Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only holdover in the Obama cabinet from the Bush Administration, believes that homosexuals no longer need to lie to serve in our military. He shares his opinion with Adm. Mike Mullen, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who also happens to be a Bush appointee. And the Commander in Chief himself, Barack Obama, sides with his two highest ranking military and civilian Defense Department leaders on this subject. The president supports the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell."
Well, so do I. Of course, I'm not an expert like Gates, Mullen or Obama, but I am a newspaper columnist. Over the past few weeks, three regular columnists for this paper and dozens of columnists for other papers across the country have weighed in on this controversial issue. More than a few of us think we know what we're writing about.
Again, I'm not an expert, but unlike most of said columnists, I did spend the better part of the past decade as an active duty member of the U.S. Armed Forces and I've even met Adm. Mullen a few times (I was in the same Naval Academy class as his daughter).
My personal experiences at the U.S. Naval Academy and as a Naval Officer on a ship deployed to combat zones taught me that "Don't ask, don't tell" currently exists as little more than a muffled joke. Attitudes may be different in other units, but the supposed threat of homosexuality was never much of a concern in my berthing spaces, divisions or departments.
Every man and woman I served alongside shared a devout belief in our country and our cause. Our biggest personnel concerns centered on Marines and Sailors who failed to meet job and training requirements. We did not lose sleep thinking about what our peers in arms might be doing in their bedrooms while on leave.
I served alongside a number of fellow junior officers who were fairly openly homosexual. Some of them remain on active duty and continue to be friends with my wife and me. I led a division with known homosexuals in its ranks. None of these men or women spoke to our commanding officer about their sexual preferences, but even if they had, I doubt it would have mattered.
A popular story -- or perhaps a base myth -- circulated throughout the waterfront during my time at Pearl Harbor. A skilled Boatswain's mate was unhappy with his chief and wanted out of the Navy a few years before his most recent enlistment was complete. The Boatswain asked for and was granted a meeting with the captain of his ship. Once inside the captain's stateroom, he revealed the lurid details of his ongoing romance with another man. As the story goes, the captain listened patiently before finally responding, "If you were a dirtbag like seaman so-and-so, I would believe you, but you're too well-trained and too good at your job. I'll dismiss this little lie without punishment. Now, get back to work."
Regardless of what happens to "Don't ask, don't tell," homosexuals will continue to serve in our military. While outsiders insist that homosexuals currently serve only in secret, I know from experience that some don't. I also know from experience that sexual orientation is not a problem in many units.
Racial intolerance is a rare problem, and it is handled with a strict zero-tolerance policy. So is sexual harassment. Gates, Mullen and Obama recognize that their military effectively protects our freedoms, even if the "n-word" or "c-word" leads to the occasional court martial of a bigot.
They realize that adding a gay slur to that court martial list will only make our military stronger.
Surveys show that the majority of us who have served in the War on Terror are ready to go to bat for all of our brothers and sisters in arms, no matter who happens to welcome them home from deployment with a kiss.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Best alternative to airport security? Try the Vegas and France models
Just weeks after the end of a sometimes bitter and nasty political season, we're finally starting to see a little bipartisanship... Well, at least on one issue: a uniform disdain for the newly "enhanced" airport screening process.
I found it foolish and a little humiliating when I was first asked to take off my shoes in the airport security line. In the era of full-body scanners and intensive pat-downs, placing one's shoes on a conveyor belt no longer seems so bad.
The pat-down videos popping up on the Internet are as cringe-worthy as fingernails on a chalkboard. Passing through the new TSA airport screening process now falls somewhere between being frisked by the police and having the doctor check for a hernia on my list of experiences I want to avoid if at all possible.
The hassle and humiliation of the screening process is paradoxically intended to ease our minds. Enhanced screening procedures make air travel "safer," the TSA claims.
But air travel has always come with an element of danger. Although it's exceedingly rare, passenger airplanes do crash from time to time. And even the new full-body scanners and borderline groping pat-downs cannot find explosives hidden within a body cavity.
