Saturday, December 04, 2010

Hell in a handbasket

Just what in the hell is happening in the world?

The CJCS has determined that the services are ready and willing to accept a complete repeal of DADT, despite the high numbers of combat servicemembers, and half of the service chiefs, saying it's a bad idea, detrimental to morale, and something we really shouldn't be trying to do right now, while we are trying to prosecute a war.  The CJCS's response, in a nutshell, to all of those who are currently serving and oppose repeal is "You don't like it, get out."

From my position, that equates to a very succinct insult.  I read it as "Despite your many years of service, and far greater closeness to the tip of the spear and being the ones who will have to deal with the problems generated by repeal for many years after I have perfected my golf game in retirement, (CJCS billet lasts for only a few years, and having nowhere to go from the top job, the CJCS retires) your input is not wanted, needed, or heeded.  We know that many of you with more than one hitch in will stay in despite the change in policy, biding your time until you can retire, and those who do leave will be replaced.  You enlisted swine can't get out right away either, so your exodus will be watered down over the next 1-6 years, and your loss will not really be noticed by the military anyway.  Basically, we won't feel any real pain in our recruiting numbers, so your voting with your feet won't matter.  It doesn't matter to me if we should do this, only that we can do this, and since I am in charge, if congress allows it, we are going to do it.  If you don't like it, FOAD."

Admittedly, that may be reading more into it than what he meant.

Personally, I don't get it.  If it isn't about sex, what is it about?  I don't tell anyone at work when I make love to my wife, what we do in bed, and I certainly don't expect them to share the same with me.  I personally think it's just fine if people, all people, keep their bedroom behavior in the bedroom.  Don't ask me, and I won't ask you.  So where's the problem?

Here's the problem.  Homosexuals WANT to flaunt their choice in public (yes, behavior, acting on urges, is a choice.)  They WANT to go to unit functions with their fellow perverts.  They WANT to make people aware of what they do in the bedroom.  Otherwise, it wouldn't be an issue.  And I think their choice is disgusting, is not the norm of natural behavior, and makes normal people uncomfortable.  Harassment can be defined as behavior which can be perceived to create a hostile or uncomfortable working environment.  Believe it or not, communal showers aren't the norm in the military, but in remote locations, it happens.  Could a soldier claim that he is made uncomfortable if he knows that the people getting sudsy with him are gay?  Does homosexual behavior also increase a person's risk for contracting HIV?  I think it does, and therefore we are not introducing a higher risk population into the military, but welcoming in a greater percentage of those in high-risk lifestyles.  In combat (surprise!) you don't always have time to put on all the protective gear you'd find in an ER.  Often, you use a bare hand, one with its own cuts and scrapes, to hold pressure on someone else's wound, to extract shrapnel, and to carry wounded to safety.  I had to toss out more than one blood-soaked uniform myself.  The military DOES do bi-annual HIV tests, true, but I believe that an increased and increasingly open homosexual population will result in an increased risk to everyone on the battlefield for possible exposure to the HIV.

You'll notice in several of my arguments, I used the term "I believe."  This is because there is simply no way to KNOW if, how, and in how many ways, repealing DADT will affect the military.  Will veteran's day parades degenerate into Fulsome Street-style perversity?  (If you're curious, go check out zombie time.  You'll need eye bleach, and once it is seen (VERY NSFW) it can't be unseen.)  How will the military react to pictures of servicemembers at places like this?

What happens when someone claims that they received an bad evaluation report, missed a promotion, didn't get a duty assignment, etc. because of their lifestyle choice?  The military doesn't exactly choose people along those lines based on their ethnic makeup, but we do track it, to make sure we are not slipping into a pattern of unintended institutional racism.  Will homosexuality now be tracked along those lines?  To ensure full integration into all levels of the service, will sexual preference now be tracked alongside race and gender?  If not, how will someone defend against charges of gay prejudice?  If I don't know how many gays are in my unit, how can I ensure adequate representation in all aspects of military life?

Enough about the Repeal of DADT.  Nothing I write will affect it.

Next, a double-amputee servicemember has been charged with stalking the members of the westboro baptist "church."  Good on the cops for arresting him, as everyone is equal under the law.  Bad on the prosecutors for going after him, since as far as I can tell, all he did was follow them around .  He did have guns in his vehicle (which is really no more dangerous than having jumper cables in your car, since both require human interaction to function.)  He also apparently tried to represent himself as a police officer.  All this wound him up in jail with a $500000 bond, for five misdemeanors.

$500K?  Really?  Why so high?  Is the guy with no legs a flight risk?  Did he hurt, or even threaten to hurt, anyone?  Did he cause anyone stress and anguish by his actions? (Like, say, the members of fred phelps band of miscreants?)  What, exactly, did this guy do that was so awful he needs to be jailed until he can cough up a half-million dollars?

On Thursday, prosecutors charged Newell with stalking, three counts of criminal use of weapons and one count of false impersonation of a law enforcement officer.  (Three counts, one for each gun in his vehicle.  Here's a fun fact:  people missing limbs are often targeted by thugs because they have limited defensive options.  guns equalize that limitation.  Kansas' poxy gun laws require that a person live in the state fr at least six months before submitting a permit to carry concealed weapons.  In the mean time, the word for law-abiding citizens moving into the state is simple: unarmed victims.)

Update:  They added felony conspiracy charges to the previous five misdemeanors (since misdemeanor convictions wouldn't limit his ability to own guns.)  Apparently, the DA seems to think he knows what other people are thinking (and can prove it.)

Read more:

And you can contribute to his legal defense here, and get him home by Christmas.


No comments: