The 2010 Fourth Annual MILbloggies has officially kicked off today,
and runs through April 7, 2010 until 11:59 PM EST.  The MILbloggies
are currently in the nomination phase, which will last until Saturday,
April 3 11:59 PM.  The top 5 nominees in each eligible category then
move into the Voting Phase starting Sunday, April 4.

http://milblogging.com/index.php?entry=entry100331-175238

The Sponsors of the 2010 MILBlog Conference have been gracious to
sponsor this year's awards that will be presented.


--Chuck

UPDATE (from teh Monkey):  If you want to nominate Chuck, CLICK HERE.  Make sure you're logged in and then click the blue "nominate" button.  The top five most nominated bloggers in each category move on to the swimsuit competition voting phase on April 4.

I haven't seen any rules over at Milblogging.com against having one account for each of the voices in your head, or signing your pets up for accounts, or pretending to be a census worker and going door to door with an iPhone convincing people that the census form is online this year (and please pay no attention to that picture on the official government "census" web page where Christina Applegate was obviously just showing what life was like before global warming).  It only says "You must register and sign in to Milblogging.com to nominate a military blog and you can nominate as many blogs as you want in each category, but you can only nominate the same blog once."

Chicago Style:  it's the American way now!  Vote Nominate early, vote nominate often!

Christina Applegate in the Kelly Bundy years, 


Or Christina Applegate all growed up?

People don't seem to understand the nature of Rights.

It's fairly simple, really.  A great litmus test is this:  Does this right have to be provided by someone or something?
If the answer is yes, then it isn't a right.
No one provides you with freedom to speak--you can write, say, or otherwise express yourself without anyone's intervention of the government's acquiescence.

No one provides with a firearm to keep and bear.

Get it?

If you agree with the government providing healthcare to all, then you obviously don't.  Healthcare, by this definition, is not a right.  The government cannot guarantee something as inalienable, if it requires a good or service form someone else.  Follow the logic:  If we used the same rubric for healthcare that we do for the 2nd amendment, then everyone's employer would have to provide them, and their families, with firearms and ammunition.  (Time out, whilst I ruminate, thinking how totally awesome that would be.)  If someone were unemployed, then the government would provide them with firearms and ammo.  Of course, in that instance, it'd look like this:

If the government mandates that everyone will be covered, and then fixes the prices at which someone can charge for treatment, the logical progression will be that fewer and fewer people will opt to work in an industry where there is no reward for exceptional performance.  Being an extremely gifted and brilliant lumbar surgeon will net you the same salary as Dr. Bobby, the mall chiropractor.  Okay, maybe, that's unfair.  Being an extremely gifted orthopedic surgeon like DR COL (R) Alan Smith, or Dr. James Andrews will net you the same remuneration as Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Kervorkian.

Even if the comparison borders on the ridiculous, it defaults to this:   If the government has to take a good, service, or product from another person, to provide it to you, THEN IT IS NOT A RIGHT.  The gummint does not provide rights.  The constitution does not provide rights.  The constitution guarantees that the government may not infringe on rights which naturally exist.

Of course, they didn't make healthcare a right, adding it to the constitution.  Instead, the passed a law, which dictates what employers must provide for their employees (even outside the workplace.)  Could behavior outside of work, which places someone at greater risk for injury, now be grounds to terminate employment?  (As it could cost the company higher premiums or payouts.)  Could obesity, or lethargy, or any "unhealthy" behavior be grounds for a business to fire an employee, citing their unnecessary expense-generating behavior?  What if a small business owner has to insure a family with predisposition to heart disease, diabetes, and lupus--could the employer opt to fire/not hire based on your parents medical history?

You cannot have it both ways.  Either you are free, or the government provides for you.

--Chuck

In the news today I heard that if you lost your job and own a house, the federal government has told the banks that they have to work with you on your mortgage payments.

I was thinking about all the people that are up in arms (pun intended) about the cross hairs on Sarah Palin's map.

So for all the gun-phobic types, how about a version with much cuter, less threatening imagery:  cute little baby seals!


What?!?   Ok, is Hello Kitty better?

These days, the teachers at Langley High School in McLean, Virginia are teaching an interesting view of the Great Depression 1929-1940.  First, they combine English classes and with History, to make the lessons match up.  That way the students can be learn how to diagram sentences like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," and the teachers can do 50% of the work to prepare for class.

