DADT repealed*

HR 6520 has been signed into law. Titled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010", the bill is remarkably short considering it's considerable impact on our nation's armed forces. About a page long, it allows for the repeal of DADT 60 days after the President, Secretary of Defense, and Joint Chiefs send a signed letter to Congress certifying that the repeal will not affect military readiness and that the DoD is all set to function without it.

It's uncertain when this approval will get sent, but it's not likely to be long and is assured in coming. Fortunately, I have every confidence that the DoD will spend plenty of time carefully formulating solutions to overcome the problems cited in every single survey of troops they've ever done, namely that of privacy, particularly as it related to showers and close quarters living.

Wait, hold on. They've already got the solution. Here it is:

"A special Defense Department working group appointed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended that the military should “expressly prohibit” heterosexuals from using separate showers, bathrooms and bunking facilities from homosexuals when the repeal of the law banning homosexuals from the military goes into effect."

In other words: Get over it.

Gee, thanks DoD.

The report says that a "very large number" of servicemembers (nearly 75%) expressed this concern. The report says that having separate showers or living quarters would be a "logistical nightmare" (We could have saved the taxpayers millions on this report if anyone at DoD had just read my blog. I've been saying this for months). Also, it might make people feel bad.

Here's how the conversation between DoD and actual ground troops would go.

Joe: "Hey, what about me showering inches away from a gay man? That makes me uncomfortable. I can't shower next to a straight woman for obvious reasons, and that same logic applies to gay men showering with me."

DoD: "Yeah...We really can't think of a good way to solve this problem. But don't worry, we've got a solution that never fails."

Joe: "Stick with what works?"

DoD: "Ignore the problem and pretend it doesn't exist!"

Joe: "...But...What about ---"

DoD: "Lalalalalalala I can't hear you! lalalalalala"

Fortunately, this whole situation has provided us some new guidance from higher. Here it is, the rules straight from DoD.

Joe's opinion only matters if:

1) Joe is not a combat troop, and will not be fighting in any war.

2) Joe's opinion agrees with our politically motivated preconceived notions.

3) The solutions to Joe's concerns are quick, inexpensive, and easy.

The military will adapt and overcome to this new complication, like we do to everything else. This will not, in my opinion, cause a mass exodus from the military. What it will necessitate is leaders at the lowest level becoming creative and finding solutions to overcome the idiocy dictated by people who have never left the office.

So, pretty much the same as always.

Oldie but a goodie: Dihydrogen Monoxide

One of those jokes that never gets old no matter how many times it's told. Dihydrogen Monoxide. It's responsible for many, many evils. In vapor form it is a major contributor to global warming. It is deadly if inhaled or if digested in sufficient quantities. It's a prime ingredient in hundreds of toxic chemicals, acid rain, and practically every pesticide used globally. It's directly responsible for over 3500 deaths annually in America. Sadly, this chemical is present everywhere from your shampoo to baby food.

(In case you didn't catch the joke. "Di-" means two. "Mono-" means one. So, Dihydrogen Monoxide = H2O, AKA Water)

This time the joker was the Commitee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT. The jokee was the UN. CFACT passed about a petition asking these dignitaries to endorse the banning of this dangerous chemical. Now, of course there's no telling how many people signed it for fun, or how many refused to sign it. Still, nothing like a good chemistry joke on the unwitting.

House passes "tax cut" deal

Moving with "uncommon speed", the House passed along, unaltered, the Senate bill which extended the "Bush" tax cuts. It extends the lower tax rates for another two years for every American, even those super evil rich people. It even keeps the estate tax lowish, allowing all estates under $10 million to be passed along tax free and taxes everything above $10 mill at a "meager" 35% (Because the person who has that much money doesn't deserve to give it all to his children. Thanks for saving his descendants from all that hard earned money, Big G!).

The bill contains a fair amount of sweeteners for the other side, including extending unemployment benefits for an additional year.

Of course there were many detractors. Most, including Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y), complained that we just couldn't afford the lower taxes on the rich. Even if we allow that tax revenue would go down with the lower tax rates (it doesn't), the problem we have with the budget is one of spending, not income.

The government needs to run it's budget like every other budget is run on the planet. Start with the amount of money you have, or can expect to receive. Then, spend that money based on your priorities and not a cent more. If the money runs out, guess what: You can't spend any more! Something has gotta give.

Until that day Congress will always find a way to rationalize more and more spending. It's easy to say "Well, all this stuff is awfully important, so let's raise taxes." It's not so easy to say "This function of government is more important than that one. So, we're going to stop doing that one to pay for this one."

Now the government can get back to other things. Like blatantly ignoring the opinions of combat soldiers.

Military Day at JAC!

Today I have three military related stories to share with you. The first is a dodged bullet, the second is a disturbing close bullet, and the third is a bullet with levels of awesome before only attainable by Chuck Norris.

Last week the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, tucked away in a much larger spending bill, was filibustered to death in the Senate. From the SF Gate website:

"The vote fell three short of the 60 needed to move ahead on the defense authorization bill, which contained the repeal, and may kill, possibly for years, legislative repeal of the 17-year-old ban."

Of course, every interest group and their brothers and second cousins are railing against the injustice of it all. Fortunately, the military isn't about being fair, it's about being effective, and Congress has stood for just that. With any luck at all the Powers That Be will spend the time they've been bought actually working on a solution to the legitimate logistical problems. Perhaps they could do be classified similar to females and kept to non-combat roles, at least at first?

Oh, speaking of that...

A congressional panel is recommending that we go ahead and unrestrict the combat arms, and allow women into jobs like armor and infantry.

"A five-page analysis prepared for the commission concluded that women do not lack the physical ability to perform combat roles; gender integration will not negatively affect unit cohesion; and women are not more likely than men to develop mental health problems."

That's all well and good, so long as the military also abolishes the longstanding tradition of different scales for fitness. For example, in order to barely pass my APFT, or Army Physical Fitness Test, I have to run my two miles in at least 16:36. A woman of exactly my same age has 19:36 to accomplish the same task. Call me crazy, but in combat the enemy isn't going to run slower just because I have a woman along for the ride.

If women are to be allowed to serve alongside me when the bullets are flying, I need to be absolutely confident that she can run as fast, as far, and carry as much as I do. She needs to be held to exactly the same physical standards as a man. While that may not seem fair, because women are constructed differently, the hard truth is combat is an equal-opportunity killer, and the requirements to close with and destroy the enemy don't change based on your gender.

Of course, physical standards aside, there is the mental aspect. Here I'm not talking about the abilities of women to handle the stress of combat. I'm talking about men being able to handle women handling that stress. From Wikipedia:

"In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers. In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered. Similarly, Iraqi and Afghani civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers.
However, in such environments, having female soldiers serving within a combat unit does have the advantage of allowing for searches on female civilians, and in some cases the female areas of segregated mosques, while causing less offense amongst the occupied population. A notable example of this would be female US military personnel who are specially selected to participate in patrols and raids for this purpose.

Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian soldiers have voiced similar concern saying these soldiers "are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it’s is not as easy to program men to neglect women."

Men, it seems, are instinctually programmed to be protective of women. If this is truly an instinct, and therefore is difficult to impossible to remove from the male soldier, does it make tactical sense to allow it? Can we give up any advantage over our enemy? Tough questions. I can only hope that Congress and the Pentagon ask "What will make our military most able to destroy the enemy?", and not "What is fair and equitable?"

Finally, on to the badass portion of the blog. As a good ol' US Army Infantryman, I am naturally inclined to recognize the Navy only as a repository for funny walks and unusually high levels of Don't Ask Don't Tell violation. However, in the face of this, even I must humbly submit to the Navy's awesomeness in this instance.

That is a railgun.

"An electromagnetic railgun offers a velocity previously unattainable in a conventional weapon, speeds that are incredibly powerful on their own. In fact, since the projectile doesn't have any explosives itself, it relies upon that kinetic energy to do damage. And at 11 a.m. today, the Navy produced a 33-megajoule firing -- more than three times the previous record set by the Navy in 2008.

"It bursts radially, but it's hard to quantify," said Roger Ellis, electromagnetic railgun program manager with the Office of Naval Research. To convey a sense of just how much damage, Ellis told FoxNews.com that the big guns on the deck of a warship are measured by their muzzle energy in megajoules. A single megajoule is roughly equivalent to a 1-ton car traveling at 100 mph. Multiple that by 33 and you get a picture of what would happen when such a weapon hits a target."

Because of it's ungodly speeds it can reach a target within 6 minutes. It can fire 6-12 rounds per minute. It hits the target with the force of thirty three friggin cars, all without explosives. Right now it's just ships. Imagine, if you will, once this technology is miniaturized into a mobile artiller platform. Artillery pieces safely in a green zone in Richmond, VA shooting rounds into Washington, DC.

