In the Army Now...

The other day I was having a discussion with a few friends. Stop laughing, I have friends! The topic of discussion was gays in the military. Two of these individuals were former military themselves. One of them said that while he would have no problems serving in an open military there were certain positions that he would have a problem having homosexuals serve in. I asked him to elaborate and he mentioned a "flamer" in a command position. In this point I agreed with him but that was more a case of a personality ill-suited to a particular job. A flamer would indeed, in my estimation, be a poor choice for command but not all gays set off sprinkler systems. Personality is a different issue entirely than who one finds physically attractive.

A point brought up was by another gentleman was the practical concern of the hetero soldier on the ground's reaction to an openly gay soldier. He said that there would many possible instances of personal backlash against the gay soldier up to and including instances of "friendly fire". While I acknowledge that in many instances that could very well be the case, is that a reason to keep gays out of the military? There are many bigots in every part of society. Many people would like nothing more that to see their own personal prejudices reinforced by official policy. Is the fact that a bigoted individual will behave in a violent way when confronted with the object of his bigotry a good reason to condone the behavior? I submit to you that it is not. There was negative and often violent reaction to the integration of black soldiers into the military. Does that mean it should never have happened? Radical changes made to any social system are always messy and often bloody. That does not mean it should happen. There are military statutes that protect military personnel from being attacked by one another just like there is in the civilian world. A soldier attacking a soldier, in most cases, is a crime and is punished as one. The point was made that these statutes would be "selectively" enforced. I can not argue with that. How many black soldiers were brutally attacked with impunity during integration? Does that mean it shouldn't have happen? Sadly, a great deal of the "old guard" had to "die out" for the change to take root. And the same would most likely have to take place in this instance.

I am not now nor have I ever been in the military. This is a fact that is usually used by current and former members of the military to discount my opinion as being completely invalid. This is arrogance on a rather impressive level and is completely ridiculous. It would be on par with my pointing out that I am a writer and since someone else isn't his or her opinions on literature are completely invalid. This would be viewed, quite correctly, as a ridiculous idea. It is quite possible for a non-writer to studies literature and the various aspects of its creation and possess well thought out and valid opinions on the subject. Guess what, the same thing is true for the military and any other subject. We all have minds that allow us to logically form opinions on any subject. The out of hand rejection of another point of view simply because it comes from a different set of experiences than yours is false logic at best. Sometime a fresh pair of eyes can be a very helpful thing.

Another excellent point that was made was that was made was that when one enlists in the military they sign a contract that includes the wording banning homosexuality and so breaking the contract by declaring one's homosexuality they should rightly be incarcerated for this breach. I would agree with this statement if it were not federal law that a contract that requires one to commit an illegal act is non-binding. The sanctioned discrimination against a citizen of the United States clearly violates the fourteenth amendment and is, therefore, illegal. Don't forget, military personnel also pledge to defend the constitution. There is a reason "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense. If you signed a contract with me to kill my wife and then did not fulfill the contract, I could not then sue you for breech of contract. Despite the ridiculousness of that example, the principle holds true.

The practical result of all this is, as correctly pointed out by the gentleman, is that one would find themselves sitting in federal prison until the supreme court agree to hear the case. Given the stacked deck that is our current Supreme Court and our government's love affair with ignoring civil rights and locking people away without even the pretense of due process, the prospects of policy being changed in this way are dim indeed.

When you strip away pandering to the bigotry of others, I still have yet to hear even one logical reason why homosexuals are unfit for military service.



Rant Over...for now

And We All Know Who Should Get the Credit for this One, Right,,,, um, Right?

Well as we all know Bin Laden is no longer using up our valuable oxygen. Now, as when most things of note happen it is time to play the blame/credit game. I have heard from some that: "Obama got Bin Laden" and from others: "they wouldn't have gotten him if it wasn't for Bush". Both of these statements are stupid and prove that terrorists are not the only ones who waste our oxygen. The one who should get the credit for the kill is the one who took the shot and those in his/her immediate support ring, you know the ones who were directly involved, not some politicians thousands of miles away who haven't been involved in in even one operation in this clusterfuck we call a war and the closest they have gotten to the desert was knocking their ball into a sand trap on a golf course more expensive than the average American could afford in ten years of saving.

So, now he is dead. Now what? In all likelihood, now nothing. Hunting Bin Laden has not been an even remotely plausible excuse for the war for a very long time. In the intervening years we have come up with many others, all equally ridiculous, that we can lean on now. The only reason the war will end any time soon is if there is suddenly no more money in it. I would say that it wont stand up until the American people stand up and demand it. However, considering how easily the government has gotten us to roll over and hand over any freedom they ask for I think it is more likely that it will cease to be profitable long before we as a people stand up and demand that it end.

In the intervening years since Bin Laden made it to the top of the charts we have: Attacked a sovereign nation without provocation using a flimsy and ultimately proven false connection to the September 11th attacks, we have passed and renewed the Patriot Act, a document that severely curtails the civil liberties of American citizens, We have kept prisoners locked up without due process (in fact, distroying some aspects of due process. Anyone else miss habeas corpus?) and without charge, we have legitimized the use of torture in interrogations as well as just for shits and giggles (Abu Ghraib, anyone), Misused our service men and women and ignored them when they returned, given millions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts to political cronies, covered up crimes committed by said political cronies, Made it more difficult to board a plane than to buy a gun and allowed Michael Bay to make three craptacular Transformers films. That last one has nothing to do with the war, it just pisses me off.

So all those things have transpired and we finally killed one skinny, repressed, angry little goat herder. Looks like we one this one!

Don't get me wrong, Bin Laden was scum but when it comes down to whose goals were achieved most effectively, I think he was one or two up on us.

I truly hope that this help end war and bring our troops home, but I wouldn't count on it.


Rant Over... for now