However, one of the teachers had a bone to pick--with evil, corporate America.  This teacher may have had a date at a weekend Michael Moore/Morgan Spurlock "Film" festival, or may just have not understood that Ray A. Kroc established the McDonalds Franchise in 1955, or that Iwo Jima was a battle fought in the Pacific during the Second World War (1939-1945), but she chose to pass around the following picture to make her point:



Now, it's bad enough that the average high school student is almost intelligent enough to breathe without cue cards, but deliberately confusing them about the reasons for a) the great depression b) the sacrifices made to mount a flag on Mt. Suribachi c) what McDonalds has actually done for America and the world, d) that corporations fought WWII e) that Mt. Suribachi is populated with muslims...

Just what was her point?  That we fight for corporate profits and greed?  Would she like to explain that to the families of these men?


And a few little facts about them Golden Arches:
Until the Balkan Conflict, Two countries that both contained a McDonalds had NEVER gone to war.
McDonalds opened up its first (of over 100) restaurants in Russia in 1990.  It was the first American restaurant to open in the Soviet Union.  McRussia serves over 200,000 people daily.
McDonalds supports the Ronald McDonald House Charities, with 289 local Chapters in 52 countries and regions

• 291 Ronald McDonald Houses

• 144 Ronald McDonald Family Rooms

• 38 Ronald McDonald Care Mobiles 

• Grants to non-profit organizations that also focus on the needs of children
• 
  

  Recent Grants:

  • Andean Health & Development
  • Big Shoulders Fund
  • Childrens Hospital Los Angeles
  • Foundation for the Children of the Californias
  • Hospice St. Joseph for the Diocese of Norwich
  • ORBIS International
  • RMHC China
  • Interplast
  • CureSearch National Childhood Cancer Foundation

  
  

I get that the point wasn't about her hatin' on the Ronald, but she could've picked a far worse corporation to spew her particular brand of hatred on.  Something like Nike, who runs sweatshops in east Asia, while paying the philandering ballsmiths of the world millions; or she could've picked positive images of all the good that non-western corporations and governments have done for the world:


She could've illustrated how various five-year-plans made Mao's Chinese Cultural revolution succeed.  Or how The Kims, (Sung and Il) have made North Korea bastions of freedom and lands of plenty.  Or how the Soviet model of communism has left a country that remains prosperous even under different forms of government.

If she was trying to make a point about the Military-Industrial complex, she's still a few decades off.  If she's trying to make a point about US consumerism as the cause of the current conflict, she could couch it with these pictures:



Please contact the teacher's representative to the taxpayer and ask that she find some way to further shame the sacrifices of the other men who made it possible to raise that flag:


The Principal of Langley High School is Matt Ragone and you can let them know how you feel by calling 703-787-2700. School should NOT be a breeding ground for brainwashing and idiotic stupidity and ignorance. It should be a place of learning history, not spin and rhetoric. Make your opinions known and flood the Principal with your thoughts. You also email him at matthew.ragone@fcps.edu.

Maybe he could explain the differences between this:



And This:

A resident tries to burn a US flag during a protest near the destroyed national palace as former presidents George W Bush and Bill Clinton visit Port-au-Prince, Haiti
Picture: REUTERS


is that MC Hammer?


I get it.  Every group has its asshole, and we've found one in Haiti.  But regardless of his motivation, the fact that he isn't being monkey-stomped into a blue and white stain on the pavement, or being used to beat out the fire, by the tens hundreds of thousands of people we've helped, says everything I need to know about Haitian gratitude.


--Chuck

Hat tip, Powerline


Solomon B. Watson IV was the top legal officer of the New York Times back in 2005 and 2006 when, notoriously, it published two stories compromising top-secret counterterrorism programs, and putting people's lives at risk, not just in the espionage community, but on the battlefield as well.

Schoenfeld's soon to be published Necessary Secrets found inspiration from the issues raised by the Times's (unprosecuted and unpunished) violations of the Espionage Act. 


The Obama administration has now nominated Watson to be general counsel of the Army. 

So, when lawyering for a gossip rag,  he clears publication of secrets, no, make that top secrets.  So, how would he prosecute someone who does likewise?  (I know how--he'll simply excuse it by saying "When I had that job, I was paid to determine if the grey bimbo could get away with it.  Now that I'm an Army lawyer, my job is to punish people who don't have lawyers telling them ahead of time if they can get away with it.)


