#and since sir is already in use today for EVERYONE in military service i elected to make sir the gender-neutral default

[ladybelowdeck]

acceptable ways to address Scotty

Mister Scott/Miss Scott

‘Mister’ is, in fact, acceptable for female officers both in canon and in the navy in real life, however ‘Miss’ can be used based on preference. presumably if you don’t know the gender of the person you’re speaking to, use mister over any alternative. Scotty isn’t especially fond of miss as it comes off almost diminutive, but may or may not correct it.

Sir/Ma’am

again, pretty straightforward. ‘Sir’ is acceptable for women, both in ST canon and the real life navy. ma’am is more specific. again, presumably ‘sir’ is the one that should be defaulted to if gender is unknown or has no term. Scotty has a very strong preference for ‘sir’ in this regard and generally corrects it.

Lieutenant Commander/Lieutenant Commander Scott

this is pretty obviously okay. I should note, though, that insisting on calling someone by the full Lieutenant Commander can be offensive, though it is not automatically so, by way of emphasizing that they aren’t a ‘real’ Commander. It can be used derogatorily especially if the Ltcdr in question is in a position (the XO or similar) usually held by someone of Commander or higher, and someone is trying to say that the Ltcdr is not qualified without outright saying so or being overtly disrespectful. it’s like refering to an lt jg as lt jg instead of just lt. you’re deliberately drawing attention to the fact that they aren’t a ‘full’ lt. in casual conversations that do not require full rank you can also use--

Commander/Commander Scott

this is the acceptable way to shorten the rank ‘Lieutenant Commander’ in an on-duty situation/while speaking about them, etc. the line between ltcdr and cdr is not so wide that the difference is important. lieutenant commander is a bit of a mouthful when just trying to talk and is can be very unwieldy if you’re trying to quickly relay info, hence, commander is an easy stand-in. one cannot use ‘lieutenant’ as referring to someone by a lesser rank is incredibly offensive. don’t do it.

Engineer/Engineer Scott

this is typically for superior officers only, if at all. kirk has canonically done so but I haven’t been able to figure out if it’s the same thing as calling bones ‘Dr. Mccoy’ instead of his rank or if it could be dismissive when used. Certainly for lt and ensign ranks ‘engineer lastname’ is acceptable, so, presumably it works for her as well. Scotty doesn’t really mind this, as being an engineer is, truthfully, all she wants.

other notes:

don’t use her first name at all ever while on duty. or any officer’s. the moments where crew use jim’s name are meant to be surprising and are also almost never in front of other crew members.

even if you have a personal relationship with scotty, platonic or otherwise, you don’t get to start refusing orders or addressing her in a personal manner while on duty. don’t fucking do it.

I’ll admit that gets fuzzy with characters such as bones who really doesn’t give a shit when it comes to formality versus letting you know you need to get your life together, but remember that mccoy gets a lot of leeway for being CMO and on top of that he can literally overrule the captain if it comes to it. he’s earned his leeway. a random ensign has not. that’s the distinction i’m going for, here.

remember that ‘Scotty’ is actually a nickname and is, thus, informal and lower ranking officers generally SHOULD NOT use informalities on duty, though Scotty’s liberal with her tolerance of it (eg. have half an ounce of respect in your tone and she doesn’t care if you call her scotty instead of sir/her rank.)

using ‘Scotty’ is perfectly acceptable off duty for pretty much everyone

‘boss’ is considered an acceptable and respectful way to address a superior, especially when revealing chain of command isn’t a good idea.

‘Captain’ is a position as well as a rank so anyone in that position is due that title, regardless of rank. If Spock, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, or Ensign Joe Blow have the conn and are in charge, they can be addressed as ‘Acting Captain’ or just ‘Captain’, regardless. The exception to this might be admirals/commodores/etc. When in doubt, use the higher rank of address.

other positions/billets factor into who is in charge of who on board. scotty automatically outranks anyone else on board the enterprise short of kirk and spock because of her position as second officer! period! the duties of a second officer are separate from the other duties she performs! the only exception to the rank rule would be the chief medical officer acting in a medical capacity, as usual.

department heads also outrank those in their department; even if scotty were an ensign and not lt cmdr or second officer, she would outrank everyone in the engineering department by her status as chief engineering officer; this is why someone with a department head status is typically lt cdr or above, to avoid rank/rate/billet/position issues.

senior staff, at least on star trek/on the enterprise herself, seem to treat each other as relative equals without regards to rank. it should not be assumed this will hold true for every other crew member and certainly not for those that are not stationed on the enterprise. the main crew all know each other and where they stand in relation to each other, they don’t need to establish positions and boundaries with each other, they’ve already got them.

