Gunfighter: A Modern Warrior's Life

Happy Hanukkah!

In the second century BCE, during the Maccabean revolt, Hebrew rebels  ousted the forces of Antiochus IV from the Temple, but discovered that there was only one container of oil that was still sealed by the High Priest. 

There wasn't much oil, and it was expected that there would only be enough to keep the Temple lamp lit for one day. 

Miraculously, that oil lasted eight days.

A Modern Warrior's Life extends best Hanukkah wishes to all of our Jewish brothers and sisters.

(and what would Hanukkah be for a Goy like me, without this)

 

 

 

 

Tasers & The Use of Force

If you have never been to my blog before, welcome!

Let me give you a little relevant background information about myself: I am a Trainer for a law enforcement agency, and have been doing this for thirteen years. My primary focus is combat firearms and the Use of Force.

I live and work in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC.

In the past several months, the use of TASER weapons by law enforcement officers nation-wide, has come under the microscope of many Americans.  The proliferation of websites (none of which I will grace with additional exposure) that spend their time ranting against cops is just one such societal indicator of the concern that is felt by so many citizens.

Today, I am taking part in a day of action... or a blog blast on the issue of TASER use in America.  This say is sponsored by my friend Wayne, from The Electronic Village.

Considering what I do for a living, It probably won't surprise any of you that I fully support the use of TASERs as an effective tool in law enforcement.  A TASER, properly employed, tends to result in less harm to a non-compliant suspect, and in increased protection for law enforcement personnel as well as the general public... but more about that later.

When discussing the use of these weapons, we use the term TASER which has become common even thought the term TASER is an acronym for Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle (Tom Swift being a fictional hero of the inventor of the device).  Later, the name TASER became the brand name for the manufacturer of the most commonly used version of this class of weapons.   Where I work, the term we use for this sort of product is a bit more usage-specific.  We call them "Electronic Defense Modules".  Well, no matter what you call them, the effect is the same, which brings us to our discussion of where TASERs fall in the so-called force continuum, and it's application.

Before we even get to the heart of all of this, we need to have at least some grounding in when, why, and how police officers are supposed to use force while on duty, and there is no other way to get at that than to have a discussion on the law. 

The law. 

Let me state, right from the beginning.  I am not a lawyer.  I don't claim to be an expert on the subject of the law.  What I am doing here, is giving you an overview of some legal aspects of the use of force by police officers.  Nothing that I say here should be construed as some sort of legal consultation.  Nor am I acting in my official capacity as a lawman... I am merely having a discussion with some friends on a subject that I know something about.

How's that for a disclaimer?

Oh.  Wait, there's more:  Nothing included in this post should suggest that I am speaking on behalf of any U.S. governmental agency or organization, or that my opinions reflect those of any agency, organization, or official.

Are we clear? Ok, let's get down.

It breaks down like this: The use of force by police officers in the U.S. is governed by two particular Supreme Court cases. Those cases are Graham v. Connor (use of force in general), and Tennessee v. Garner (the use of deadly force by police). These decisions are at the heart of all discussions on whether or not a particular instance of the use of force was lawful. Please note that lawful doesn't necessarily coincide with "authorized".

In the case of Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the use of force by an officer, upon a "seized, free citizen" will be based on the standard of "objective reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The court stated that "based on a totality of circumstances the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight and the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowances for the facts that police officers are often forced to make split second decisions in circumstances which are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving."

The reasonableness of the officer's decision will be based on the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time force was used. What was determined or discovered after force was used cannot be used to justify or condemn the use of force.

Please understand something, right from the start, no law in this country requires that a cop has to be right when he or she uses force on whatever level. That's right, we don't have to be right. We only need to be "Reasonable". That's the law, friends. Was a particular use of force reasonable for the officer given the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the incident?  That's it.

Let's talk for a little while about some of the things that will drive an officer's decisions on the use of force. These things include, but are not limited to the severity of the crime; was the suspect an immediate threat; was the suspect actively resisting arrest, or evading arrest by flight? Those are some of the things that might drive the decision of whether or not to use force.