It's nice, in this time of uncertainty, to know that the US military is still able to break stuff and kill people better than anyone else in the history of the planet.

DADT report endorses repeal...Kind of.

The Pentagon finally released it's much anticipated report on the predicted effects of a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The report was, for the most part, positive. The link is to the report itself, directly. I have not read the entire report, since it is 266 pages long. I have, however, studied many of the responses closely.

Most service members who were surveyed predicted either no effect or a positive effect in nearly every situation. One category of service members actually had an overwhelming positive response, nearly 80%! Of course this means that anyone who disagrees will have been proven wrong now.

This is the point where proponents of an immediate DADT repeal will tell me to pay no mind to the man behind the curtain. Unfortunately for them, I'm going to pull the curtain away anyhow.

That 80% figure that's being touted from sea to shining sea? It comes from page 65. As you can see, the question was:

"If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission…"

For "day-to-day" operations, 17.4% said positive, 32.6% equally positive and negative, 29.3% no effect, and 20.9% negative effect. That's 79.3% who don't see it as a negative, or at the least see the negatives equal the positives. Just one tiny little detail. These respondents are the ones with no combat experience since Sept 11, 2001.

The ones with "combat experience" are still positive by majority, but not nearly as much. For day-to-day, the non-negative answers get 55.7%, negative 44.3%. That negative number drops when they ask about "intense combat" to 30.6%.

It gets better. Flip to page 74, "Army, Marine Corps, and Combat Arms."

"Among the Services, the Marines were consistently more negative in their responses about the effect of repeal. The combat arms communities in both the Army and the Marine Corps were also more negative about the effect of repeal than others in their Services.

For example, as discussed earlier, approximately 44% of all Service members said
that their unit’s effectiveness “in a field environment or out at sea” would be negatively impacted by repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Nearly 60% of respondents in the Marine Corps and in Army combat arms said they believed there would be a negative impact on their unit’s effectiveness in this context; among Marine combat arms the number was 67%."

The report goes on to say that those who serve in single gender (read, male only) units currently are far more likely to oppose a repeal of DADT. (Insider tip: The units that traditionally see the heaviest combat, AKA Infantry, Armor, etc., are all male. Females are not allowed to serve in these units except in limited support roles.)

Call me crazy, but I always thought that the most important thing the military does is, you know, win wars. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I think the opinions of those who have actually done the whole war thing ought to be given a bit more than equal weight with those who haven't. Similarly, the fact that the responses of those whose job it is to actually close with and destroy the enemy are so much more negative should be a huge red flag.

There is a misconception in the civilian world that everyone in uniform is a soldier in the same way, all shooting and fighting the enemy. The fact is that the combat arms specialties, your Infantry, your Armor, your Artillery, etc., are actually a minority of all servicemembers (At least 2.5 support troops for each combat soldier). Their voice is easily drowned out by the roar of all the pogues behind them. While the job of a quartermaster, a laundry specialist, and a mail clerk are all important to the success of the military the fact remains that the needs and concerns of someone who typically stays inside the FOB are very different from those who actually leave the wire.

This report, if you read it carefully, only reinforces exactly what has been said by myself and others over and over again. In terms of the actual firefights, (I.E. That intense combat question) whether they a soldier is gay or straight makes about as much difference as whether they prefer cake or pie (though of course the soldiers who prefer pie show far better taste). Similarly, for those who do not serve in combat arms it is likely to have little impact on the way business is done. But where the rubber meets the road, for Private Joe Blow Rifleman, the world is a little different.

If the big thinkers in the Pentagon can think of a legitimate plan to enact a repeal of DADT, one that addresses the concerns of the combat arms specialties and allows for privacy for all involved, then count me in. Unfortunately, it does not appear that this will happen. As usual, those knuckle dragging idiots who actually do the fighting are likely to be dismissed as outliers, unimportant, and uninformed. The brunt of how to effectively enact this change will fall on the unit leaders, right down to team leaders like myself.

Thanks, sir. Guess I'll take it from here.

From Korea: Apathetic response Total War!

North Korea badly miscalculated when they arbitrarily shelled a South Korean island in disputed territory. The artillery barrage killed two soldiers and wounded 18 others while setting at least 70 structures ablaze. The deliberate and blatant act of war instantly triggered an appropriate response.

South Korea scrambled their fighter jets and immediately returned fire with their own artillery batteries. Vicious air strikes sought out the source of the offending artillery and destroyed them with extreme prejudice. Additionally over a dozen strategic targets were subsequently targeted and destroyed by South Korea. The military of the southern nation has begun preliminary mobilization to ensure that, should North Korea not capitulate immediately, they are prepared for the ensuing war.

This is perhaps overshadowed by the masterful stroke performed by the US. In a display of military might and domination over North Korea, the US launched a small, precise barrage of cruise missiles at various sites throughout the Communist nation. These targeted structures of cultural significance, such as prominent monuments to the North Korean dictator, as well as completely destroying the residence that the dictator had slept at the night before. The message sent was clear. "We can strike you anywhere, at anytime, and you cannot stop us."

Oh, wait. Sorry. I accidentally picked up the news ticker for the wrong universe. That one was from the Bizarro world where artillery strikes on sovereign soil are kind of a big deal. I apologize for the inconvenience. Here's the real story.

South Korea responded by shooting a few dozen artillery shells back at the North Koreans, with undisclosed effect. The US, China, and Russia all collectively shook their fingers at Kim Jong Il, saying with one unified voice: "Bad! Bad Kim!"

The UN Security Council will be meeting immediately this week, where they will propose stiff penalties on Korea, have those penalties immediately vetoed by China, and in the end issue a very sternly worded memo telling North Korea they must stop these actions immediately or face even more sternly worded memos. Below is a picture of Kim after he reads the memo.

Hyperbole and a half

I was going to post today. Unfortunately I've been sucked into a black hole of awesomeness. That black hole is known as "Hyperbole and a half". It is possibly the most hilarious website ever in the history of mankind. You might think that would be an unnecessary qualifier, "in the history of mankind", particularly since websites are pretty new. You would be wrong in thinking this. Why, you ask? Because I want you to think about the most awesome website you've ever been to that did not include naked women. Multiply that by 2. Then divide the result by .000000000000001. That's how awesome this website would be if it was half as awesome as it actually is.

Go there. My favorites, so far:

Dogs don't understand basic concepts like moving

Four levels of social entrapment

The awkward situation survival guide

The alot

Medal of Honor Recipient Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta

Two days ago in the Whitehouse something happened that has not happened for over forty years, since the end of the Vietnam war. A soldier was awarded the Medal of Honor, in person, for actions in combat. That soldier is Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta of the 173rd Airborne BCT.

Please take some time out of your day to watch the video below. It's breathtaking. I challenge you to make it to the end with dry eyes.



President Obama's presentation speech gives a vivid narrative of the events of the day. For those who can't view the video, here it is:

"Sal and his platoon were several days into a mission in the Korengal Valley -- the most dangerous valley in northeast Afghanistan. The moon was full. The light it cast was enough to travel by without using their night-vision goggles. With heavy gear on their backs, and air support overhead, they made their way single file down a rocky ridge crest, along terrain so steep that sliding was sometimes easier than walking.

They hadn’t traveled a quarter mile before the silence was shattered. It was an ambush, so close that the cracks of the guns and the whizz of the bullets were simultaneous. Tracer fire hammered the ridge at hundreds of rounds per minute -- “more,” Sal said later, “than the stars in the sky.”

The Apache gunships above saw it all, but couldn’t engage with the enemy so close to our soldiers. The next platoon heard the shooting, but were too far away to join the fight in time.

And the two lead men were hit by enemy fire and knocked down instantly. When the third was struck in the helmet and fell to the ground, Sal charged headlong into the wall of bullets to pull him to safety behind what little cover there was. As he did, Sal was hit twice -- one round slamming into his body armor, the other shattering a weapon slung across his back.

They were pinned down, and two wounded Americans still lay up ahead. So Sal and his comrades regrouped and counterattacked. They threw grenades, using the explosions as cover to run forward, shooting at the muzzle flashes still erupting from the trees. Then they did it again. And again. Throwing grenades, charging ahead. Finally, they reached one of their men. He’d been shot twice in the leg, but he had kept returning fire until his gun jammed.

As another soldier tended to his wounds, Sal sprinted ahead, at every step meeting relentless enemy fire with his own. He crested a hill alone, with no cover but the dust kicked up by the storm of bullets still biting into the ground. There, he saw a chilling sight: the silhouettes of two insurgents carrying the other wounded American away -- who happened to be one of Sal’s best friends. Sal never broke stride. He leapt forward. He took aim. He killed one of the insurgents and wounded the other, who ran off.