--Chucl

Passed House, 21 Mar 2010, 10:49PM EDT
Signed by President Obama, 23 Mar 2010, 1:33PM EDT
Time “you the public” had “to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so you know what your government is doing”: 1 Day, 14 Hours, 44 Minutes

Once I am elected King, I think I will make several change to the current healthcare law.

• Every citizen may draw on the total amount of the funds their family has contributed to the public option, to pay their healthcare costs.
• After the accounts are closed, all access to healthcare will be available, regardless of state lines.  States retain, naturally, the right to oversee commerce within their borders, but The FTC will regulate interstate trade (including healthcare when the company sells policies across state lines.)  
• People who buy insurance that does not require a physical exam to obtain are assumed, by the insurer, to be 100% healthy and free from physical defect (Caveat venditor.)
• Likewise, anyone who buys a policy that doesn't cover a condition they already have, or does not cover a condition they have in the future, shall be punished through the law of diminishing returns, and by not having insurance to cover their healthcare. (Caveat emptor.)
• Anyone who doesn't buy health insurance will make a choice between selling all their stuff to pay their bills, or dying.  Agreeing to pay when you are ill, then not paying when you are well, will result in the hospital being rightfully able to seek damages against you.  Be prepared to demonstrate your ability to pay for procedures that are not immediately life-threatening.
• Emergency lifesaving measures will be performed at all emergency rooms, regardless of your ability to pay.  However, once you are stable, the hospital may ask to see proof of your ability to pay for continued care.  If you can't pay for continued care, you will be sent home.
• Emergency room visits for common cold, or any other reason other than emergency medical care, will result in a criminal penalty and fine.  Keep your snotty kids at home and take them to your doctor during regular hours.
• Insurance companies may not discriminate on who they sell insurance to.  However, this does not mean that they have to sell insurance to everyone at the same price.  Privacy act limits the information you have to tell your insurance company, but don't be surprised when they won't pony up for your new kidney when you failed to mention you were already missing one during the initial history.
• Bad drivers pay more for car insurance.  Health risks should pay more for health insurance.
• It is unconstitutional to place limits on the amount a jury can award for pain and suffering.  However, doctors may ask patients to waive or otherwise limit the amounts which they may seek in the case of malpractice or perceived malpractice.  Doctors accused of malpractice will be reviewed by a professional board, and any guilty findings by that board will be sent to a criminal court.  If found guilty of malpractice, Doctors will be jailed.  The victim of malpractice, if living, will be treated, free of charge, by the hospital employing, or granting privileges, to the doctor.  If dead, the family of the victim will be remunerated in the amount equal to 20 times the victim's previous four years' income, as reported to the IRS.  If the victim is a minor, and the doctor is found guilty, the doctor or facility shall be punished in the manner which a jury may direct.  If, however, the doctor or facility is found innocent, the child shall be removed from the care of the parents, permanently, and the parents shall be placed on the national healthcare fraud offender's registry.
• It is the responsibility of the consumer to purchase goods and services that they deem necessary to their life, liberty, and happiness.  The government is not responsible for ensuring that any aspect of Maslow's hierarchy is provided to an individual.  The government is responsible for ensuring all persons within society are able to access their needs, provided they maintain the ability to pay for said needs.
• The government is no longer in the business of caring for the elderly--that is the Job of their children. 
• The government is not in the business of funding charity.  Immediately, food stamps, Medicare, medicaid, social security, and all other forms of government-mandated charity are suspended for one year.  At the end of that year, we will reassess our ability, and need, to further fund these programs.  Persons will be asked  if they are better able to provide for themselves, knowing they don't have a taxpayer-provided safety net to fall (or fail) into.
• Any member of congress who has not served in the government for 20 years shall not draw any healthcare benefits from the people once they leave government service.
• Anyone who publicly bitches about the salaries paid to government employees during a recession shall be forced to donate half the difference in their own salary to a government employees during times of economic expansion.
• The Economic policy of the federal government shall be one of frugality.  The following departments will be closed immediately:
• The Dept of Energy--enacted in 1977 to end the US dependence on foreign oil--is a failure.  Their roles in control of Atomic energy will be transferred to defense.
• Dept of State--All you bitches are fired.  We'll hire new diplomats from the ranks of veterans only.  Those who have fought for it, will look out for its best interests.
• Dept of Veterans Administration--all non-veterans will no longer be employed to run the administration.  Veterans only will be hired to maintain the organization.
• EPA--CO2 as a dangerous gas?  Really?  You lunatics can all go pound sand in Love Canal.  States are now responsible for their natural resources. If the spoil them, their states will enjoy the same tourism that New Jersey and Delaware enjoy.  If they go overboard, they will enjoy the same business growth currently seen in California.
• DOD--is back to the Department of War.
• ATF is now a convenience store.
• FDA--testing for food and drugs should focus on hygienic conditions for the processing of food, and the safe trial of medicines.  Testing on violent felons and other lifetime convicts is authorized.  Get with the program, or you'll be running a drive-up urinalysis booth.
• HHS--You are all fired. USAMRID will now keep us apprised of outbreaks and crisis prevention.
• HUD--You are all fired, and your possessions are right now being moved into the dwellings you've had built.
• Treasury and Fed--Start calling in debts, and you may only print money to replace that which is currently in circulation.  Stop minting pennies.  Immediately raise interest rates by 2%. The fed will now be nationalized as a public bank.  Suck it, Rothschild!  The richest men in the Country will be asked to run the bank.  Any malfeasance on their part will result in the forfeiture of all their assets.
• The FBI and CIA are fired.  Effective immediately, the duties of finding criminals and terrorists will belong to the people who collect for Columbia House, Student Alumni Associations, and the GOP and DNC fund-raising committees.  Those people can find anyone, anywhere.