[xtruss]

CIA’s Forgotten Coup Against ‘The Most Loyal Ally’

On November 11, 1975 Australia's PM was to inform Parliament about secret CIA presence in his country, by day’s end, he was out of the job

HistoryOur Benevolent Empire

John Pilger | Anti-Empire.Com | Russia Insider | MintPress News

The Australian High Court has ruled that correspondence between the Queen and the Governor-General of Australia, her viceroy in the former British colony, is no longer “personal” and the property of Buckingham Palace. Why does this matter?

Secret letters written in 1975 by the Queen and her man in Canberra, Sir John Kerr, can now be released by the National Archives. On November 11, 1975, Kerr infamously sacked the reformist government of prime minister Gough Whitlam, and delivered Australia into the hands of the United States.

Today, Australia is a vassal state bar none: its politics, intelligence agencies, military and much of its media are integrated into Washington’s “sphere of dominance” and war plans. In Donald Trump’s current provocations of China, the U.S. bases in Australia are described as the “tip of the spear”.

There is an historical amnesia among Australia’s polite society about the catastrophic events of 1975. An Anglo-American coup overthrew a democratically elected ally in a demeaning scandal in which sections of the Australian elite colluded. This is largely unmentionable. The stamina and achievement of the Australian historian Jenny Hocking in forcing the High Court’s decision are exceptional.

Gough Whitlam was driven from government on Remembrance Day, 1975. When he died six years ago, his achievements were recognized, if grudgingly, his mistakes noted in false sorrow. The truth of the coup against him, it was hoped, would be buried with him.

During the Whitlam years, 1972-75, Australia briefly achieved independence and became intolerably progressive. Politically, it was an astonishing period. An American commentator wrote that no country had “reversed its posture in international affairs so totally without going through a domestic revolution”.

The last Australian troops were ordered home from their mercenary service to the American assault on Vietnam. Whitlam’s ministers publicly condemned US barbarities as “mass murder” and the crimes of “maniacs”. The Nixon administration was corrupt, said the Deputy Prime Minister, Jim Cairns, and called for a boycott of American trade. In response, Australian dockers refused to unload American ships.

Whitlam moved Australia towards the Non-Aligned Movement and called for a Zone of Peace in the Indian ocean, which the US and Britain opposed. He demanded France cease its nuclear testing in the Pacific. In the UN, Australia spoke up for the Palestinians. Refugees fleeing the CIA-engineered coup in Chile were welcomed into Australia: an irony I know that Whitlam later savored.

Although not regarded as on the left of the Labor Party, Gough Whitlam was a maverick social democrat of principle, pride and propriety. He believed that a foreign power should not control his country’s resources and dictate its economic and foreign policies. He proposed to “buy back the farm”.

In drafting the first Aboriginal lands rights legislation and supporting Aboriginal strikers, his government raised the ghost of the greatest land grab in human history, Britain’s colonization of Australia, and the question of who owned the island-continent’s vast natural wealth.

At home, equal pay for women, free universal higher education, and support for the arts became law. There was a sense of real urgency as if political time was already running out.

Latin Americans will recognize the audacity and danger of such a “breaking free” in a country whose establishment was welded to great, external power. Australians had served every British imperial adventure since the Boxer rebellion was crushed in China. In the 1960s, Australia pleaded to join the US in its invasion of Vietnam, then provided “black teams” for the CIA.

Whitlam’s enemies gathered. US diplomatic cables published in 2013 by WikiLeaks disclose the names of leading figures in both main parties, including a future prime minister and foreign minister, as Washington’s informants during the Whitlam years.

Gough Whitlam knew the risk he was taking. The day after his election, he ordered that his staff should no longer be “vetted or harassed” by the Australian security organisation, ASIO, which was then, as now, tied to Anglo-American intelligence. A CIA station officer in Saigon wrote: “We were told the Australians might as well be regarded as North Vietnamese collaborators.”

Alarm in Washington rose to fury when, in the early hours of March 16, 1973, Whitlam’s Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, led a posse of Federal police in a raid on the Melbourne offices of ASIO. Since its inception in 1949, ASIO had become as powerful in Australia as the CIA in Washington. A leaked file on Deputy Prime Minister Jim Cairns described him as a dangerous figure who would bring about “the destruction of the democratic system of government”.