Sal found his friend alive, but badly wounded. Sal had saved him from the enemy -- now he had to try to save his life. Even as bullets impacted all around him, Sal grabbed his friend by the vest and dragged him to cover. For nearly half an hour, Sal worked to stop the bleeding and help his friend breathe until the MEDEVAC arrived to lift the wounded from the ridge. American gunships worked to clear the enemy from the hills. And with the battle over, First Platoon picked up their gear and resumed their march through the valley. They continued their mission.

It had been as intense and violent a firefight as any soldier will experience. By the time it was finished, every member of First Platoon had shrapnel or a bullet hole in their gear. Five were wounded. And two gave their lives: Sal’s friend, Sergeant Joshua C. Brennan, and the platoon medic, Specialist Hugo V. Mendoza.

Now, the parents of Joshua and Hugo are here today. And I know that there are no words that, even three years later, can ease the ache in your hearts or repay the debt that America owes to you. But on behalf of a grateful nation, let me express profound thanks to your sons’ service and their sacrifice. And could the parents of Joshua and Hugo please stand briefly? (Applause.)

Now, I already mentioned I like this guy, Sal. And as I found out myself when I first spoke with him on the phone and when we met in the Oval Office today, he is a low-key guy, a humble guy, and he doesn’t seek the limelight. And he’ll tell you that he didn’t do anything special; that he was just doing his job; that any of his brothers in the unit would do the same thing. In fact, he just lived up to what his team leader instructed him to do years before: “You do everything you can.”

Staff Sergeant Giunta, repeatedly and without hesitation, you charged forward through extreme enemy fire, embodying the warrior ethos that says, “I will never leave a fallen comrade.” Your actions disrupted a devastating ambush before it could claim more lives. Your courage prevented the capture of an American soldier and brought that soldier back to his family. You may believe that you don’t deserve this honor, but it was your fellow soldiers who recommended you for it. In fact, your commander specifically said in his recommendation that you lived up to the standards of the most decorated American soldier of World War II, Audie Murphy, who famously repelled an overwhelming enemy attack by himself for one simple reason: “They were killing my friends.”

That’s why Salvatore Giunta risked his life for his fellow soldiers -- because they would risk their lives for him. That’s what fueled his bravery -- not just the urgent impulse to have their backs, but the absolute confidence that they had his. One of them, Sal has said -- of these young men that he was with, he said, “They are just as much of me as I am.” They are just as much of me as I am."

The ceremony was attended by the living recipients of the Medal of Honor. I am astonished that the building did not explode due to the insane levels of awesome contained within. As the highest rated comment on the youtube video said:

"This guy is the equivalent of a walking God- Complete and total badass. When he walks into a room, hippies burn up instantaneously and women's panties immediately drop. Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta will never have to ever buy another drink or even argue with someone again because he is a FRIGGING MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT!!"

Indeed.

HHH: Rangel Convicted, Spider goats, election coin tosses, and environmental wackos.

It's that time again, time to clear out my favorites list of all the stories I wanted to share with all (both) my readers but hadn't gotten around to posting.

#1: Rep. Rangel convicted for violation of ethics...faces a really, really sternly worded memo. That's right. In a classic example of Representation with Taxation, Mr. Rangel (among many other things) "fail[ed] to report more than $600,000 on his financial disclosure report and failing to pay taxes on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic." Of course, he's too broke to afford a lawyer. He will likely face a formal reprimand. That means they will write a memo telling him what a mean, bad person he is. Bad Rangel! Bad! If they decide to go really medieval on his ass, they may even censure him. That means that said memo will be read aloud in front of the House while he stands up front. Harsh.

#2: Modified spider goats climb walls and fight crime...ok, no they don't. But they do use their milk to make spider silk! Using genes lifted from spiders and implanted in goats and silk worms it may soon be possible to mass produce this amazingly strong substance could soon be used in everything from body armor to really, really snazzy jeans. Crime fighting farm animals I'm sure are not far behind.

#3: Wanna become an Alaskan Congressman? Call it in the air...Tails. Bryce Edgmon has it. I swear I am not making this up. Apparently in September of '06 the Dem primary between incumbent Carl Moses and challenger Bryce Edgmon was actually tied. This invoked State statute is AS 15.20.530, which reads: "If after a recount and appeal two or more candidates tie in having the highest number of votes for the same office...the director shall...determine the successful candidate by lot." That's universal suffrage at work, boys.

#4: If you don't believe in man-made global warming, Paki-India will nuke you...or we'll blow you up using our portable "easy button". At least, that's what a professor at LSU and a environmental group (AKA: Granola crunching hippies) called 10-10 believe. First, to LSU. Watch the video. I especially love the part where he hands out an assignment where you need to estimate the probability of your children dying in horrible ways. Of course, he may have something with his India/Pakistan will nuke us in 50 years. In fact, I think he's right. The solution then is obvious. We need to launch a preemptive strike tomorrow.



Then the group 10-10. Their stated goal is to have everyone cut carbon emissions by 10% per year. Invoking my amazing powers of math, I think that means they want all carbon emissions gone in 10 years. I suppose we'll have to stop breathing by the year 2019. No biggie. Of course they are only interested in civil discourse and an earnest, sincere debate of the issues and evidence.



See? Nothing like a little Orwellian group think indoctrination by teachers to get you going for mother Earth!

#4: Belgium doesn't exist. Seriously. It doesn't. I mean, have you ever been there? No? I rest my case. But in case that doesn't convince you, peruse this website. All the evidence is there, my friends!

Ed Schultz: You know what we need? Laws to stop offensive speech.

The Pentagon has developed a top secret weapon, deep in the bowels of Area 52. This pudgy device was tested over the public airwaves on Friday. It’s effects: To cause all those exposed to lose control of their jaw muscles while simultaneously causing blood to shoot out of their eyes. In case you missed it, feel free to don your protective equipment and watch the video below.



Before anyone can cry “context!”, here’s the transcript, which includes all the pieces of his show not shown in the video above.

There’s so much material here, I’m not even sure where to begin. I suppose I’ll start by defending Rush, not that he really needs it. Ed begins by saying that America’s favorite talk radio host is a “flat-out racist”. The segment he uses to prove it? This one, sliced out of context more precisely than any surgeon known to man:

LIMBAUGH: Clyburn‘s worried about not having the car. Clyburn‘s worried about not having the perk of a big office, a driver, so forth.

The way this can all be worked out, Clyburn‘s new position, driving Ms. Nancy. He gets to keep the car, he gets to go everywhere she goes, parties and everything else. He‘s not in the back of the bus. He‘s in the driver‘s seat, and she‘s in the back of the car being chauffeured. Solved problem.

This is a fine example of a form of expression known only to scholars, which explains why Ed isn’t familiar with it. They refer to it as “sarcasm”. They would tell Ed that the second paragraph was meant, not to say that he believed that truly was a good solution to the problem of racism, but instead used hyperbole to deride the Democrat party’s racist tendencies as perceived by Mr. Limbaugh.

Ed continues on by railing against the racist hate speech of Glenn and Sean. I firmly believe that Mr. Schultz inadvertently played the wrong clips to evidence his claims. Being the serious, disinterested journalist that Mr. Schultz is I have no doubt that actual clips with real racism will be forthcoming. Unfortunately, since not one of the clips he played displayed anything of the sort, (Criticizing Obama and other liberal leaders and saying that they may be racist is not, in fact, racist, regardless of the race of the person being criticized.) I can't reproduce them here.

But here is where it gets really interesting. Ed, when interviewing that racist hate-mongering protester illustrious man-of-the-cloth Rev. Al Sharpton, whines that there “are never any ramifications” when people say things like this. This isn’t “acting in the public interest” when you “allow somebody to go on the air, time and time again, and make racist comments and no ramification for it, whatsoever.” [Cue jaw drop] Al, unable to hold back, says that while “people can say whatever they want, but not on the air, not on federally-regulated airwaves”.

Absolutely. I mean, that freedom of speech thing is all well and good, but clearly when it’s happening on the radio it ought to be crushed with extreme prejudice.

Then his next guest comes on, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Sidenote: Possibly the most awesome name ever, combining both Stonewall and Robert E!). She must’ve just gotten done reading 1984, because she opens with this (not shown in the video): “I am a strong supporter of the right for anyone to express their beliefs, and to do it in a way that may be controversial, or may be a belief that I don‘t agree with.”

Ed and Lee sensed there might possibly be some kind of ambiguity about their belief that people should be allowed to say whatever they want, as long as they A) Aren’t doing it on the radio, and B) They agree with it. So, they followed up with what you saw on the video.

My personal favorites exchange:

Ed: “I mean, I don‘t want to say, should there be a law against this, but where‘s the decency?”

Lee: “It might be worthy of a debate again, because without the Fairness Doctrine, of course, there is a wide latitude of the use of language that is provoking, provocative and insulting.”