 That's it.  Chux American dream.  Less regulation.  More individual freedom, and the responsibility that goes with that freedom, because the Smallest minority is the individual, and those who will not champion the rights of the individual over oppression from others, cannot espouse the belief in fairness and freedom for minorities.  Indeed, those who place the rights of the many, or even of the few, over the rights of the individual, and the liberties of the individual, are charlatans and liars, and would sooner see the country driven to a perpetual state of economic slavery, provided they themselves retain their rights to life, liberty, and property.
--Chuck

Our forefathers left Europe, because they didn't agree with the way the government was run.  

Our founding fathers went John Galt--sort of.  The couldn't go to the Gulch, so they brought the gulch to them.

We barely teach history in schools.  Even less, civics.

Now we hear from our backwards little cousins across the pond:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100030793/a-dark-day-for-freedom-in-america/

Sounds like they get it.

--Chuck

Bacon Chocolate Chip Cookies

2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1 cup brown sugar, packed
1/2 cup granulated sugar
1 cup unsalted butter, softened
1 tablespoon vanilla extract
2 eggs
1 1/2 cups semisweet chocolate chips
1/2 cup dried tart cherries
1/2 cup finely chopped applewood smoked bacon, cooked and well drained


Preheat oven to 325 degrees. Line sheet pans with parchment paper; set aside. Sift flour and baking soda into a small bowl; set aside. In the bowl of an electric mixer with a paddle attachment, combine the sugars and butter until light and fluffy. Add the vanilla extract, stirring to combine. Add the eggs and mix until thoroughly incorporated.

Stir in the flour. Add the chocolate chips, cherries and bacon. Place heaping tablespoons of the cookie dough on the parchment-lined pans. Leave about 2 inches between each cookie. Bake for 12 to 15 minutes or until golden brown and fragrant. Remove from oven and allow to cool for about 10 minutes before transferring to cooling racks. Store completely cooled cookies in an airtight container.


Makes about 36 cookies.

~~Code Monkey

Hair Raising

Because of my logic, they respect me.
Because of my mad writing and proze skillz, they fear me.

Or something like that.  I refer, of course, the the administrators of the Official American Idol fan pages (no linkery, suck it) who took down the entire thread about Andrew "Stolen Valor" Garcia wearing medals he was never awarded during his performance on 16 March.

They didn't delete the thread because some people were supporting their "idol" and making excuses for why he wore the medals (and there were many excuses being made.)  They didn't do it because veterans complained about him wearing medals he didn't earn.

They did it because I put it very simply, and if it were left posted for all to read, they would have to admit that I was right--that Andrew Garcia either knowingly or unknowingly broke the law, and not one person on that show had any idea what he was doing was wrong.

