Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Recently I read a commentary by a civilian pundit (I don't recall her name) who said that civil rights isn't the main issue in repealing DADT, unit cohesion is. She mentioned that that she had never served in the armed forces, yet still stated this "fact" with confidence.

As a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, allow me to politely disagree.

Unit cohesion is the responsibility of the unit commander. Repealing DADT may or may not increase the challenge of that charge, but, by itself, will not affect it. That's not the issue at all, period. The issue IS civil rights.

In 1941, blacks were forbidden to enlist in the US Marine Corps. General Holcomb, the Corps commandant at that time, said, "If it were a question of having a Marine Corps of 5,000 whites or 250,000 Negroes, I would rather have the whites." According to Morris MacGregor in Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965, "Black enlistment was impractical, he told one civil rights group, because the Marine Corps was too small to form racially separate units." (chap. 4) President Roosevelt ordered the Navy to enlist black troops, and, under orders, Holcomb complied. Under Truman, desegregation continued, and the Korean War was, I believe, the first to see racially integrated units in action. When I joined the Marine Corps in 1979, 30 years after racial integration of the Armed Forces, one of the first scenes I witnessed in boot camp was a fistfight between a white man and a black man – which was, of course, racially motivated. And it wasn't the only one I witnessed. Nevertheless, the leadership I witnessed in the Marine Corps did what it had to do to make sure that, regardless of racial tension, the units worked together. To their credit, they did a pretty good job of it.

The point is that, in a democracy, the civil government takes precedence over the military leadership. The president – a civilian – is the head of the military, for the very good reason that the military should be placed in service to the civil and civilian purpose. As Roosevelt and Truman understood, it is the job of the military to do as the civilian establishment dictates, not the other way 'round.

To show how this basic tenet of democracy has been twisted, according to the Washington Post, three years ago John McCain deferred to the military: "A former war hero, McCain said he would support ending the ban once the military's top brass told him that they agreed with the change."
McCain knows (or should know) about unit cohesion, and he should have a good grounding in the Constitution and the American, democratic theory of government – yet he deferred to the military. The Human Rights Campaign uses the military brass's coming out in favor of repealing DADT as if that were relevant to the issue. And, as noted, the pundit who inspired this post believes that the issue is "unit cohesion," that effectiveness of the military is the concern; she has been so deceived by the recent deferral of civilian leadership to military leadership that she believes that order is correct.

Failure of unit cohesion in the military is not caused by the diversity of the members making up the unit. It's caused by a failure of leadership. It is irrelevant to the issue of repealing DADT, and where it happens, the officer (and/or NCO) in charge should be disciplined and/or replaced.

In fact, there is one issue relevant to repealing DADT: civil rights. DADT is a moral travesty. It is the ethical and moral obligation and responsibility of the civilian leadership of this country, the president and congress, to order the military brass to integrate LGBT people into the military. It is the duty of military leadership to see that it is done without compromising unit cohesion or mission effectiveness.

Believe me, they're up to the task.

Repudiation

There are aspects of the language that Keith Olbermann uses in this video that I don't care for, but I respect what he says.

The history of this nation is clear. That history shows that the McCain/Palin campaign, whether intentionally or not, is inciting violence. They are putting Mr. Obama's life in danger. And that is, in my opinion, far worse than the warning Mr. Lewis recently issued, that that is exactly what McCain is doing.

If I were not already an Obama supporter, this would make me one.

I truly hope that the American people will rise up and repudiate the McCain/Palin ticket on November 4th. We are a better nation than this.

Peace.

Obama & McCain – Debate Dizziness

I listened to the debate between Obama and McCain last night just enough to get thoroughly disgusted. It didn't take long.

First there was the issue of taxes. I was disappointed to hear Obama say that he disliked them. It sounds like he's bought into the Republican meme that "taxes are bad, and everyone hates them." I've blogged on this before. It's true that the federal government misspends a huge amount of taxes (the military budget), but taxes themselves are good things, they're really cool, and every year I enjoy writing out the check to the state (though not the feds – see above). This distaste for taxes, born in the myths of the Boston Tea Party and Republican wet dreams of drowning government in the bathtub, is what got us $10 trillion in debt.