Ed: “How about a decency law that says you can‘t make racist comments on the air?... But we‘re never going to move the envelope forward in this country… if we‘re going to allow people to go on the air and say inciteful [sic] things like this… “

All emphasis mine.

So, to sum up: You should be able to say anything you want, even if they don’t agree with it…As long as it’s not on the radio, racist, insulting, or provocative. In that case there should be a law against it.

Here’s the deal, Mr. Schultz. The 1st amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Note there is nothing in there about the speech needing to be nice, or fair, or palatable. Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech. That means speech you don’t agree with. Speech that is racist. Speech that is insulting, kind, rude, genteel, offensive, and everything in between. It’s everything from a pro-Nazi rally to a blog about home cooking.

The only restrictions allowable are restrictions that have to do with the public safety (for example, calling fire in a crowded theater) or that are actually harmful to another in a quantifiable way (slander/libel), because these forms of speech trample on the Constitutional rights of others.

Your rights do not include not being offended, Mr. Schultz. If you, or anyone else for that matter, don’t like what Rush, Glenn, Sean, or anybody else has to say then switch the station. Deride them as idiots. Howl that morons such as they hold such opinions. Scream to any and all who will listen to turn away from their thoughts. But do not, under any circumstance, legislate their ability to speak.

I will return to you the same courtesy. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote, summing up the beliefs of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Obama's Post Election Press Conference

Better late than never, I always say! I went ahead and strolled on over to the Whitehouse.gov website (Fun homework, kids: Up until approximately 2004, typing "whitehouse.com by mistake led you to a much more interesting website!) and listen to the President's post unmitigated disaster mid-term election press conference. That's right, folks. In my spare time I listen to Presidential press conferences...I also enjoy long walks on the beach, dinners by candlelight, and cuddling.

You can read the transcript of the speech here. You can also surf youtube to pull up the videos if you like.

The conference started with his monologue. It was much as you might expect. "We need to work together to solve our pressing issues, both sides need to reach across the aisle, blah, blah, blah." He's spoken with both party leaders and wants them to work together to solve our pressing issues. He believes that "No party has a monopoly on wisdom."

He finished by saying that the GOP had driven the economy into the ditch, and that they were welcome to come along for the ride but they had to "sit in the back".

Oops, sorry. That last one was from a week beforehand.

Anyhow, on to the questions. The following is a paraphrased exchange.

Q: Do you, Mr. President, believe that the election was a fundamental rejection of your policies?

O: People are worried about the economy. I think I need to do a lot of reflecting and a better job.

Q: Yes. So, do you think it was a rejection of your policies?

O: We need to find common ground.

Q: Yup, got that part. So, back to the rejection of policies thing?

O: Don't mess with Texas. Next question.

Obama eventually said that the "tough decisions" he'd made were the right ones because it was an emergency situation...Which implies that he wouldn't have done those things if stuff wasn't as bad...So, if the economy recovers, I'm sure he'll remove all supports for failing companies, repeal Obamacare, and lower taxes on the rich. Ya know, cause that would be consistent.

He also said, finally, that (this bears a full quote):

"I think that what I think is absolutely true is voters are not satisfied with the outcomes. If right now we had 5 percent unemployment instead of 9.6 percent unemployment, then people would have more confidence in those policy choices. The fact is, is that for most folks, proof of whether they work or not is has the economy gotten back to where it needs to be. And it hasn't."

In other words, the only reason people are rejecting his policies is not because of the policies themselves, but because the policies don't work, and if the policies worked better, people would like them more.

Gee, you're right, Mr. President! How silly of me to judge your policies by their effects! Man, I am an ignorant moron after all! Here, why don't I just hand the reins right back over then.

He also said that because these decisions came "fast and furious" it "felt" like government was getting more intrusive...Which implies that government was actually not becoming more intrusive. It's just that stuff was happening too fast for our pretty little heads to really understand it. Phew. That's a relief.

"And I, in the rush to get things done, had to sign a bunch of bills that had earmarks in them, which was contrary to what I had talked about. And I think folks look at that and they said, gosh, this feels like the same partisan squabbling, this seems like the same ways of doing business as happened before."

You're right. Gosh, it does feel like this is exactly the same way of business that got us in to this mess. I wonder if it feels exactly the same because it was exactly the same? Probably not.

When told that according to some exit polls, 1 out of 2 voters thought that Obamacare ought to be overturned and repealed, here was his response: "...that means one out of two voters think it was the right thing to do...but let's talk specifics. Does this particular provision -- when it comes to preexisting conditions, is this something you're for or you're against? Helping seniors get their prescription drugs -- does that make sense or not?"

Let's talk specifics, then. How about the specifics of massive government intrusion into private industry? Or the specific that turns healthcare from a service into a right? Or how about the specific that mandates to insurance companies, which are in essence structured gamblers, that they have to wager on a bet they know is lost (AKA pre-existing conditions)? What about the specific that the bill was 2,000+ pages and that there was not physically enough time given for anyone to read or comprehend the full effects of said bill, even armed with hordes of staff members? Oh, what's that? We don't want to talk specifics anymore? Cool. Next question.

I missed a portion of the conference, here, but read the transcript later. Not a whole lot stuck out, and I did get to see the ending which was more of the same. So, I'll end with this question:

"Q: President Bush when he went through a similar thing came out and he said this was a "thumpin'." You talked about how it was humbling, or you alluded to it perhaps being humbling. And I'm wondering, when you call your friends, like Congressman Perriello or Governor Strickland, and you see 19 state legislatures go to the other side, governorships in swing states, the Democratic Party set back, what does it feel like?

THE PRESIDENT: It feels bad. (Laughter.) You know, the toughest thing over the last couple of days is seeing really terrific public servants not have the opportunity to serve anymore, at least in the short term."

I dunno, Mr. President...Maybe they're not being allowed to serve anymore because they were lousy public servants. Just a stab in the dark.

Government Transparency (Plus mystery missiles)

Obama has left the country, jetsetting about Asia, presumably consuming massive quantities of whiskey in order to forget that last Tuesday ever happened. He has left our Great Nation in the capable hands of Vice President Biden. Ol' Joe has wasted no time in getting to work on something that everyone can agree is very important: Government Transparency. Specifically, he's meeting with Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. They're going to find out where all those millions of dollars we spent on jobs went. They are going to help the government reveal its secrets to the People!

The meeting is of course closed to the public.



That's right. In an explosion of irony of the epic proportions only the federal government is capable of, the meeting on transparency with the Chairman of the Transparency and Accountability Board is completely and 100% non-transparent. Normally I'd use my razor wit to make this news story more entertaining, but I don't think I can possibly do better than Joe did all by himself.

In other news, a missile was launched off the coast of California yesterday evening. Wait, wait, there's no cause for alarm. The Pentagon has it all under control. And by all under control, I mean they have absolutely no clue who launched it.

Oops.

Restoring Sanity Rally, from top to bottom

Recently Jon Stewart and friends held a rally in DC. The Restoring Sanity rally was called many things by many people. The idea of the rally was one I think most of us could agree on: Shouting, arguing, and drawing Hitler moustaches is ridiculous and counter productive.

I know many of those who agree with me politically have lambasted Jon Stewart and his little get together as a "bury your head in the sand" kind of deal, a rally aimed at showing the Tea Partiers how silly they are. It is very possible, perhaps even likely, that many attendees at the rally thought exactly that.

I do not think that Jon Stewart himself thought these things. In fact, I'm certain he didn't. Please take a few minutes to listen to the final speech he gave at the end.



I mean, that's downright reasonable. I especially like the part where he says that calling a Tea Partier a racist is "insulting to real racists who have worked so hard to hate". For too long people have thrown titles at their enemies like hand grenades, without thought, hoping something sticks and proves them wrong. Hitler, Socialist, Communist, Racist, Fascist, etc., etc., etc. It is a sign of intellectual laziness.

I would counter to Mr. Stewart, however, that we need be equally vigilant to call actual socialists, communists, racists, fascists, exactly what they are, not as an insult, but as an honest definition of positions. If I say that Obama's policies are socialist, it's because I actually think they are socialist and wish to argue against them, not simply because I think that socialist is a cool thing to say.

I've always liked Jon Stewart, and his fellow comedian Colbert, because they are A) Funny as hell, and B) Equal opportunity comics. I disagree with nearly everything they believe politically, but I can respect that they will throw hard questions or lampoon the Left on their silliness just as quickly as they'll spear the Right. The sad thing is that they are at times, as fake journalists, twice the journalists that actual news people will ever be.

Now I'd like to share another video of the Restoring Sanity Rally. This of a presumably conservative man walking around with the sign "Obama: Keynesian?". Hilarity ensues as the dubiously informed masses proceed to argue quite angrily with him.