Here's the mad writin' skills I perpetrated on their site (since I keep copies of every damn thing I write or email to people.)

Doesn't matter his motivations.
He. Broke. The. Law.
Whether he knows it or not is irrelevant, the Stolen Valor Act specifically prohibits the wearing of military medals if not earned by the individual who wears them.
Period.
It doesn't matter whether he simply thought they complimented his wardrobe, if they belonged to his grandfather, or if they were sent to him by his great-aunt's hairdresser's son's brother-in-law.
If he did it for any reason, or even if he wore them for no reason,
He. Broke. The. Law.
It doesn't "honor" a veteran to wear their medals for them.  It doesn't "honor" a veteran to wear medals that you didn't earn.  On of the greatest men I know lost his son in Iraq--and he would would never wear his son's medals or uniform.  He simply wears one of his sons' dog tags, everywhere he goes.
I don't realluy care what Garcia's motivations were.
He. Broke. The. Law.
Worse yet, not one single person on the Idol set had any inkling that what he was doing was illegal, nor did any of them have the sense to imagine some people would take umbrage with it, since he never explained why he wore them.
I too, am an Iraq vet, with over 15 years of service, and the fact that he's wearing medals that don't belong to him does upset me greatly.  By wearing them like costume jewelry, he cheapens the honor that those medals display to the rest of the world.  Given that 99% of Americans would be hard-pressed to identify even one of them, putting up with his wearing them cheapens the meaning to the veterans who have earned them.

--Chuck

It's a crime to wear an unearned Medal of Honor. As a matter of fact,
The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, signed into law by former President George W. Bush on Dec. 20, 2006,(my 34th Birthday!) is a U.S. law that broadens the provisions of previous U.S. law addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, sale or claim (either written or oral) of any military decorations and medals. It is a federal misdemeanor offense, which carries a punishment of imprisonment for no more than 1 year and/or a fine.

Simply put, if you didn't earn it, you don't wear it.

American Idol is on of the Mrs.' guilty pleasures. While I watched it tonight, I was treated to Andrew Garcia, a talented performer, singing something. I can't remember what, however, because I was way to interested in why he was wearing a series of ribbon devices on his pocket. One of those medals is the Army commendation medal. The others I haven't bothered to look up yet.
Click to embiggen:















Not sure what pisses me off the most:
1. He is wearing these medals as a fashion item, little more than a simple splash of color
2. He has no idea they are military medals]
3. No one else working there, either the host, judges, or anyone else working on the set had any idea either
4. Nobody cares.

It is never okay to wear ribbons you didn't earn.  (I get that actors can wear them in movies when portraying military people--because THEY ARE PORTRAYING MILITARY PEOPLE.)  Everyone is pretty certain that Tom Cruise isn't really a navy pilot or lawyer.  He also doesn't wear those ribbons off-set.

Item #4 is the only one we can do anything about. Get out the pitchforks.  Let people know that this is not acceptable, for any reason, because to wear them if they are not earned is to cheapen the sacrifices and achievements of those who have earned them. 
--Chuck

Pretty damn good seats. Something like 25' from the stage @ eye level. Merry Christmas to the mrs.

--Chuck

So I've been spending the weekend surrounded by angels, soldiers angels, at the warehouse opening (it's awesome) and permanent museum opening (I have my own wall!) and a BBQ with the wounded at Brooke Army Medical Center.

We handed out (no pun intended) something like 50 laptops to the wounded.  This brings the total donated in less than five years to over 4800.  Good on all of you.  I was passing them out, and as the service members walked up to get them, someone asked if I was going to make them walk all the way up there to get them.  "Hell yes, I am.  I'm not going to treat them any different than I would any other soldier."  I even made a few comments about the guys still in the hospital being too lazy to wheel their hospital beds down to the BBQ.  All of it was well received.  My best advice to  the assembled masses:  You're a cripple.  Own that, wear it like a badge, or it will own you.  Besides, when you make cripple jokes, it makes (some) people really uncomfortable.

I also hung out with the Guys from Ranger Up, who are just as crazy as they seem.  And funny.  Very funny.  We talked about a calendar idea.  I can't tell you everything, but July, Banana Hammock, Body Paint, Flag Skin Grafts, holes.