If a deranged radical terrorist wants to wreck havoc on a flight, he will find a way to get through security. These new procedures might make it a little bit more difficult, but I can't imagine there being too many radical nutjobs now saying to themselves, "Well, I was going to try to blow up a jetliner in a suicide mission, but these new security measures are too much to do deal with... I think I'll just go to the beach instead."
Even "enhanced" security is fallible. We know this and we fly, anyway. We subject ourselves to the humiliating screening process because flying is convenient. It works with our schedules. Instead of taking three days to drive from the west coast back home to Peachtree City to enjoy Thanksgiving with our families, we work a half day Wednesday and then fly out that afternoon.
Just hours later, we're home for the holidays. To many, the convenience of air travel is indispensable.
By contrast, if a restaurant were to employ the same screening process airports use, it would probably need to serve the best food in the world, or it would go out of business in a week.
I can think of two much more palatable alternatives to the hysteria of modern American airport security.
One is the Las Vegas model. Big casinos employ some of the tightest security standards on the planet, yet almost all of it remains hidden behind the scenes.
Security personnel constantly monitor hundreds of cameras. The officers are highly trained to recognize suspicious activity and their plain-clothesmen colleagues on the casino floor can appear instantly out of seemingly nowhere to nip a potential incident or crime in the bud.
The same style could be effective at airports. Run the passengers through a metal detector (shoes on), send their bags through image screeners and let the casino-style pros take it from there. Then put a couple of highly trained and armed air marshals on each flight.
Maybe this type of comprehensive security already takes place inside our airports, but if so, the new invasive passenger screenings are all the more ridiculous and humiliating.
My other solution is the European model. Well, it's technically not a solution to invasive airport screening procedures. It's a way for us to avoid airports. In Europe, employees earn about 40 days of paid vacation and holidays each year. Work weeks are capped at 48 hours by law. If we Americans weren't so tied to our jobs, we might be more inclined to spend an off day in transit. Cars, trains, buses and even boats have their charms and none require TSA checkpoints to use.
I found it foolish and a little humiliating when I was first asked to take off my shoes in the airport security line. In the era of full-body scanners and intensive pat-downs, placing one's shoes on a conveyor belt no longer seems so bad.
The pat-down videos popping up on the Internet are as cringe-worthy as fingernails on a chalkboard. Passing through the new TSA airport screening process now falls somewhere between being frisked by the police and having the doctor check for a hernia on my list of experiences I want to avoid if at all possible.
The hassle and humiliation of the screening process is paradoxically intended to ease our minds. Enhanced screening procedures make air travel "safer," the TSA claims.
But air travel has always come with an element of danger. Although it's exceedingly rare, passenger airplanes do crash from time to time. And even the new full-body scanners and borderline groping pat-downs cannot find explosives hidden within a body cavity.
If a deranged radical terrorist wants to wreck havoc on a flight, he will find a way to get through security. These new procedures might make it a little bit more difficult, but I can't imagine there being too many radical nutjobs now saying to themselves, "Well, I was going to try to blow up a jetliner in a suicide mission, but these new security measures are too much to do deal with... I think I'll just go to the beach instead."
Even "enhanced" security is fallible. We know this and we fly, anyway. We subject ourselves to the humiliating screening process because flying is convenient. It works with our schedules. Instead of taking three days to drive from the west coast back home to Peachtree City to enjoy Thanksgiving with our families, we work a half day Wednesday and then fly out that afternoon.
Just hours later, we're home for the holidays. To many, the convenience of air travel is indispensable.
By contrast, if a restaurant were to employ the same screening process airports use, it would probably need to serve the best food in the world, or it would go out of business in a week.
I can think of two much more palatable alternatives to the hysteria of modern American airport security.
One is the Las Vegas model. Big casinos employ some of the tightest security standards on the planet, yet almost all of it remains hidden behind the scenes.