Remember, this is a small snapshot of the crowd. I don't believe that these folks are representative of the entire audience (though the blank stare I've received on numerous occasions when I relay the funny story to others is making me question this stance), and this video shouldn't be used to invalidate the entire purpose of the rally. It should be used for a laugh.

The Day after Yesterday: Results

In what most of the left is naming a wave, tsunami, earthquake, or some other descriptor somehow implying a natural disaster that was completely unavoidable and nobody's fault, the GOP has taken back control of the House. The Republicans have netted at least 59 seats thus far. There are still 7 or 8 seats that are yet to be decided, most with Democrat incumbents. It's only going up from there.

In the Senate the GOP cut the Dem lead significantly. While the Democrats still hold on to their majority, it is no longer near the supermajority they once had. The "Supermajority" refers to the three fifths, or 60 seats, that are required in the Senate to bring a vote out of cloture [to end a filibuster]. If the minority party has greater than 40 seats they can filibuster, or endlessly debate, a bill to prevent it coming to a vote and effectively kill it. If the majority party has 60 votes or more, and presuming all those votes stay in step, they can literally override anything the minority may have to say. A couple of races are still too close to call, but the Republicans safely hold 47 seats.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid manages to keep his job, if not by much. Boxer also holds on handily.

If you care to follow it minute by minute, like I do, head on over to the Communist News Network's map and get all the exciting action, frame by frame.

Voter Apathy, Election Day Edition

November 2 is a very important day 50% of the time. Every other year all three quarters half almost half of Americans will turn out to cast their vote in time honored tradition. A tradition that thousands of our forefathers fought for, spilling their final lifeblood on foreign battlefields, so that their children may wake up on November 2 and say “Screw it, I’m too busy.”

But hey, don’t worry. At least that means that the rest of them are looking for the R or D and checking the box making an informed, reasoned decision based on values and logical data. /sarc

I recently found a few sets of statistics by the Washington Post, US Census Bureau and GMU that I found utterly fascinating and read in detail. Since most other people are not uber geeks like me, I’ve distilled the more interesting tidbits and decided to throw it into a blog below.

First, the entertaining bit. An article by the WaPo reveals what we thinkers already knew: Most voters are sheep. They highlight a few interesting numbers from various polls, including a Zogby poll from August, 06, which found that “only two in five Americans know that we have three branches of government and can name them”. Dear God in heaven. There’s only three of them! Executive, Legislative, Secret Underground Cyber-Ninjas, and the Judicial branch. But wait, there’s more:

• Fewer than half knew who Karl Marx was.
• Only 49% knew America was the only country to have ever used a nuke in a war (Why? Because we’re awesome!)
• A whopping 20% of young voters read the newspaper. Never fear, however. That is completely made up for by the 11% of young voters who use the Internet for news. Sweet.
• At least they follow the important things. Like the 20% who knew about Kabul being captured from the Taliban. Or the 32% who followed the anthrax attacks or the recession. Or how about the 60% who followed the attacks of 9/11. (Let that sink in. It means that, as the article points out, 40% of the “young people” demographic, of which I am sometimes counted a member, didn’t give a f&*k about the most deadly attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.)

Now on to the juicy statistics.

The Census Bureau posted this 20 page report in pdf for all the world to see. I also found GMU's Elections Project, which displays statistics for the past few elections in a very easy to read, concise list without any BS to couple with it.

The following statistics are all about the 2008 election, which keep in mind had a ridiculously high turnout rate. Here's what I found interesting. Of the VEP, or vote eligible population, about 71% of the population is registered to vote. While the overall voting rate was 63.6% for all the VEP, the rate among those who had previously registered was 89.6%. This shows that the vast majority of those who take the five minutes it takes to register will actually vote in crunch time.

Here again the Young People are pulling their weight in an epic way. In 2008, at what is likely to be the most historic election these people are likely to see in their lifetime (arguably, depending on how highly you rate a female president vs. a black one), 49% showed up. That's up from 47% in 2006. Yes friends. The difference a historically unique and pivotal election makes compared to a relatively obscure midterm election is exactly 2%.

In general, voters in the Midwest were most likely to show up (66% vs. 63% elsewhere). Older voters are the most likely to show up at 70.3%, though the percentage only drops to 60% before you get to 25 years of age.

Minnesota takes the title for highest turnout, 77.7%, followed by Wisconsin (72.1%) and New Hampshire (71.1%). The lowest? Hawaii (50.5%), who narrowly defeats West Virginia (50.7%) and Arkansas (52.6%).

Scroll down to page 13 of the report and we get the reasons people didn't vote or register at all. The overwhelming majority responded with the very good reason, "Not interested in the election/not involved with politics." Yup. I mean, it's only the driving force of our entire governance system. Not a big deal.

How about this one: If we switch our statistics to the midterm, 2006 election, the overall participation goes to 40.4%. This time Minnesota can only muster 60.1%, while the loser, Mississippi, manages an impressive 29.4% of the VEP.

Don't feel like slitting your wrists yet? Consider this.

• Voter turnout, even in a highly publicized election, was 61.6%.
• If we're feeling amazingly generous we can say that perhaps three quarters of these people are actually informed, leaving us with 30.8%.
• Since most of these people are voting for one or other of the parties, and since that vote is usually roughly down the middle with just a few percentage swings either way, that means the party in power represents the wishes of half of the informed voters, or about 15.4% of the population.

"Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote"
- William E. Simon, Fmr. Secretary of the Treasury

If you can't be bothered to vote, then don't complain. If you can't be bothered to do 20 minutes of research out of an entire two year election cycle, then stay at home and don't vote.

You know what's gay? Anderson Cooper.

This is probably old news to those of you who follow pop culture, but comedian and actor Vince Vaughn has a new movie coming out titled "The Dilemma". Not to spoil the plot, but Vince's character finds out inadvertently that his best friend's wife is having an affair. Does he tell him? Hilarity apparently ensues.

This would just be another plucky comedy that faded into the beautiful tapestry of our culture, except for one deadly sin: The trailer opens with a scene in which Vince calls electric cars gay!



The exact quote follows. Please, it is quite graphic. For those that have any sense of human decency or values you may want to blindly scroll your mouse wheel wildly just to be sure you don't burn your eyes with it.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, electric cars… are gay. I mean, not homosexual gay, but my-parents-are-chaperoning-me-to-the-dance gay."

If you are feeling truly adventurous you can view the trailer for yourself.



I know what you're thinking. How has this man not been stoned in the public square yet? Fortunately we have people like the Communist News Network's Anderson Cooper standing by to champion such worthy causes. He appeared on Ellen DeGeneres' show (Irony, anyone?) and said:

"I was sitting in a movie theater over the weekend and there was a preview of a movie, and in it, the actor said, 'That's so gay,' and I was shocked that not only that they put it in the movie, but that they thought that it was okay to put that in a preview for the movie to get people to go and see it."

Shocked, I tell you!

"I just find those words, those terms, we've got to do something to make those words unacceptable because those words are hurting kids. Someone else I talked to recently said that the words people use and the things people say about other kids online, it enters into their internal dialogue, and when you're a kid, it can change the way you see yourself and the way you think about yourself, and the worth that you give to yourself. I think we need to really focus on what language we're using and how we're treating these kids"

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Universal, broadcasting from deep within their evil lair buried beneath an inactive volcano while petting a hairless cat...

Actual footage of person responsible for "gay" line in movie.

...stated that they surprised at the criticism of the clip. They reportedly showed the clip to several gay executives and gay marketing people at Universal and received nothing but positive feedback.

/sarc

Seriously, Anderson? Seriously? This is what has got you all riled up? Nothing else going on in the world was more important than this? I don't claim to be the coolest cat on the block, but even I know that the term gay in this context means awkward, weird, or stupid and has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference. Vince's character even clarifies what context he meant gay in, just in case any in his audience was socially retarded "special".

Beyond that, even if it was intended to be offensive, it's a comedy! Comedy is supposed to be offensive in some way. That's why it's funny.

Vince Vaughn did issue a statement in defense of the bit:

"Let me add my voice of support to the people outraged by the bullying and persecution of people for their differences, whatever those differences may be. Comedy and joking about our differences breaks tension and brings us together. Drawing dividing lines over what we can and cannot joke about does exactly that; it divides us. Most importantly, where does it stop."

It may be difficult to decipher exactly what Vince means there, so I'll paraphrase: Cowboy up. Reach deep down, grab your pair, and frigging get over it.

Contrary to popular belief, Andy, you do not have the right not to be offended. If you don't want to support Universal's use of the term gay, then don't spend money on their movies.

Election 2010: GOP Victory. Hooray.

With the election just a week away it seems almost inevitable that the GOP will gain back control of the House. They will likely narrow the lead of the Democrats in the Senate, though a reversal of control there is unlikely.