While at the warehouse, I learned how to do screen printing (they make all the SA gear in house) and made a shirt for my wife and a friend's wife.  Nothing like having some on the job training for in case this Army thing doesn't work out.

Lots of gripping and grinning, but it was with really interesting people.  Members of Congress, the president of the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, the President and CEO of Green Beans Coffee, and Jeff Messner, who is responsible for World T.E.A.M. sports, which sets up and runs rides and other sports for exceptional athletes--including wounded troops.  All of it is 100% free for the troops, too.  I was also honored to meet many of the good people who staff the surgical and patient care teams from BAMC, although I did have to explain something to an Army Captain.  He asked me what uniform I was wearing.  He was wearing his Dress Blue uniform, and I was wearing the Dress Mess uniform.  He asked me what uniform it was.  I said "It's the dress mess."  "Oh, Okay.  But what branch of service?"  Sheesh.  These kids today.

Oh, about the title of this post--after all of this weekend's activities, I slept like a log last night.  Except I had a dream that I was being taught a history course, which I was really struggling in, and the course was taught by Jeremy Irons, with a thick German accent.  I am going to end up in a padded room one of these days.

--Chuck

Should be called butt-ugly

Dear ASU,

Yeah, victory.   Woohoo.  The debaters didn't get run off the stage.  They were just heckled and interrupted almost constantly.  You should be so proud.

Sincerely,
Someone who may not go to the next event like this if it's on campus
(aka Code Monkey)

The hosts and producer of You Served radio show, CJ, Troy, and Marcus, are issuing a challenge to the MilBlogosphere in a charity fundraising event with bald heads at stake.

Marcus has already lost a bet to shave his head bald from a bet on the second coin!

The new challenge is two-tiered with a third bonus tier added this evening during the You Served radio show.

The first tier is to raise $100 cumulative on the engravable memorial medallions we are auctioning in the You Served eBay Store (http://stores.ebay.com/userved). All proceeds will be donated to Soldiers Angels. The kicker and incentive on that cumulative total is that we have a generous anonymous donor who will donate $1,000 to Soldiers Angels if we can meet that $100 total. In addition to a donation of $1,000, CJ will shave his head along with Marcus! We currently have 2 coins auctioned with a total of $37.50, so we will need to raise $62.50 over the next 4 weeks (including this one). We will put up one coin a week to be auctioned.  

The second tier is that if we can meet $250 cumulative total, not only will we garner that $1,000 donation, CJ and Marcus will allow Troy to shave their heads in Washington, DC during the Milblog Conference.  It will be video recorded also, for all the listeners and donors to see!  Imagine the fun and hilarity THAT would be.

The bonus challenge is if another person or organization donates an addtional $1,000 to the first tier, the Hero Maker Clayton Murwin, a regular listener of our show, will produce an orignal 16x20 military themed oil painting of the person or organization's choosing!

This challenge is issued to all who enjoy a bit of good fun with a bit of humiliation mixed in. The You Served crew hopes everyone enjoys this bit of excitement for a good cause and that you don't forget the real reason behind all of this; Soldier's Angels!

On behalf of the entire You Served Team,

Marcus

My thoughts about changing DADT.

I think at this point it is a forgone conclusion that the Congress will either change the law barring homosexuals from serving openly, or the Military, upon direction from the commander in chief, will ignore the law as written.  We've heard from a variety of senior leaders in politics and the military who support revision of the policy and law, to make service open to all who desire (and meet the mental and physical requirements) to serve.  I've been opposed to changing the policy as it stands (and indeed, been a proponent of reverting back to the bad old days of Ask, Investigate and Evict.)
Now, in my advanced years, I've come to some other conclusions. 

Today the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a for-attribution speech, answered a question about DADT and people who oppose a change to the policy by saying (and I'm paraphrasing here) basically, If you don't like the policy change, we're are a volunteer Army.  What he implied was that if things change and we don't like it, we can get out.  Aside from making the same argument, whereas if homosexuals don't like the current policy, they too, can get out; I don't think it really matters what people do in the bedroom, provided they serve with dignity and honor.

Changing the military is like turning an aircraft carrier.  It can't be done quickly, but it can be done.  Sure, there are lots of questions about the administration, changes to the UCMJ, changes to policies, benefits, etc.  And in time, I am sure those questions will be addressed.  The question I have is do we address those problems first, then change, or change, and then figure out where the problems are? 

