make that person a BAD person...NO, they just made a decision at that moment that they themself will have to live with". I've used a quote from your comments to make a point. Abortion is murder. Once again, it kinda puts your perspective on murder into perspective. BTW, the answer to your question is "yes", and one who should be punished for her crime. Sadly, abortion, as immoral and vile as it is, is legal in far too many countries. There's another example for people prefer to argue the legality of an act or practice instead of acknowledging the morality of an act or practice.
You have done as far too many women have done in that you have objectified yourself and just as PB is profiting by exploiting your ego, so also Hollywood hopes to do. You are now an object to be marketted. You will be discarded when they feel that they've made all the money they can off of you. Enjoy it while you can and all the best to you. I can't help but wonder if being a movie star is so great, why are so many of them drunk, stoned or dead ? ( Anna Nicole, for example ). I can't imagine that anyone who gets their start in the world of fame & fortune ever believes that they could end up as she did.
Michelle Manhart wrote:
By chuck73, March 28, 2007 at 07:13Michelle Manhart wrote: Chuck P..in response to your questions....
"Then she isn't telling all the truth" YES I am.... "ccording to the UCMJ any military member has the right to trial by court material in lew of a Article 15 or any other UCMJ punishment." "f she had gone to trial by court material then the punishment could/would have been worse. She accepted the article 15 on her own choice. Is this not correct Michelle?"
This is where I think you are misreading the article....I DIDN'T get an Article 15...that is what I am saying, I didn't get a court martial or article 15 or anything but a bunch of broken red tape!
Well since I am not into the whole guard side of it, i will assume you got a admin discharge?
"as it worth it?"
Yes, more than you can imagine. I can not expect you to understand why I did it or why it was worth it but beyond a shadow of a doubt it was.
Cool, I am glad your having fun.
Then she isn't telling all the truth, according to the UCMJ any military member has the right to trial by court material in lew of a Article 15 or any other UCMJ punishment. I will be happy to provide the exact Article if you wish, but that is the facts. Bottom line, is she knew by using pictures of her in her uniform was wrong. If she had gone to trial by court material then the punishment could/would have been worse. She accepted the article 15 on her own choice. Is this not correct Michelle?
Can you answer that question?
You say 15 min well that might be your opinion but you are wrong. You say I had a good future with the AF again your opinion...you never can tell you
You are correct in that, you can't tell. But i will ask you a few questions, point blank and without bias:
Why did you have to attached you military? Do you feel remorse for using your fellow Airmen to get ahead? Did you think that the AF was going to let this go? Did you not know what you were about to do (using your military uniform) to get you ahead wasn't going to get you into trouble? Seriously, you have to have known this was coming down. You can pose for who ever as long as you don't use your military stuff. You taught countless recruits about being "blue" and the rules governing us, yet you turn around and break them? Expecting everyone to be happy about it? You can pose in whatever magazine you want, but you can't use your position in the military to do it. What would you say to someone who went to a "rally" in uniform, got on TV and then got in trouble? Is that not the same thing?
Now before you go off, let me clarify, posing in PB without your uniform would have been ok. Using your uniform isn't. Was this not a publicity stunt? All the free TV, headlines? What I am pissed about is you used me and every airmen to get ahead. that is what I am not cool with.
15 mins of fame:
K, tell me the name, rank and job that the sailor who posed in PB was? Does anyone remember her? Will this happen to you, who knows, time till tell.
"The one thing that PB has over the military is that once you are a member of the family you always are and they know the true meaning of family cause they accept us for who we are!"
Michelle, this is the biggest line of crap ever. Your going to sit and say how wonderful the Air Force was to you and then turn around and now say that PB treats you better? Military members in the their graves are rolling over. You tell me that all the time you spend in the AF was wasted? Yet you tell Montel, it was some of the best times in your life. Seems to me your getting a bad taste for something you, yourself caused.
I have also signed to do two movies and before you get you mind in the wrong arena...
Your assuming people think that.
I am not asking people to agree with me if they dont...if someone has an abortion there will be ranted opinions on that too..but does that make that person a BAD person...NO, they just made a decision at that moment that they themself will have to live with....
This is apples and oranges. Posing in PB and killing someone isn't the same. I get the point.