The Wall Street Journal reports on extremely tight races in the Senate. The GOP would need to pick up ten seats in order to achieve a 51-49 split. There are only eleven currently Democratic seats up for grabs, and one Republican seat in jeopardy to boot, making the margin for error in that side of Congress nearly non-existent. The House looks much more promising, with most polls only disputing the extent of the new Republican majority.

What is more interesting is the widespread disgust with incumbents. A new WSJ/NBC poll shows that, given the choice between a candidate with absolutely no political experience and one who had 10 years experience, 48% would vote for the new guy as opposed to just 23% who would go for the experienced candidate. The other numbers of note, that 46% of voters think Obamacare was a bad idea, ought to be obvious with anyone who has ears to hear.

I'm pretty much tepid on the whole affair. The Republican party has shown in the past that they have no qualms putting their values up in the red light district when the fancy suits them. Their endless pandering to "the center" (AKA complete lack of spine, courage, and values) has left me disgusted with the GOP in general. My only hope is that a few true conservatives just might get inadvertently picked up in the tidal wave of Republican victory.

Informed Voting resources (Sheeple need not apply)

With the elections only a week away I figure most people who have silly things like lives are probably just now wondering who and what they are going to be voting for...Of course, those people are also probably not terribly likely to be reading a politically themed blog written by an obscure, if stunningly attractive and amazingly witty, citizen...Nevertheless, it is still possible that those people could accidentally have clicked on my page while looking for the latest version of "Hide Ya Kids, Hide Ya Wife."

This blog is dedicated to them.

Voting is a powerful right, when used appropriately. Like all rights it comes coupled with a responsibility. In this case the responsibility is to be informed. Note: Going into a voting booth, looking for all the "R" and "D" candidates and voting for that one is NOT being informed. Neither is listening to Limbaugh or NPR and voting like they tell you, by the way.

No, you will have to spend countless hours in debate and research, identifying important issues, carefully seeking out books on the subject from sources days apart...Well, that's what you used to have to do, anyway, in the years long past before the wonderful invention of mass media and the Internet. Now it takes whole minutes to know nearly everything you need to be reasonably well informed. I present to you two websites, both completely non-partisan.

First, Project Votesmart. This outstanding resource is dedicated to the candidates themselves. Using this you can find out who is running in your area, both for Federal and State level offices. Then you can look up their voting record, statements they've made in the past, ratings they've received from various interest groups, etc., etc. Estimated time to become informed: 20 minutes (on the outside).

Secondly, for the things you may be voting on that aren't horribly corrupted sacks of worthless meat upstanding politicians representing this fine nation, I give you Ballotpedia. Laid out like the secondary repository for all human knowledge, Wikipedia (the primary repository being Google, of course), it is easily navigable to your particle locality. There you can find any ballot initiatives that are being voted on and the details of them all. You can quickly see the "intent" of the new law, the text of said law (or the proposed alterations to an existing law, as the case may be), and what groups support the initiative. Estimated time to become informed: 10 minutes if you are a remarkably slow reader.

So there you have it. In the span of a single sitcom, lunch break, or traffic jam you can join the ranks of an elite group of Americans known as "the informed voters".

Is thirty minutes too much time to become informed? Not willing to take the energy to read a few articles on important subject? Hey, no problem. Just do myself and every other American a huge favor: Don't vote, and don't complain.

Sarah Palin is obviously well-informed on the BTP an idiot

On October 19th Sarah Palin, easily the hottest Vice Presidential nominee EVAH, was speaking at a Tea Party Express event in Nevada. She warned the gathered throngs that they needed to stay the course and not get overconfident. They couldn't "party like it's 1773" until tea-party candidates actually managed to get elected.

Of course, many of her detractors were very quick to jump on this astute knowledge of dates far superior to my own obvious sign of idiocy in their favorite punching bag. "Moron! The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776!"

Here I must direct you to Cuffy Meigs who did a good, succinct piece on the reaction. He gathered the twitters of various prominence personages. Then he wrote this, which I could not possibly improve on:

"I mean, hell, it must be extremely embarrassing to have your obvious ignorance of 5th grade American history revealed by the likes of the Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas and PBS anchor & presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill. HAHAHAHAHA, what a freakin' dumb ass! What happened in 1773, indeed!

oh, wait:

Boston Tea Party, 1773

Like they were saying: Ummmmm...

PS: In case you're thinking Palin got lucky, the Right Scoop has full video of her remarks ... which clearly refer to the original Boston Tea Party."

Classic.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: Repealed Appealed Reinstated!

Let’s recap: A California Judge named Philips decided to strike down a DOD policy known as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell mandating that gay service members keep their homosexuality on the DL while serving as unconstitutional. When asked to lift her suspension of the policy, Philips said that “the public has an interest in military readiness, unit cohesion” but that these “these interests are outweighed by the compelling public interest of safeguarding fundamental constitutional rights.” (This sentiment will be a great comfort to troops engaged in a firefight. I know there’s nothing more comforting to me than knowing that my unit’s military readiness and cohesion aren’t #1 priorities when I’m in combat.) The Pentagon remained silent for a day or so, then issued the guidance that gay recruits had to be allowed to enlist. Cue mass panic at Recruiter’s offices as discharged rainbow warriors flock to the banner.

Yesterday a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals managed to clear their heads for a moment and, realizing that slamming the brakes on a decade of policy backed by over a century of tradition over the course of a single night without any research whatsoever in the middle of a war may possibly be just a tiny bit disruptive to military operations, granted the Justice Dept’s request to freeze the freeze that froze DADT. (That’s a triple negative. I get bonus points on my Blogger account if I can chain combos like that)

There will no doubt be months of appeals process to go through, not to mention the forthcoming study on the effects of ending DADT on military readiness. No matter which way this court decides the losing side will most certainly appeal, eventually forcing the policy decision to the Supreme Court, who I cannot imagine could find a way out of hearing it.

It is somewhat ironic that the Obama administration finds itself defending a policy they have themselves stated is unconstitutional, and that Obama promised to repeal on his watch. I do have to give them kudos for at least somewhat rising to the occasion, however, and pitching the ball to Congress to deal with, as they should…Well, personally I’d pitch the ball to the E-4 Mafia, but I doubt that’d be terribly popular among the JCOS.

Stay tuned. And remember: If you don’t look him in the eyes…

Judge bans DATA (AKA: Screw careful consideration!)

A California judge, Virginia Philips, ruled on October 12th that the military's policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell is unconstitutional and, showing the good sense equivalent to pulling your emergency brake while cruising at highway speeds, ordered the immediate ending of all enforcement of this policy worldwide. Obviously Philips, after taking a good solid hit from her self-rolled doobie, decided that he knew better than the thousands of officers and NCOs in the field, the Defense Secretary, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Congress.

There is a report due to come out December 1 on the possible impact of such a decision on the military which is supposed to encompass everything from combat readiness to morale, but I mean, why wait? It's just the readiness of the world's finest military at stake. I don't see what the fuss is about, honestly.

There is question as to whether the judge even has the authority to make such a decision but that aside there are serious problems with the action taken. Secretary Gates, who supports the eventual repeal of the law, "warned of "enormous consequences" for troops if the court order is allowed to stand, saying the decision on repeal of the law known as "don't ask, don't tell" should be decided by Congress and not the courts."

While my faith in Congress has waned considerably since the approximate day of my birth, I am inclined to agree with Secretary Gates. This is a matter to be decided, carefully, by those who are charged with running our military, not some lone crackpot judge in America's nutbasket.

I personally do not support the repeal of DATA as it stands today. My problem is purely logistical. I honestly do not care one bit if the man shooting, moving, and communicating next to me is gay, straight, bi, white, black, yellow, or Martian, as long as he can keep up. The problem is logistical. In the military (particularly in combat branches like my own, the Infantry) there is a high premium on privacy. Barracks can be large open bays with no consideration for isolation during changing or sleeping. Showers may or may not have stalls, bathrooms may or may not have partitions, etc. While overseas, even back in the rear, I shared my living space with a roommate, college dorm room style. In the field even this modicum of privacy disintigrates.

I have seen more naked men in my career with the Army than I ever thought possible. If you put a gay man with a bunch of straight men it is naturally going to make things a bit uncomfortable, in the same way that putting a naked woman in the middle of a bunch of naked men would be awkward. Unless we're willing to make the military completely co-ed and house men and women together with disregard to their sex it isn't consistent to do the same with gay men and women and their straight counterparts. Until there is a viable solution presented for how these legitimate issues are going to be overcome we cannot in good conscience repeal this standard which has worked reasonably well up till now.

