Some Thoughts on DADT

I read this stupid op-ed piece this morning, but it got me thinking about DADT. I don't know how else to say this, but these guys just don't get it. The flaw in his thinking is that male bonding can only occur among straight men, when, in fact, people bond through shared experience. Women and men can bond as a team, and I have experienced this in my line of work.

There already are gays in the military, everyone in the military knows someone who is gay, and yet, we continue to form tightly knit groups.

Just as with the racial and gender integration of the military, the burden is with the majority to accept the minority. The problem is not gays (or blacks or women). The problem is with the people who are in a position to accept the changes, but refuse to do so.

And, let's be honest. This whole debate about "unit cohesion" is just a euphimism for homophobia. If it weren't, what, exactly, could a homosexual do to undermine said unit cohesion? This is all about straight men who are afraid of being on the receiving end of some wayward homosexual advance. It's absurd. Especially when you consider how many of these men have acted inappropriately with straight women.

As for whether or not we're "sissifying" our military, I think the point has been demonstrated repeatedly that heroism and bravery are not exclusive to hyper-masculine men. Women continue to serve in very trying roles and have not detracted from our ability to wage warfare.

I have to ask honestly, are these people afraid that we're going to start wearing rainbow camouflage? That the military is going to become fabulous and fierce?? It's ridiculous. And, if they're going to stereotype gay men as sissies, what about the other stereotype of lesbians as masculine? Wouldn't that, in theory, be better for the military? The military attracts certain types of people, gay or straight. I find it hard to believe that if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly, then the military would attract a different type of person.

Finally, McPeak wrongly equates homosexuality with disability in his discussion of civil rights. Again, just as with racial and gender integration, if a homosexual meets the physical and educational guidelines set forth, there is no reason to exclude them.

If we are to continue to operate as a volunteer-based force, we must be open to accepting the best and the brightest. Period. Gay or straight, man or woman, black, white or brown, these should not be the deciding factors. The mililtary does not need to be a place of caveman-like behavior. The more professionalism we show, the better our fighting force is. Through the racial and gender integration process, our military has only increased in the levels of professionalism expected and demanded. This is another test of our commitment to equality and justice for all, and the only way we can succeed as a nation is to live the values that we preach and repeal DADT.

Where Do We Go From Here (a 9/11 reflection)

When I talk to people casually I use words like “college” and “my job,” but on this anniversary of 9/11, I think about the reality of attending a service academy and deploying. I know I am not the first, nor have I sacrificed the most, but we have all answered the call.

Nine years ago, I decided to attend the Naval Academy. Visions of world travel and exciting port visits danced through my head. Eight years ago, I stood at the end of a hallway with a dull bayonet and wondered if I really could kill someone with my bare hands. I had just turned 18 three weeks prior and had been focused on getting good grades and learning to shine shoes. I thought about leaving. This was not what I signed up for.

I made up my mind on September 12, 2001. This doesn’t have anything to do with Glenn Beck and his stupid 9/12 project because, frankly, he’ll never understand how I felt that day. No, on that day, instead of cowering, instead of shutting down and hunkering in, we returned to class. We redoubled our efforts because now we had a purpose. I could feel the energy in the air. I’d never seen so many people at the gym. The whole world was watching and urging us to be faster and stronger. I felt connected.

So I stayed. And the days turned to weeks turned to months. No one can maintain that level of intensity forever. It’s draining. And it’s overwhelming. People tuned out. And Afghanistan turned into Iraq.

There was surprisingly little discussion about this. The desire for revenge was strong. Afghanistan was complicated and the politics seemed slow and boring. As a lifelong liberal, I was horrified, but even worse, I was disconnected. I didn’t feel this bloodlust. It seemed that we were abandoning a legitimate effort in Afghanistan to do (what, exactly, I could never tell) in Iraq.

And the talk turned to death. The guy who sat next to me in French class? IED. The kid down the hall who was always yelling? Sniper. And that officer who was always there to help people who struggled with PT? Double amputee. The administration decided they needed more Marines and more Navy SEALs, and people volunteered instantly.