As far as voting with our feet, how many in the military will that option be extended to?  Obviously, at the end of an enlistment or Additional Duty Service Obligation, a person can opt not to renew their contract, and I doubt that the military will allow a mass exodus of people who can't come to grips with the change.  Another of the things that irritates me about this is that no one has bothered to ask me what I think.  I am "encouraged" to fill out a survey every time I go to the doctor, so the Army Surgeon General can determine if the Army is providing world-class healthcare.  I am polled about benefits, pay, housing, education, and even at the conclusion of most guest speakers--but no one has asked me, or any of my peers, whether we think changing the policy is good or bad.  No one has asked us if we would leave or continue to serve.
I really don't  care what color, religion, (except for the Amish and Buddhists) race, creed, or gender a person is, has, or claims.  I don't think I'd really have any issues with personally accepting a homosexual serving openly with me.  I wouldn't be afraid to shower with them, or sleep in the same room.  What I do care about is my soldiers, and I am wary of anything which can threaten their readiness.  For every straight soldier who leaves the service, we lose a trained straight soldier.  They may be closed-minded and unwilling to accept  new ideas, but they have specific technical knowledge of the military that can only be replaced by training a replacement, which takes time and treasure, and there will be an experience gap until that person is trained and experienced to the same point as the person they replaced.

I doubt we'll be having formations marching in gay pride parades any time soon (which apparently, the Brits do).

I've heard repeated enough that as a military, we are a reflection of society and society is accepting of homosexuality, so we should be as well.  I can't balance that in my mind with laws which place a more severe penalty on crimes against homosexuals if they are "hate" crimes.  (Because nobody commits violent crimes against people they love.)  I have also been taught, as a matter of policy, that we are a force which holds itself to a higher standard than general society as the explanation for why we don't allow some things--including what clothes can be worn off duty, what words we can or can't use, what kinds of tattoos we can have, and what can be pierced.  For instance, males can have pierced ears, but cannot wear earrings when off duty, but on base.  Nothing else can be pierced.  (Which is a real bummer, as I've always dreamed of having a Prince Albert.)  The reasons for this are discipline, standards, and also because our actions are a reflection on our military.  The logic does not continue, however, that we are a reflection on the military, which is a reflection of society, and therefore our individual actions are acceptable as a reflection of society.

We are either a reflection of society, or we aren't.  We either hold ourselves apart from society, or we don't.  We either accept the standards that are equally acceptable to society, or we set our own standards.  This doesn't mean we can't modify our standards as society changes, because we can.  We need to be just and judicious in when, why, and how we make those changes.  You can turn an Aircraft Carrier, but you must take care to neither over-steer, over-correct, nor under-steer.  Changing the policy on homosexuals serving openly isn't the first step on a slippery slope.  It may someday lead to the acceptance of transsexuals, hermaphrodites, and even midgets.

If it hadn't been for some specific policy changes already, I, and thousands of soldiers like me who've lost various body parts, would no longer be allowed to serve.  In that aspect, the military made a good (although politically and publicly easy) decision.  No one is worried about having to see my scarred ass in the shower, or asking what happens when a soldier's prosthetic snaps while on a patrol.  We accept that some soldiers have limitations based on their service but that as long as they are willing, they can serve.
So I am okay with changing the policy.  Like many things, I don't understand many aspects of the change or the reasons for the change; I put trust in my superiors that they have figured that stuff out.  They have taken very smart people and put them on the task of solving the problems and hurdles we'll face.  Even if they haven't figured it all out, we'll figure it out as we get there, because that's what we, as a military do once we've been given our orders. There were issues with race and gender when we changed those policies, and there still are issues with race and gender (which can be demonstrated by our regulations and special staff in the Equal Opportunity offices.)  Maybe my apathy in general is the truest reflection of society.  I know that the overall impact on my life will be minimal, the impact on my way of life will be minimal, so I don't really see this as a problem.

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to Wal-mart with the rest of America.

--Chuck

Yesterday I nearly posted when I was in a full-on rage.  Someone went and made my job a whole lot harder because they had a rather mixed up view of what was theirs.  I watched a Disney movie instead.  Probably for the best.