The hard truth is that the military does not exist to be fair. It exists for two reasons, and two reasons only: To kill people and break stuff. Being fair is a secondary objective, and if it interferes with combat effectiveness, it needs to go by the wayside. Yes, it sucks, but the business of the military is war, and war sucks the big one.

Insanity: British pundit supports suffocation of suffering children (and my position on abortion)

When someone disagrees with me, I am not offended. It does not bother me personally. I can hold a heartfelt, even passionate debate and at the end laugh along with the other person despite differences, given one caveat: The only thing I require is a rational opinion.

There are times, however, when I hear an opinion that is so amazingly, stupendously, breathtakingly ridiculous that I wonder if I'm actually the victim of some cruel practical joke. I attempt to examine it logically but there's always the nagging voice in the back of my head that refuses to believe another person is truly spouting the nonsense I'm examining and calling it a position.

One of these times occurred when I read the position of one British Pundit, Victoria Ironside. Her position starts with:

“Abortion can often be seen as something wicked and irresponsible, but in fact it can be a moral and unselfish act. Sometimes the decision of a good mother is not to have the child.”

If only she had stopped there, I likely would never have heard of Ms. Ironside. Unfortunately, she just had to continue. She went on to say (and I swear I am not making this up)

“If I were the mother of a suffering child — I mean a deeply suffering child — I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face. If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.”

...

I am truly at a loss for words. All that comes to mind is this: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

Since it has been over a year since I posted this, I figured I would take this opportunity to repost my position on abortion. Here it is:

"My Pro-Life Argument. No exceptions, no exclusions.

Many people believe me to be passionate about a lot of issues. Truly, this is the only one that really deserves the title. I believe that abortion is murder. Period. How could you not be passionate with a position like that?

A coworker of mine wanted to hear my reasons for being pro-life, so I wrote her the following paper. I figured I might as well post it for the rest of the world.

"I’m going to lay out the Abortion Argument as best I can, and give you my reasons for being pro-Life. First, some definitions:

What is an abortion? Webster’s defines it as: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” It also states: “spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare MISCARRIAGE” So, all miscarriages are abortions. Not all abortions are miscarriages. In the political sense, the term “abortion” is generally applied only to non-natural, intentional terminations of pregnancy. This is the definition I will be using.

What is pregnant? “Containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body”. Note: No exclusions are given based on the stage of pregnancy. If you are gestating a human that is yet unborn, you are pregnant. Thus, you are pregnant from conception to birth.

What is infanticide? Webster’s says it is simply “the killing of an infant.”

What is an infant? “A child in the first period of life”.

What is murder? “To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice”. Obviously, if the law itself is in question, then we must disregard it (to prevent circular reasoning) and cut straight the latter half.

The definition of murder gives no leeway as to the age or position of person (though the unlawful clause excludes criminals). Therefore, if it is alive, human, and innocent, to kill it is murder, which is a universally accepted wrong. Since all infanticides are murder, and murder=wrong, infanticide must therefore also be wrong.

There are many different forms of abortion, depending on what stage the pregnancy is in when terminated. You can find a listing of many options at this site. They range from drugs to induce delivery early on, to surgical options, including sucking the fetus out. Another form of abortion, rarely performed, is the infamous partial birth abortion. This can be done during the third trimester, though it is more often done in the second. Here they induce labor and deliver the fetus until only the head remains in the womb. Scissors are then inserted to pierce the skull. The skull and tissue is then collapsed and it is then delivered the rest of the way and disposed of.

They all have one thing in common: They end the pregnancy of the mother, through the destruction of the fetus. Is this infanticide? Since the only qualification for murder is “life and humanity”, which in this case go hand in hand, the only real question is: When does life begin? After all, if something is not alive, then there is no moral value and the destruction of such a thing cannot be wrong.

There are very few who would support any sort of abortion post-birth. Once outside the womb, all children are considered human. But what about before that? To answer, we turn to science.

This site says: “A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cacti, bacteria, or any such thing. Empirically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if it’s human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, and four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.”

I’m not sure that I can be any more profound or eloquent than the experts, so I will leave their argument to speak for itself.

Moving on, common arguments for the pro-Choice stance.

1: It is a woman’s right what she does with her own body.

Yes, undeniably, it is her right. This argument makes the assumption, however, that the infant is simply another organ attached to the mother with nothing special to distinguish it. Yet, there are many differences. First, this “organ” very quickly has organs of its own. In fact, within the first month, the little ‘organ’ has a brain of its own which directs a heart of its own to beat to its own rhythm. Show me the kidney that can do that, and I will recant my position!

Also, a liver, stomach, or kidney will never, ever be anything else other than a liver, stomach, or kidney. They have one specific purpose which they fulfill without any other reason for being, and they will remain in the body indefinitely. The child, by contrast, is in the womb only temporarily and will eventually be birthed.

Finally, I firmly support a woman’s choice. That choice happened when she chose to have sex. The purpose of sex is to procreate. If a baby is conceived, that was what was supposed to happen. We do not murder out of convenience. (Note: Rape will be dealt with later.)

2: If abortion is murder, then so are periods and masturbation.

Again, the difference here is potential. An egg, on its own, will never be anything but an egg. A sperm, on its own, will never change. Fertilize the egg, however, and barring anything unfortunate, the new cell will divide and reproduce a brand new human.

3: It can’t be human before “x” day because it is not viable outside the womb. (Another variation of this argument claims that since the child is wholly dependent on the mother for survival, it is a parasite and not a human.)

This argument states basically that since the fetus cannot survive on its own, it is not human. In that case, abortions should be allowed at least up until age 2, and possibly much later. A newborn child, fresh out of the womb, will die if not cared for. A toddler is unable to find food and fend for itself in the world. According to this argument, we should be allowed to slay said children if they become inconvenient.

Likewise, this argument also lumps together anyone on life support (they cannot survive without it. They aren’t independently ‘viable’), including those who artificial hearts.

Obviously, viability cannot be used as a yardstick for life. If this were so, Aubrey, Alexis, and millions of others would be candidates for abortion.

4: I don’t agree with abortion personally, but I can’t dictate that to someone else.

Abortion is only wrong if it is the intentional slaying of a human. As outlined above, if the thing is not alive then there is no reason to be against it. If it is alive and human, and it is not guilty of some crime, then destroying it intentionally is murder. It is either A, or B. Wrong, or not. There is no middle ground allowed in this logical argument.

Thus, this argument says “I believe abortion is the intentional slaying of a defenseless child, but I can’t tell someone else they can’t do it.” This is obviously insanity.

5: What about when the mother’s life is in danger or the child will be born with some sort of defect?

First: Who defines defect? Today a defect is a horrible disease. Tomorrow? Missing a hand, a leg? Brown hair as opposed to blonde?

Second: Tests are not completely accurate in this regard. For example, my wife’s family’s youngest daughter, Kara, was supposed to be born with several deadly diseases and defects. She was going to die instantly, and if she somehow survived, her entire life would be full of pain. Today she is a healthy and very intelligent 6 year old girl.

Third: From EPM.org: “While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.”

Last: Even if you allow that this circumstance could happen, ask yourself this: You are walking across a road, and next to you is a small child. Suddenly, you see a bus bearing down on the both of you. You only have time to jump out of the way yourself, or push the child to safety. Only one of you can survive. Who do you pick? The answer in a moral sense is obvious: You save the child. The answer is even more obvious if this child is your own.

The last question is the most controversial.

5: Abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

The argument contends that because the mother did not choose to have the child, she should not be forced to carry it to term. The pregnancy is seen as a punishment on the victim.

Rape is a very traumatic and tragic event. Sometimes, a child will be conceived out of this forced union. No one would wish further suffering on someone who had to go through something like this. If you choose to have an abortion, however, all you are doing is committing a crime yourself. In your hurt and distress, you are choosing to slay a completely innocent child whose only crime is being conceived. The child cannot be held responsible for who its parents were. Your right to choose was forcibly taken away, but if you abort, you are committing an even worse crime upon the child.

Perhaps the mother does not think she can raise the child because of where he came from. The truth is, though, that she doesn’t have to! There are literally thousands of parents who are waiting in line to be blessed with this baby. They will pay for every penny of expense, and you never even have to lay eyes upon the child if you do not wish to.

Rape is a crime. So is murder. As horrible as the crime committed upon the mother was, it does not make committing an even worse one upon another innocent excusable.

[Here I took out a very personal story related to this issue. It is relevant, but not appropriate to post to the world. If you want to know it, ask and you may receive.]

I’m sure you can tell that this is a very important issue to me. Of all the people on Earth, children are the ones most deserving of our care and protection. It is one of the greatest tragedies that our generation is seeing millions upon millions being murdered every year. They cannot speak for themselves. We must speak for them. I hope this helps."

You know who’s really organized? Anarchists (Part 2)

Part one can be found here.