Security personnel constantly monitor hundreds of cameras. The officers are highly trained to recognize suspicious activity and their plain-clothesmen colleagues on the casino floor can appear instantly out of seemingly nowhere to nip a potential incident or crime in the bud.
The same style could be effective at airports. Run the passengers through a metal detector (shoes on), send their bags through image screeners and let the casino-style pros take it from there. Then put a couple of highly trained and armed air marshals on each flight.
Maybe this type of comprehensive security already takes place inside our airports, but if so, the new invasive passenger screenings are all the more ridiculous and humiliating.
My other solution is the European model. Well, it's technically not a solution to invasive airport screening procedures. It's a way for us to avoid airports. In Europe, employees earn about 40 days of paid vacation and holidays each year. Work weeks are capped at 48 hours by law. If we Americans weren't so tied to our jobs, we might be more inclined to spend an off day in transit. Cars, trains, buses and even boats have their charms and none require TSA checkpoints to use.
Be thankful the new third party is on the right
During an era of great economic and social strife, a loud, angry and rapidly growing segment of the U.S. electorate split from its traditional political leaders and rallied behind a young, charismatic and populist governor from a relatively obscure U.S. state. This new leader made headlines across the country for sharply criticizing career politicians, endorsing outsider candidates and championing the common man.
Those who agreed with this rising political star viewed the governor as a presidential candidate who would do nothing short of save our great nation. Those who detested the populist leader's ideas were equally as loud and went out of their way to discredit and brush aside the new movement's adherents.
The scenario I describe above is not a unique one in American history. It accurately characterizes both Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement of today and former Louisiana governor Huey Long's rise in an off-shoot of the Democratic Party in the 1930's. Substitute the word 'congressman' for 'governor' and it applies to William Jennings Bryan in the late 1800's as well.
While the political climate leading to the rise of ‘The Kingfish’ and ‘Mama Grizzly’ seem to share common roots, the political ideas driving the two movements -- both billed as the means by which everyday working folks could “take back” their country -- could not be more different.
To Long, “taking back” America meant attacking New Deal policies from the left, redistributing wealth, reigning in corporations and consolidating power in the public sector.
To Palin and the Tea Party, “taking back” America means attacking Bush-era policies from the right, slashing government spending, cutting taxes and consolidating power in the private sector.
The fact that two such vastly different political waves could emerge under supposedly similar circumstances tells me that below the surface, the circumstances aren’t really all that similar.
The recession continues to cause suffering in countless households across the country, but it bears little resemblance to the Great Depression of the 1930’s.
When Long rose to prominence in Louisiana, his state contained just 300 miles of paved roads. About 60-percent of the state’s residents lived in dire poverty with no government assistance. One in four of his state’s adults could not read and a poll tax kept 170,000 of Louisiana’s 2 million residents from registering to vote. Similar conditions plagued many states throughout the country. Long became a folk hero and presidential candidate by bullying his way toward solutions to many of those grave and widespread socio-economic ills (you could call him the pitbull sans lipstick).
Palin’s rise has occurred amid the so-called ‘Great Recession,’ during which the vast majority of Americans continue to live in relative wealth and comfort. Government assistance provides safety nets for the elderly, unemployed and hungry. Unlike the 1930’s, very few, if any, Americans face real threats of starvation. In 1932, just 11-percent of rural homes were wired with electricity. Today, one would be hard pressed to find a home anywhere in the U.S. lacking a television and other modern appliances -- no matter how underwater its mortgage might be.
Unlike Long, Palin owes her national status more to celebrity, not actual policy nor power. The Tea Party movement does not promise to fix any grave social and economic ills, mostly because few still exist -- at least not nearly to the degree that they once did.
The populist masses of the Tea Party are mostly firmly entrenched in the middle class, unlike Long’s poor adherents from eight decades ago. The Tea Partiers are angry because they fear the waning of American exceptionalism. Seventy years after the Great Depression eased and the era of American prosperity dawned, they see other countries catching up. They sense the shining American dream stuttering in idle.