The years have gone by, and more Americans have died in Iraq than in the attacks eight years ago. There are more questions than answers. But, more important than the location of Osama bin Laden or the strength and breadth of Al Qaeda is this: Where do we go from here? We’ve travelled so far yet made so little progress. We’ve long since been lead off the path, and I believe we’re further from success today than we were on September 12, 2001. Of course, that would be if there was a definition of success.

In my current position, I prepare information for the President to write the personal condolence letters of all Sailors and Marines killed in combat. Every day my inbox has gruesome information about people, some who were just 10 years old when this all began, and I wonder how much longer this will go on.


There is a fact that I fear politicians fail to fully grasp and appreciate. There are people, natural born and immigrants, who are willing to lay down their lives not for Democrats or Republicans, but for the idea that is America. They do this because they believe in the ideals of this country not because they care about politics, but because they are asked. It is that simple. And it is this image of America that has been twisted, warped and manipulated by politicians, and it is why we must demand more respect from politicians.

The people fighting, some dying, most going back for more, they aren’t just numbers, troop increases or drawdowns. They more than people with families and lives and histories. They’re volunteers. These wars wouldn’t be possible without them, but shouldn’t be fought simply because we have them.

On this day, we must decide where we will be in another eight years. The goodwill of Americans toward this nation can never be exhausted, but we’re not here for the political whims of deranged politicians. If America stands for things that are right and good, then it must be right and good. If mistakes were made in the past, they must be addressed, corrected, and protected against in the future.

I see signs all around today that proclaim “We Will Never Forget,” but I fear we already have. Not the dead or missing, they will never be forgotten. We have already forgotten the message: We are not perfect, but we can be better. If we charge boldly into the future without reflecting on the past, we are doomed to failure. So I ask, where do we go from here?

I've had my fill of Dick

In case you haven't noticed, Dick Cheney has been touring the conservative media, engaging in a hate-fueled circle jerk as they fantasize about what the Bush era wasn't. And the media, even the mainstream media is just eating this up. But no one is talking about the obvious: Cheney is so fucking wrong, there's almost no words to describe. Seriously, I looked up "wrong" in a thesaurus and I think we have to use all of them just to get close to his level.

The thing that's really bothering me is that Cheney even has any credibility to discuss anything. Let's check it out:

1) Saddam Hussein was tied to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Wrong.

2) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Wrong.

3) We will be greeted as liberators. Wrong.

4) The insurgency is in its last throes. Wrong.


And that's just some of the stuff dealing with Iraq. We won't even get into the rest of his "policies." The point is, not only was he wrong, he lied. He knew the facts didn't support his point of view, so he pressured analysts, waged a media war, and lied to the American people. We know this now.

The question remains, what credibility does he have left? Why would we listen when we know he had a "detainees" file in his office? When we know he purposely obscured and delayed the information provided to Congress? What legs does a man who started an unnecessary war for profit, while abandoning a legitimate mission directly related to 9/11, causing it to devolve and spread into neighboring countries, even stand on?

The answer: None. Dick Cheney is nothing but a crazy old man who's scared shitless about being prosecuted. For someone who was so wrong about so many things, it's shocking that people would even give any of his delusions credence. As if he knows what policies make and keep a country safe. More Americans have died in Iraq than they did in 9/11 and what does America have to show for it? A war in Pakistan, too? Super.

No, we don't want his opinion on what the Obama administration is doing wrong, considering his track record. We don't care if he doesn't like the closing of Guantanamo. Frankly, if he doesn't like it, we do. In fact, 63% of people still have an unfavorable view of Cheney. Compare that to the fact that 66% of people approve of Obama.

Seriously, I've had my fill of Dick, so stop trying to cram more down my throat.

And, Dick, I have a news flash for you, 9/11 happened in 2001. You don't get a pass for that. You were in office for eight years, so stop talking about the last seven and a half.

What are you doing here?