Some factors that may drive an officer's decision on how much force to use are listed here:

Use of alcohol or drugs

Mental or Psychiatric History

Size, weight, age, condition of the officer and/or suspect

Availability to weapons

Officer to suspect ratio

History of violence

Previous use of force resulting in injury

Duration of the action

Presence of bystanders

These things (and more) are what an officer has to make decisions about when deciding what level of force/she may have to apply.  I could talk about each one of these things individually, but that would take more time than I have to type them.  Having said that, if you should need further explanation on any of those factors, please ask me either by comment or email, and I will explain more fully.

OK, now would be a good time to talk about the early application of force.  There are times when an an officer may, and indeed should, use force early on in a confrontation.  The early application of force generally results in less force used by officers, fewer injuries to the officer AND suspect.  The early application of force should happen when a suspect becomes non-compliant, or gives any pre-assault indicators, such as assuming a fighting stance.

Remember... "force" can mean different things, so let's pause for a moment to talk about them.  Where I work, there are five separate levels of force, and the are:

Officer Presence - The ability to effect or change behavior based on presence/appearance alone.

Verbal Commands - Firm, clear, concise directions

Soft Techniques - Minimal chance of injury eg; "come along" holds, Pressure points, electronic defense modules, chemical agents.

Hard Techniques -Greater chance of injury, eg; Strikes, kicks, blows, throws, take-downs, & impact weapons

Deadly Force - Any force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.

As you can see, electronic defense modules, or TASERs, for our purposes, fall under soft techniques, because when properly used, they generally result in minimal (if any) injury.

Now, having discussed the levels of force, let's talk about what so many people refer to as the "Force Continuum".  That term usually refers to some sort of matrix that shows what an officer's reaction should be to certain behaviors by a suspect.  There are many variations of the continuum and I have added an illustration here to give you an example of what they look like:

The diagram that you see above, used to be in common use in federal law enforcement, but is now a relic.  It is a relic because it gave students that notion that each step in the "pyramid" had to be exhausted before an officer could move to the next level of force.  That notion couldn't be further from the truth. 

Now, this is where the discussion frequently gets ugly, and strays from the factual into the realm of perspective and strong opinion.  There are people who believe TASERs to be weapons of torture, used by police officers as punishment... as a "torture" device, based on the fact that it's use causes extreme pain.  I disagree vehemently with this assertion. 

When using TASERs (a soft technique), cops are no more using them as a torture devices than they would use an expandable steel baton (a hard technique) to strike someone.  It's that simple.  Yes, simple.

Let's move a little further and talk a little more about deadly force, since the number of TASER-related deaths are at the heart of the wider discussion on TASERs and their use.  Many of the folks involved in this discussion want TASERs banned.  Many want TASERs to re-classified as "near deadly force" weapons.  I say that these things are unnecessary because TASERs rarely kill.  Yes, I know, any unintended death is a bad thing, but generally speaking, TASERs rarely result in the death of a suspect.

Let's talk a little more about what deadly force is... and ins't

Deadly Force

• The use of any force that is likely to cause death or

serious physical injury.

 

Serious Physical Injury

• A substantial risk of death

• Extreme/protracted physical pain 

Protracted and obvious disfigurement

• Protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily

member, organ, or mental faculty

You see, when force is used and it unexpectedly results in death, the force level hasn't necessarily changed.  For instance, if I were to get in a fistfight with a subject, and a punch in to his face caused a sudden stroke which killed him, I haven't used deadly force... I have used a hard technique that resulted in unexpected death.  An unexpected death isn't deadly force just because someone died.

The point that I am trying to make with all of this is that all sorts of weapons can kill.  All sorts of empty hand techniques can kill, weapons designated as "less lethal" (not NON-lethal) can kill... but it is important to remember what deadly force is:  Force which is LIKELY to cause death or serious physical injury.  TASERs don't fit that description.

TASERs aren't the devil.  Cops that use them aren't the devil, either.  If fewer people entered into public disturbances or violent confrontations, TASERs wouldn't be used as much, subsequently reducing the number of TASER-related deaths, nation-wide.  

TASERs save lives.  Sometimes they take lives, too.  It's sad, but there it is.

I regularly give our officers and agents a presentation on the Use of Force... it is an annual requirement where I work.  The presentation is about ninety minutes... I hope that the shortened version tat you see here helps in some small way.  If you have questions, contact me via comments or email.