While Long’s scapegoats were corporate greed, corrupt officials and the wealthy establishment media, Palin’s are the government, illegal immigrants and the liberal media.
The rise of the Tea Party and its Alaskan leader is not a new phenomenom.
That such a movement has now emerged from the political right shows how far we’ve come socially and economically over the past century.
While I don’t agree with much I hear coming from the Tea Party crowd, I’m certainly thankful to be living in an era when the popular outcry demands less -- not more -- from our government.
Things could always be better, but we’ve come a long, long way since ‘The Kingfish’s’ day.
Those who agreed with this rising political star viewed the governor as a presidential candidate who would do nothing short of save our great nation. Those who detested the populist leader's ideas were equally as loud and went out of their way to discredit and brush aside the new movement's adherents.
The scenario I describe above is not a unique one in American history. It accurately characterizes both Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement of today and former Louisiana governor Huey Long's rise in an off-shoot of the Democratic Party in the 1930's. Substitute the word 'congressman' for 'governor' and it applies to William Jennings Bryan in the late 1800's as well.
While the political climate leading to the rise of ‘The Kingfish’ and ‘Mama Grizzly’ seem to share common roots, the political ideas driving the two movements -- both billed as the means by which everyday working folks could “take back” their country -- could not be more different.
To Long, “taking back” America meant attacking New Deal policies from the left, redistributing wealth, reigning in corporations and consolidating power in the public sector.
To Palin and the Tea Party, “taking back” America means attacking Bush-era policies from the right, slashing government spending, cutting taxes and consolidating power in the private sector.
The fact that two such vastly different political waves could emerge under supposedly similar circumstances tells me that below the surface, the circumstances aren’t really all that similar.
The recession continues to cause suffering in countless households across the country, but it bears little resemblance to the Great Depression of the 1930’s.
When Long rose to prominence in Louisiana, his state contained just 300 miles of paved roads. About 60-percent of the state’s residents lived in dire poverty with no government assistance. One in four of his state’s adults could not read and a poll tax kept 170,000 of Louisiana’s 2 million residents from registering to vote. Similar conditions plagued many states throughout the country. Long became a folk hero and presidential candidate by bullying his way toward solutions to many of those grave and widespread socio-economic ills (you could call him the pitbull sans lipstick).
Palin’s rise has occurred amid the so-called ‘Great Recession,’ during which the vast majority of Americans continue to live in relative wealth and comfort. Government assistance provides safety nets for the elderly, unemployed and hungry. Unlike the 1930’s, very few, if any, Americans face real threats of starvation. In 1932, just 11-percent of rural homes were wired with electricity. Today, one would be hard pressed to find a home anywhere in the U.S. lacking a television and other modern appliances -- no matter how underwater its mortgage might be.
Unlike Long, Palin owes her national status more to celebrity, not actual policy nor power. The Tea Party movement does not promise to fix any grave social and economic ills, mostly because few still exist -- at least not nearly to the degree that they once did.
The populist masses of the Tea Party are mostly firmly entrenched in the middle class, unlike Long’s poor adherents from eight decades ago. The Tea Partiers are angry because they fear the waning of American exceptionalism. Seventy years after the Great Depression eased and the era of American prosperity dawned, they see other countries catching up. They sense the shining American dream stuttering in idle.
While Long’s scapegoats were corporate greed, corrupt officials and the wealthy establishment media, Palin’s are the government, illegal immigrants and the liberal media.
The rise of the Tea Party and its Alaskan leader is not a new phenomenom.
That such a movement has now emerged from the political right shows how far we’ve come socially and economically over the past century.
While I don’t agree with much I hear coming from the Tea Party crowd, I’m certainly thankful to be living in an era when the popular outcry demands less -- not more -- from our government.
Things could always be better, but we’ve come a long, long way since ‘The Kingfish’s’ day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