That is probably the second most common question I'm asked. People come to my cubicle, see my Obama buttons (two, I'm tasteful) and my picture of Obama and Biden from the convention (not as tasteful, but cool to me), and they immediately forget what they came to talk about, instead asking me "You're a liberal? What are you doing here?"

See, I'm in the Navy and apparently, being a liberal in the military makes me a total freak. I usually just let it slide, but with the new year, and the impending inauguration, I've decided to change my attitude. No more shrugging it off. No. From now on, I'm going to take on these douchebags (nicely,if they out-rank me). As far as I can tell, the only people that have actually defended the Constitution in the past eight years have been liberal. Torture? Conservatives. Wiretapping? Conservatives again? I mean, Bush was the one who said the Constitution is "just a piece of paper." So, fuck conservatives. They suck at defending the Constitution.

I'd like to say that I have no idea why conservatives have felt that they own the military, but that's not exactly true, and this article does a pretty good job of explaining what drives the conservative mind ("fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity"). Well, I'd say that pretty much sums up the military. That, and they can be protected from "the gays." I guess it makes sense that conservatives would be attracted to the military environment. And there's guns, so many guns!!!

The past eight years have been a Bush love-fest. It's gross. He can do no wrong and I've endured way too many "discussions" about how going into Iraq was the right thing to do. But, I can feel the pendulum swinging back in the other direction. For people that have taken the "support the president or fuck off" attitude, they're surprisingly ready to shed that mentality. Ok, it's not surprising, but it's so hypocritical, it makes my head spin!

Well, I've been supporting the Constitution all along. It's not about the President, and it never should have been. So, you want to know what I'm doing here? The same thing I've always been doing here: exercising my right to serve my country and defend the Constitution. If you don't like that, well, fuck off.

Dave Chappelle Was Right...

I’m having a hard time with this presidential campaign. Not that it’s unexpected, but this is such an outrageously lopsided debate that it makes me want to tear my hair out. Luckily, I’ve been busy with one of the local campaigns, but I’ve decided to come back and address some things.

I’ve heard many times that Barack Obama doesn’t “deserve” to be president. Honestly, no one deserves to be president; people have to earn it. Hillary Clinton thought she deserved to be the Democratic nominee and look what happened to her. Just because you’ve been around for a while doesn’t mean you’re entitled to anything. All achievement must be constantly earned. But, I interpret this comment against Obama two ways.

One, Barack Obama is too young to be president, like there’s some sort of line that every person is in based on age (so, I guess McCain (JSM3) would be at the head of the line). But, like the policy of promotions based on time instead of skill, you won’t end up with the most qualified candidate, just the oldest one. McCain’s been in DC for 26 years and has contributed more to the problems than the solutions, especially in recent years. JSM3 is so entrenched in DC that he’s blinded by reality. Perhaps he should just retire? But this “too young” argument really loses legs considering that Obama can join the AARP in three years. Let’s not act like he’s a child. He’s actually in the prime of his life, with the energy and enthusiasm necessary for the hardest job on earth.

Two, Obama is black. Yea, I’ll say it. Rush Limbaugh was thisclose to dropping the N-word on Obama yesterday (“little black man-child” is pretty damn close). And, every time the Republicans say they don’t want to make this about race, they bring up race and make it about race. So, somehow a Harvard-educated man who is actually of mixed-race cannot be president? Welcome to the 21st century Republicans. I know you’ve spent the past 60 years oppressing minorities, but some manage to slip through and succeed. Weird.

Of course, Dave Chappelle had it right. In my favorite political skit of all time, Chappelle imagines what would have happened if Bush was Black (ok, not just black, but the worst of all African-American stereotypes). It’s hilarious. But, sadly, it’s true. Obama is getting grilled, while McCain gets a free pass (I know I’ve mentioned this media study, but it’s quite shocking). So, race is an issue, and it’s clouding the real issues in this election.

But, on the flip side of the idea that Obama doesn’t deserve the presidency is the idea that somehow John McCain does. So, I thought it would be prudent to look at what JSM3 has done with the other entitlements in his life.