So both candidates are going to cut taxes left and right (though at least Obama would raise them on the wealthiest Americans). And balance the budget. Uh, huh. This Republican fantasy has been around for 30 years now, and it's time to get over it. Try it in your personal finances. It doesn't work. If we want to either "fix the problems" this country has, or create the country we want, it's time to raise taxes and cut spending, and the place to start cutting is the military budget – half of the entire world's. I believe in a strong military. So let's cut the military budget by $300 billion, so that we'll have the biggest, most expensive, best trained military in the world. We can start by withdrawing garrisons from dozens of countries around the world, and eliminating Star Wars.

Second, both candidates are fixated on "solving our problems." I bought into this mindset recently, so I can't criticize too much here, but it's recently become clear to me, through watching people like Kristin create her life, and now reading The Path of Least Resistance, by Robert Fritz, that that mindset will not get us where we need to go. We need to switch that mindset to one in which we ask ourselves, what kind of country would we like – and then set out to create it.

Think about that for a second. How would it be if, instead of saying, "Omigod! Look at this horrible economic meltdown! We've gotta rush around madly and fix it right now!" we said, "Okay, what kind of country do we want to create? Let's figure that out, then we'll look at our current economic meltdown situation, and figure out how to create it from here."

Which mindset do you suppose is going to get a better end result? And have more fun getting there?

As Douglas MacArthur once said, "There is no security on this earth. There is only opportunity."

Of course, even with my disappointment with Obama, my support for him remains unchanged. He's obviously less delusional about taxes than his opponent, he's definitely more creative, and he'll select Supreme Court justices far superior to those McCain would choose. If anything happens to him, his vice president is at least competent. And I would SO much prefer that Obama get that 3 a.m. call on the red telephone!

(As an aside, this quote from MSNBC's debate coverage really floored me: "The financial crisis — an unforeseen and unimaginable event, ..." Anybody who's spent any time studying history - especially the economic policies of Coolidge & Hoover - should have been expecting it. Likewise anyone who's studied economics (at least, who's been reading Krugman instead of Friedman). Lots of us were. A guy named Kunstler wrote a book more or less predicting it a number of years ago, called The Long Emergency. Well, perhaps the writer was stuck in a Fox News information vacuum....)

Arabs

Am I the only one, or does anyone else out there find this exchange from a recent McCain rally as disturbing as I do?

["I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:

"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."]

I think if I were an Arab, I'd be rather offended. As a European-American, I just feel very sad.

I know some Arabs and Muslims. My friend Noor identifies with Mohammed Atta about as much as I identify with Tim McVeigh or Bull Connor. The Arabs and Iranians I know are peaceful, honest, hardworking, "decent, family" people.

I give credit to McCain here for trying to correct the impression about Obama, and I don't think he was intentionally speaking out against anyone. Yet by choosing not to confront the comment about Arabs, he reinforced a stereotype that Arabs can't be trusted, and implied that they aren't decent, family people, as well.

But the saddest of all is that this attitude is common in my country. I am glad I'm not an Arab-American right now, but I want all Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans to know that I support you. I believe in you. I will speak in your defense. I will judge you by the "content of your character," and not by your religion, your ethnicity, or the color of your skin.

And right now, I grieve for my nation. I feel so sad to see this violent rhetoric split us apart.

Blessings upon you all, and on us. May there be peace.

A New Low for the RSM

We live in interesting times – markets crashing, the specter of extremist Islamic terrorism, and the first African-American presidential candidate of a major party leading in the polls. We also have a long history of violence, racism, assassinations, and domestic terrorism, such as. So I feel a particular disgust with the rhetoric recently coming out of the McCain camp and the Republican Smear Machine equating Barack Obama with terrorism.

This is a tactic that would be disgusting if we had a history entirely devoid of violence and racism. But given our history – given the Birmingham church bombing that killed four young girls back in 1963; given the assassinations of Martin Luther King, JFK, RFK, and even the attempt at Ronald Reagan's life; given the long history of lynchings and the Ku Klux Klan; and given the understandable national reaction to the extreme terrorist attack of 9/11, this goes beyond disgusting. It is, whether intentionally or not, incitement to violence. Members of the Republican Party are provoking an assassination attempt on a candidate for president of the United States.