Again though, not saying you posing is bad, in fact, it isn't. What I am saying is using the military stuff to get ahead. Do you have such contempt for the others that still serve? If you have the little bit of respect then I ask you to remove the cartoon on your myspace. I am asking you to remove it, please. It is bad attempt to make yourself look better.
What people seem to forget is that you can pose, but you can't use your position in the military to do it. Simply put and everyone is losing site of that. What Michelle does on her off time is up to her, but my point is not using the military to do it.
Michelle, I still have some respect for you, one for serving your country in a time of war. Two, for doing something good and sending me top notch airmen. As far as I am concerned your still a "family" member for your years of service. I just wish you would have thought about not using the AF like you did. Does this make sense?
Again, you can answer these offline or online. Just look on your friends list, I am there.
Allan, I haven't judged you
By Hope F, March 27, 2007 at 18:24Allan, I haven't judged you or anyone on this forum. It makes me very angry that you talk about someone so harshly that you don't even know. Yes, Michelle did sign on the dotted line, but that doesn't mean she signed her life away. In dealing with you, I did a search to see if I could find something with military men in it, and it was a split second before I found a military calendar with Marines with their shirts off in bikini underware posing on beaches all over the world. Why is it okay for that and not okay for a beautiful woman to so the same?
In response to your comment, Michelle did fight for your right to have an opinion and God knows I have my own opinions, the thing that you don't have the right to do is judge her or push your opinions on the world. She hasn't done that. If you don't want to look at the pictures, DON'T! The thing that made me mad was the fact that you were attacking her morals and her family by stating that she didn't have and family support, when how the hell would you know that?
I agree with Richard, in that it seems to be like we have stepped back in time by like 50 years. I haven't judged you Allan, I don't even know you, what I have done is to ask that if you would like to state your opinions that you do it in a way that isn't hurtful and use only the facts.
Hope, you gotta read what
By larsmith, March 27, 2007 at 18:47Hope, you gotta read what you type a little better. You stated "Allan, I haven't judged you or anyone on this forum." and yet you have. You've judged that I've "talk(ed) about someone so harshly ... ". That's a judgment. There's an implication in what you write that I am somehow wrong for what I've stated and/or for how I've stated.
Military men posing with revealing bathing suits on is indeed different than a woman who exposes breasts and/or other parts of her body which differentiate her anatomy from male anatomy. Female soldiers are free to walk any public beach with those parts of their anatomy covered ( if ever so immodestly ) and to pose for photos. Neither male nor female soldiers are free to remove those articles of clothing to expose for publication in a well-known porn rag, those areas of their body generally covered by their bathing suits.
Hope, you say I don't have "the right to push (my) opinions on the world."
Um ... says WHO ? I mean, by saying what you did, you're "pushing your opinion" on me !! How is it that it's OK for you to be so angry and to publicly kick my butt with your angry words and then to push your opinion on me and yet it's wrong for me to express my opinion about Michelle's lack of moral judgment ?
I didn't "attack" her morals. I simply held her _lack_ of morals up so that they could be seen for what they are.
Hope, in closing, there's a saying that I'm sure is well known to you. That saying is "The Truth Hurts". Get used to it.
Man, it's amazing to see
By Richard Day Gore, March 27, 2007 at 14:37Man, it's amazing to see that in 2007 the thought of a naked woman can raise hackles just like it did back in the Middle Ages. Somewhere in bewteen all the hyperbolic expressions of offense and defence there's bound to be a middle ground with some truth in it. If Michelle's conduct violates the UCMJ, then it's not a big shame that she got the book thrown at her. As a career soldier she had to be sufficiently familiar with the structure to know the risks, but chose to go buff anyway. The thing is, there's enough leeway in most legal codes for prosecutors to pick and choose who they want to throw the book at to satisfy their organizational agendas. Have others gone unpunished for worse things? Yes. But a prosecutor's job, or the military people responsible for Michelle's downfall, is not just to punish the guilty--it's to make examples. So their choosing this person, and this supposed infraction, to make an example of may speak volumes about how women are still perceived at various levels of power. And to me that's a lot scarier than a naked body.
To me the whole thing buys into the continued objectifation of women, from both ends. Hello, it's not called PlayPerson. Is a woman making some kind of statement by getting naked going to advance the cause of women's rights? IMO no, it's just more of the problem. As is the grey-minded corporate boys-club mentality that's always looking to jusitfy its own existence with an issue like this.
Regards,
Richard Day Gore