ASIO’s real power derived from the UKUSA Treaty, with its secret pact of loyalty to foreign intelligence organizations – notably the CIA and MI6. This was demonstrated dramatically when the (now defunct) National Times published extracts from tens of thousands of classified documents under the headline, “How ASIO Betrayed Australia to the Americans.”

Australia is home to some of the most important spy bases in the world. Whitlam demanded to know the CIA’s role and if and why the CIA was running the “joint facility” at Pine Gap near Alice Springs. As documents leaked by Edward Snowden revealed in 2013, Pine Gap allows the US to spy on everyone.

“Try to screw us or bounce us,” Whitlam warned the US ambassador, Walter Rice, “[and Pine Gap] will become a matter of contention”.

Victor Marchetti, the CIA officer who had helped set up Pine Gap, later told me, “This threat to close Pine Gap caused apoplexy in the White House… a kind of Chile [coup] was set in motion.”

Pine Gap’s top-secret messages were de-coded by a CIA contractor, TRW. One of the de-coders was Christopher Boyce, a young man troubled by the “deception and betrayal of an ally” he witnessed. Boyce revealed that the CIA had infiltrated the Australian political and trade union elite and was spying on phone calls and Telex messages.

In an interview with the Australian author and investigative journalist, William Pinwell, Boyce revealed one name as especially important. The CIA referred to the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, as “our man Kerr”.

Kerr was not only the Queen’s man and a passionate monarchist, he had long-standing ties to Anglo-American intelligence. He was an enthusiastic member of the Australian Association for Cultural Freedom, described by Jonathan Kwitny of the Wall Street Journal in his book, “The Crimes of Patriots”, as, “an elite, invitation-only group… exposed in Congress as being founded, funded and generally run by the CIA”.

Kerr was also funded by the Asia Foundation, exposed in Congress as a conduit for CIA influence and money. The CIA, wrote Kwitny, “paid for Kerr’s travel, built his prestige, even paid for his writings … Kerr continued to go to the CIA for money”.

When Whitlam was re-elected for a second term in 1974, the White House sent Marshall Green to Canberra as ambassador. Green was an imperious, sinister figure who worked in the shadows of America’s “deep state”. Known as the “coupmaster”, he had played a central role in the 1965 coup against President Sukarno in Indonesia – which cost up to a million lives.

One of Green’s first speeches in Australia was to the Australian Institute of Directors, described by an alarmed member of the audience as “an incitement to the country’s business leaders to rise against the government”.

The Americans worked closely with the British. In 1975, Whitlam discovered that MI6 was operating against his government. “The Brits were actually decoding secret messages coming into my foreign affairs office,” he said later. One of his ministers, Clyde Cameron, told me, “We knew MI6 was bugging Cabinet meetings for the Americans.”

Senior CIA officers later revealed that the “Whitlam problem” had been discussed “with urgency” by the CIA’s director, William Colby, and the head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield. A deputy director of the CIA said: “Kerr did what he was told to do.”

On November 10, 1975, Whitlam was shown a top secret telex message sourced to Theodore Shackley, the notorious head of the CIA’s East Asia Division, who had helped run the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile two years earlier. Shackley’s message was read to Whitlam. It said that the prime minister of Australia was a security risk in his own country. Brian Toohey, editor of the National Times, disclosed that it carried the authority of Henry Kissinger, destroyer of Chile and Cambodia.

Having removed the heads of both Australian intelligence agencies, ASIO and ASIS, Whitlam was now moving against the CIA. He called for a list of all “declared” CIA officers in Australia.

The day before the Shackley cabled arrived on November 10, 1975, Sir John Kerr visited the headquarters of the Defence Signals Directorate, Australia’s NSA, where he was secretly briefed on the “security crisis”. It was during that weekend, according to a CIA source, that the CIA’s “demands” were passed to Kerr via the British.

On November 11, 1975 – the day Whitlam was to inform Parliament about the secret CIA presence in Australia – he was summoned by Kerr. Invoking archaic vice-regal “reserve powers” invested in him by the British monarch, Kerr sacked the democratically elected prime minister.

The “Whitlam problem” was solved. Australian politics never recovered, nor the nation its true independence.

The destruction of Salvador Allende’s government in Chile four years earlier, and of scores of other governments that have questioned the divine right of American might and violence since 1945, was replicated in the most loyal of American allies, often described as “the lucky country”. Only the form of the crushing of democracy in Australia in 1975 differed, along with its enduring cover up.

Imagine a Whitlam today standing up to Trump and Pompeo. Imagine the same courage and principled defiance. Well, it happened.

— Source: MintPress News