Perhaps it's just habit, going back to the successful race-baiting tactics of Lee Atwater, through the more recent lies of the Swift Boat campaign. But McCain's strategists are intelligent, careful, and experienced at manipulating voters and the public. I have a hard time believing they don't know what they're doing. They should be aware that 9/11 and the color of Mr. Obama's skin change everything.

McCain and Palin are currently conducting a campaign that is without honor. It is vile. It is unworthy of a veteran and war hero of this nation.

It seems that Mr. McCain is becoming aware of that. I just hope that he can defuse the situation before it becomes something he cannot control at all.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama, please – keep your head down. Wear a bullet-proof vest everywhere you go.

My prayers for your safety go with you.

The 'Financial Crisis' in Plain English

Rachel says it better than I can:



Thanks, Sara

Socializing Risk, Privitizing Profit

I've only got a few minutes before walking the dog and getting ready for work, so I'll make this quick.

This $600 billion bailout of AIG and the financial industry is just the natural outcome of the Republican Reverse Robin Hood economic policy. It's the same stuff that we saw starting way back in the late '80's with the S&L bailout, when John McCain was one of the Keating Five, the corrupt and/or foolish senators who aided Keating in ripping off the American public. Since Reagan came into office the Republicans have been screaming, "deregulate, deregulate, privatize, privatize, free market," blah, blah. But when deregulation chickens come home to roost, it's "help! Bail us out! Quick! Don't stop to think about it, just give us all your money!" It's remarkably similar to the economic policies of the Republican administrations of the 'teens and '20's that so effectively set up the Great Depression.

It's funny how providing universal health insurance, which benefits everyone except the ultra-rich, is socialism, but giving 600 billion taxpayer dollars to reward greed, incompetence, and reckless speculation is just 'the free market at work.' The Republicans talk a great line about individual responsibility and fiscal responsibility, but their economic policies reward exactly the opposite, and ultimately rob the poor and the middle class to reward the richest of the rich. We have individuals in this country who control more wealth than the entire net worth of some small countries.

I don't mind socializing risk, if profit is socialized, too. Whatever works.

This system is not working.

I really hope that our legislators don't get into a big hurry to fix this and pass a bill before the election. My advice to them is, take your time. We don't need a financial version of the invasion of Iraq or PATRIOT Act.

The sad thing is, President Clinton, the one Democrat we've had since Carter, pushed the same reverse Robin Hood economic policy as the GOP. I just hope President Obama shows better sense, and models himself after someone like FDR instead.

Another MoveOn Move

Okay, here's another one of MoveOn.org's email links. This one's a little quiz to link McCain & Bush. The manipulation is blatant and irritating. Unfortunately, it also seems pretty much on the money. Not that McCain would be as bad as Bush – I think…

At least he's open about wanting to continue to occupy Iraq for the rest of all our lives.

Go, Obama!

Some Wars Are Just Plain Wrong

I'm a lukewarm member of Moveon.org. There are things I like about the organization – it's been anti-war from the start, and it supports Democrats rather than Republicans. And there are things I don't like. I don't like their language, the divisive way they attack, the mindset that is so – well, so GOP vile. So I don't donate cash to them, and usually don't get involved in their political ploys.

This time, they've asked their members to publish this video on our blogs. I feel a little torn about it, on the one hand, because I don't find the language particularly connective, and I'd much rather run a positive campaign about 'us,' rather than a negative one about 'them.' Even better, would be to run a positive campaign about 'us.'

I'm publishing this video ad, ultimately, because this invasion and occupation of Iraq is just wrong. It is a national disgrace. It's worth a bit of a reminder how we got here. I don't know how to clean it up, how to regain honor – do we get out now? Try to support the people there? I don't know. But I do know this – I don't want a Republican in charge of it. This country is badly in need of a change, and McCain and Clinton are not change agents enough, and Obama likely isn't either. We need the national recognition that the Iraq occupation is wrong, and Obama and Moveon.org both recognized that long before the other two contenders.

May god have mercy on our poor nation. We're gonna need it.