1) John McCain goes to the Naval Academy. Thanks to his father and grandfather, both admirals (or, as the Navy calls them DADmirals), John Sidney the Third was able to circumvent the application process (which is currently in the top 1% of selectivity). So, of course, with an opportunity like that, there’s nothing left to do but squander it. Which McCain did with flying colors. As we all know by now, JSM3 had to call on his father numerous times just to keep him at the Academy. And, we’re all familiar with the number 894 (as in, McCain’s rank out of 899 graduates). Super.

2) John McCain becomes a pilot. Being a pilot is cool. Most people will admit that. However, at the Naval Academy, it’s also well known that in order to become a pilot, one has to work hard an prove that they have respect for the Navy’s time and money. Well, almost everybody. Even though he graduated at the bottom of his class, McCain managed to be selected as a Naval Aviator (I imagine it had something to do with his DADmiral). And again, it was a squandered opportunity. McCain wasn’t just a poor pilot. He sucked. In his time, he crashed five airplanes. I graduated with a kid who was in flight school and came up short on the runway. Guess what? He’s not in flight school any more. He didn’t crash the plane, but he made a serious mistake. So serious that the Navy determined he was no longer eligible to be a pilot. This leads me to the belief that not only did JSM3 believe he was entitled to a prestigious aviation billet, but that nothing should keep him from continuing, even after repeated fuck ups.

3) John McCain cheats on his first wife. Apparently, in McCain’s world, he’s also entitled to a beautiful, wealthy wife. Good thing he married a model. Too bad she was in a devastating car accident. Even though she stayed with him and kept the vigil for him while he was a POW, that apparently doesn’t count. None of that “for better or worse” crap for JSM3. He just wanted better. So, he went out and got himself better. Thirty-four days after officially divorcing his first wife, JSM3 picked up the newer, faster model. I’m not going to judge the age difference, but I am going to judge the 34 days courtship. You know that saying, “once a cheater, always a cheater?” Is that the judgment we need (new slogan: JSM3=Me first)?

4) John McCain goes to the Senate. Ha, ok well, he was elected. Going to work is another question entirely. And, I know I’ve talked about his horrific attendance record before, but it’s very troubling to me. Why would someone who so blatantly shirked his responsibilities be deserving of the Presidency?

I’m really just disgusted with the way this campaign is being handled, though it’s really no different than any other. Unfortunately, we can’t just throw in the towel. We have to redouble our efforts to expose the truth about JSM3: he’s a temperamental hot-head who believes that he’s entitled to anything he wants. He may deride Obama’s ambition, but what of his own? Whatever JSM3 wants, someone in his family has given him. Where has his work been? What has he earned?

So, I’ll leave you with this quote (though from a non-traditional source): According to one classmate, "being on liberty with John McCain was like being in a train wreck." It is unclear what being with McCain during his presidency would be like for the nation. Unfortunately, America has no direct experience from which to draw with a president who was a temperamental son of a distinguished military man and who in college was a temperamental fuck-up who liked to party. What could possibly be so dangerous about that?

Hm, I wonder??

Past Sexism in the Present Military

The other day, I started a discussion about Sen. Jim Webb’s 1979 editorial railing against women in the military. The reaction of the general population? “Get over it.” And it made me wonder, if his statements had been about race instead of gender, would people tell me to let it go already? Doubt it. In the grand scheme of things, the past sexist ravings of a potential Vice Presidential candidate aren’t deal breakers. When I cast my ballot in November, I will be voting for Obama and his message of change. However, I believe that his number two also needs to be an agent of change, and this gives me reason to believe that Sen. Webb is not that person.

If we look at race, we can see what happened with Ron Paul. A series of writings dating back to 1978, penned under his name, espouse extreme racist and anti-Semitic views. And instead of people “getting over it,” they were shocked, outraged and disgusted by these views. Paul has claimed that he is not responsible for those writings and that he is not, nor has he ever been, racist. But, no matter, the damning label stuck. Why should sexism be any different?