Any argument or set of beliefs operates with a number of assumptions at its base. This is unavoidable. You know an argument is consistent when the conclusions follow logically and reasonably if the assumptions are granted to be true. You know an argument is correct when the assumptions themselves are demonstrated to be true. To analyze a contrary position you must, in addition to examining the conclusions for logical fallacy, also decipher what its assumptions are in order to be able to properly evaluate them for feasibility.

At first glance the beliefs of myself, being a conservative capitalist, and Moe (and by extension, the Wingnuts), appear to be completely at odds with one another. Strong military/police vs. no military, free market vs. no market, etc, etc. Upon closer examination, however, they are…well…completely at odds with one another. But the reason for this isn’t some schism in personality or intelligence level. Instead, it stems from a fundamental difference in the view of humanity.

The Wingnuts appear to believe that through hard work human nature, since it is at least in part “a product of its environment” can be positively changed to allow for a more perfect society. Humans are, if not inherently good, at least inherently malleable. The best possible system will therefore attempt to alter society and humanity for the good of all.

The individual human is capable of great acts of sacrifice, generosity and nobility. It is, however, the unfortunate truth that humanity on the aggregate is self serving, narcissistic, and greedy. These characteristics are not superficial features that can be altered. They are instead basic components of our being that are as constant as the value of pi. Humans are fundamentally flawed. The best possible system will therefore attempt to channel this negative energy into positive directions, working with, rather than against, flawed human nature.

First look at the human being at his most genuine, his most pure, his most unadulterated: The Toddler. This human has had the time to become both self- and other-aware. He realizes that there are beings outside of himself. He has not, however, had time for society and his parents to dramatically change anything about his person. If you examine a toddler in America vs. a toddler in Ethiopia, you will find that aside from superficial differences they are much the same.

What is the nature of this being? Ask any honest parent, or become one yourself, and you’ll quickly find the toddler values itself above all other things. When it is hungry, it will cry and scream until fed. When it wants something, it will take it. If something is in its way, it is more apt to eliminate this obstacle through violence or manipulation, rather than simply to do without whatever the object of its attention is. If you doubt this, observe very young children at play for any length of time. You won’t have to watch long before one child will strike or push another, yell when it is denied, or in some way exemplify the flaws of man as a whole.

That is not to say that there are not exceptions to this rule. For example my own eldest daughter, when she learned that a family from church had lost everything in a fire, when prompted to choose out a toy to give to the other children who had none, retrieved her most prized possession (a particularly favorite Barbie, if memory serves) to give to the other family. Such an act of selfless sacrifice in one so young brought a tear to my eye. Of course, the day after this very same toddler struck her sister on the head when her sibling interfered with her playing with a toy she desired.

Even the methods used to discipline and teach acknowledge the self-centeredness of the pupil. You do not reason with a toddler, or try to explain why it is “nice” or “right” to share or speak kindly, at least not exclusively at first (There are parents who use this method. They are very easy to locate. Just look for the screaming, unruly children in your local grocery store). They are instead taught with “cause-and-effect”. This comes in two flavors, the negative [You do X, which is not acceptable. Therefore Y, perhaps physical pain (i.e. spanking) or social rejection (i.e. time out) happens] and the positive [You do X, which is acceptable, therefore you get Y, something you desire such as a toy or praise or recognition].

This shows that while young children are capable of acts of kindness, they are not necessarily prone to them as a rule until taught to be otherwise.

What if, however, even the toddler has been somehow affected by his environment in such a way as to invalidate him as a prism for humanity? What if the evils of our current society can infect from nearly out of the womb? If this were the case, and the greed and selfishness that manifests in humans is in fact a product of their environment, if the causality relationship truly flows society --> human nature, rather than the reverse, we would expect that different societies would produce fundamentally different humans.

To examine this I first turn to a piece given on the mental health of modern day American Indian tribes by Dr. Robert K. Thomas. He describes the tribal Indian culture as one where the identity of the person relies, not on predefined “roles”, but on relationships to those around you.

“The local unit, or community, of North American Indian groups varied in population size from about 100-300. Such a population means that one lived in intimate association throughout one's entire life with a very small number of people who had a specified, predictable, structured relationship to you…In modern American society, husband and wives are now making contracts. Commonly, one hears talk about the role of the wife or the father. I remember when I first became aware of this feature of American culture, about 1948. I would read articles in magazines about how to be a wife. And my response was, “Whose"?”

Dr. Thomas continues to describe the differences between modern America and tribal Indians. As you might expect, they are stark. However, it doesn’t take long for him to begin discussing the “major social control mechanisms” of these tribal Indians. Namely, they withdraw, or “deny access of self”, to those who are determined to be out of line. Other controls are the sanctity of tradition, the guidance of elders, and the perceived causal relationship of human actions and their external surroundings.

When this societal control breaks down (or, in other words, when humans are not being guided by an outside mechanism), you get this:

”A person who sees his nature as fixed and is without tradition behaves erratically. If you don't have kinfolk to frown at you and if you don't have a body of tradition to follow, you act erratically. One of the reasons why there are corrupt governments in Africa and on Indian reservations where everybody puts their hand in the till up to their elbow, is that officials have no kin folks around to scowl at them when they are dishonest. That kind of personality needs the structure of those kin relations, both to be definitive and as a social control and as a support and as a guide.”

As you can see, once stripped of the veneer of society, the American Indian becomes selfish, corrupt, and self-serving. This is further demonstrated by the anecdote delivered later in the paper of modern Cherokees. The value followed there was to share everything among all members of the community. What was happening in practice, however (since the societal controls on human nature had broken down), was lazier Cherokee would simply feed off those who were more hard working.

If we wish we can examine humanity on a more aggregate, long term scale. Examine the course of human history as we know it. Pick any continent, region, race, color, creed, or time you like. You will find exactly the same thing, variations on a theme. What differences were there in motivation between the Venetian merchant who squeezes every dime he can out of his competition and the Japanese lord who conquers the neighboring province for greater revenue? Is there a fundamental difference between wars for resources when fought over water, or oil, or more fertile land? How about between the genocide of the Nazis in Germany and the genocides in deep Africa? What is the common thread that causes history to repeat itself? That thread is the immutability of human nature. No matter how often you change the environment of the human, the time period, the society, or the technology available to him, the basic motivations of the human do not change.

Though I have argued that human nature is unchanging, let us accept for a moment that it could be changed. Let us say that if society were to be altered that humanity would fundamentally alter along with it. Since this is the Wingnut position (and, I suspect, the position of most other Anarchists to one extent or another), let’s accept it as fact for the sake of discussion. Do their actions make sense given their assumptions?

Some of them do. For example, distributing food, attempting to promote a more socialistic community (that is to say, one that shares resources rather than competes for them), and encouraging community enacted security, all make sense in the framework of attempting to change humanity for the better.

But what about the more, shall we say, stereotypical Anarchist actions? Things like harassing policemen on duty, or protesting the government’s right to detain criminals in a jail system, or (to quote their website), “oppos[ing] the state and its agents, including politicians, the police, the military industrial complex, corporations and greedy developers”?

Even if we allow that humanity can be changed, the fact remains that at this moment it hasn’t been changed. To a certain extent it makes sense to degrade the confines of current society in order to shift it, but imagine if suddenly the Anarchists were successful in their attempts to destroy these societal controls! Humanity, in its current, unaltered state would explode into chaos! To take actions that are aimed at destroying the chains of the evil State and Capitalism in the immediacy is much like going to a patient in rehab and cutting off his casts and taking away his crutches and expecting him to immediately run. Certainly he must in the end do without such devices, because if they were to perpetuate forever they would hinder his recover, but to remove them prematurely would be disastrous.

In conclusion, the basic assumption of the Wingnuts that human nature can be molded flies in the face of every iota of human history and experience. Humans have demonstrated, time and again, that they will not change until something comes along to change them. While they have the potential to do great and noble things when taught, influenced, or incentivized to do so, they require this external structure. Given this, the resulting arguments are invalid.

Even if we accept the assumptions to be true, the actions resulting from them are not all internally consistent. They rush the issue, dramatic in their desire to do something, rather than being patient and considering, methodical and precise, as any effort to enact fundamental change must be.

The Wingnuts appear to be a group of generally well meaning people who genuinely wish better for humanity. They are a resource to their community in many ways, and ought to be lauded for their efforts in community service and social support.

They are also naïve, lacking a fundamental understanding of the evils that exist in this world. Perhaps it is the result of living in a nation that has been more or less safe and peaceful for over two centuries. I think it likely that they would change their minds if they were emerged in areas of true anarchy, like the warlord torn regions of Africa. They strive for a goal that feels and sounds good but is more than unattainable: It is downright dangerous.

I leave you with this, from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, an examination of human nature in the context of perfectly rational people.