I have definitely been berated for my lack of forgiveness towards Webb. People asked me if I believe that no one is allowed to change their mind, if I believe that Sen. Byrd is a still a racist (yes, I do), if I think Hillary Clinton is still a Goldwater Girl (sometimes it seemed like it, but no). I do believe that people can change their minds, but I think it’s harder for them to change their hearts. It also leads me to wonder whether we have to forgive and forget everything a person does as long as they apologize for it. Can a person spew hatred and then apologize when his position is no longer popular? “I said some hateful things in the past. Sorry. Here’s a grand gesture to make up for it.” It’s easy to say something that sounds good. It’s also easy to do something that the public supports, whether or not you believe it. In my mind, Sen. Webb will always be accompanied by a question mark when it comes to women’s rights.

As a minority in both the categories of race and gender, I am “lucky” enough to bear witness to discrimination on both points. As a female in the military, I can tell you that sexism is still alive and well. And while I do my best not to be a victim of sexism, it is constantly simmering right underneath the surface, tainting conversations and altering perceptions. I had an officer on my first ship that would send women off their watch stations if they “smelled too good.” Apparently, the first step to being a “real” sailor is not competency or skill, but smelling as if you’ve never been introduced to soap and deodorant. On a daily basis, women in the military are subjected to words and actions that would shock the civilian world. Actions that would get civilian men fired are acceptable in the military. And women often have no choice but to let it slide, lest they be painted as a whiner who can’t hack it.

I was in the 25th class to graduate women at the United States Naval Academy. No person who graduated in that class was alive before women were allowed into the service academies. Yet, there was constant, prevalent discrimination against and belittling of women. In a world of quotas, every woman’s accomplishment was attributed to “filling a quota” not her personal drive or ability. Men, on the other hand, earned everything they received. After my first midterm grades came out, my company officer, a Lieutenant, looked at the grades, and then looked at me and said “Wow, you actually are smart.” Well, gee thanks. I guess he missed the fact that it’s actually harder for women to be accepted into military academies. Approximately 2% of female applicants are accepted, as opposed to 9% for males.

The anti-female feelings still burn strong at our nation’s service academies. Outwardly, many men support women in the military, but behind closed doors, the sentiments are different. I will always be wary of someone who was so passionately against something that they now support. And, allowing women to hold more integrated and combat related roles in the military is still a battle. I don’t consider myself a super-feminist and I’ve been known to speak out against preferential treatment towards women. I believe that it only hinders our advancement and breeds resentment among men. While I attended the Naval Academy, the superintendent took bold steps to advance women, including the outlaw of derogatory terms and even changing the words in the alma mater. I’ve personally spoken with men who are angry and resentful towards women for changing “their” school. One of my neighbors was a 1958 grad who is against women in the military, but liked me and believed in me. He has yet to come around to fully support women in the military, but through me he saw that women were, in fact, compatible with the beliefs and teachings of the Naval Academy.

I think that when a majority of people look at the editorial by Sen. Webb and then his consequent actions, they see enough of a “change” to let it go. I think that these are also people who have never actually been through this warped world. When I look at Sen. Webb, I see someone who was passionately against women in the military. When I read his words, I feel the hatred and derision rising up from the page. I also see a political death trap. Jim Webb has been running from these words since the day he wrote them. What I see is someone trying to compensate for hatred that hides in his heart. I know the two-faced, politically convenient positions that men have taken over the years, and to me, Sen. Webb is no different.

I may never believe that Sen. Webb has truly had a change of heart. His position shift stinks of political convenience not genuine feeling. Unfortunately for Sen. Webb, his 1979 remarks were made at a time when women had demonstrated their competence and ability in technical and leadership positions. He is the one that opened his mouth and let his sexism show. He may see now that women are an integral part of our nation’s fighting force, but that will never fully excuse him from his past behavior. Has he repented? Yes. Willingly and whole-heartedly? We’ll never know. I will always doubt the sincerity of Sen. Webb’s subsequent actions regarding women in the military. It may be unfair or small-minded of me, but I treat claims of reformed sexism the same way I treat those of reformed racism, with skepticism and hesitation.

Click Here To Read Webb's Essay