 

Thoughts On Health Care Reform

Can we talk? 

Comedienne Joan Rivers used to use that line in her stand-up act... and probably still does... I can't be sure since I haven't heard one of her routines in years.  Anyway, once upon a time, I used to think that Rivers was quite funny.  I wish I could laugh now.

We need to talk, you and I.  We need to talk, particularly if you are an American who is steadfast against the current Health Care Reform bill.  I'm not going to rant, and I am not going to use (too much) hyperbole, but I have to ask you a few questions:

What is going through your minds and the minds of your fellows, turning up at town hall meetings with guns? 

What is going on when people keep screaming about socialism? 

What is going on with your soul when you would be dead-set against a bill that will help provide health insurance to the millions of Americans that can't afford it?

How can you possibly so misinformed about the contents of this bill that you actually take people seriously when they start shrieking about "Death Panels"  I mean, really... you can't believe that, can you?  Really?

Look, I have to tell you something... you folks have been misled.  You've been hoodwinked; bamboozled; flim-flammed.  You have been heinously punk'd.

Now, I know that you'll get mad about what I am going to say, but it doesn't matter, because you people have been madder than hell because America rejected the neo-con (know-nothing) agenda by the popular election of Barack Obama.  I think that you folks have nothing to offer anyone other than anger... but, I'm going to try to help you.

Let me apprise you of a few facts: 

1)  The health care reform (HCR) bill doesn't require all Americans to have some sort of government coverage.

2)  HCR doesn't have a provision that prevents people from choosing their own doctors.

3)  HCR doesn't have a "Death Panel" provision, and isn't going to require the extermination of disabled children or the elderly.  There is nothing in it that has ANYthing to do with Rationed care.

4)  HCR isn't socialist.  If you think that it is, you should follow this link and read the definition of the word.

5)  The President isn't a Nazi... and he sure as heck isn't a Fascist.  Popular election... remember that?  As a matter of fact, his popular election was an electoral blowout.

I realize that this is all ramping up for you folks because the whole "birther" thing has been shown to be stupid, and nonsensical.  I realize that your party (the GOP) is morally bankrupt, and I am sure that it is galling for any of you with a shred of sense that your primary cheerleaders are Sarah Palin (and you actually voted for her!), Rush "The Druggie" Limbaugh, Orly Taitz, and that creepy Michell Bachmann, but you really need to see sense in this matter.

So, please... spare me the rhetoric.  Spare me the "It's not Constitutional".  Spare me the whining.  Grow up.

This country can wage war in two seperate places at once, and be involved in military operations all over the world, and most of you would never bat an eye over it, but the people that fuel the engines of capitalism that makes it possible should, at a minimum, be able to take their children to a doctor... not an emergency room, if they get sick.

Not caring about the health of the poor is not only inhumane, it's un-Christian.  To some of you, that might not mean anything, but for many of you who profess to follow Christ, you should be searching yourselves for answers.  How can you actively work to prevent medical care for the poor?  How can you?

Yes, I know that you are going to start talking about charity versus government intervention, but I wonder why you only make that complaint when the government tries to help the poor?  I'll venture an answer:  You people don't believe that the poor are worthy of your help.  Many of you actually believe that poor people are only poor because they are lazy... some of you believe that poor people actually deserve to be poor.

I wonder how many of you are going to your local members of Congress and begging them to vote against any further farm subsidies.

What's that?  Crickets?

Color me unsurprised.

Orly Taitz, Birthers, Ideologues, Xenophobes.

You know, I have given a bit of thought to this whole "birther" thing that the right-wing crackpots have been shrieking whining wearing tinfoil hats talking about lately.  Mind you, I haven't given it too much of my time, because the whole "scandal" is complete rubbish and without merit.  Anyway, I have done some small bit of thinking about it, and I would like to tell you how it washes out for me.

To me, this whole bit of nonsense is about three particular themes.  First, there are the xenophobes.  The ones who have a difficult time dealing with otherness.... otherness being defined here as people that don't look the way the xenophobe does, or comes from a different place, or is smarter, or may have a different religion.

The xenophobes (I'll call them "xenos" from now on) are afraid of Barack Obama because they aren't terribly bright and really believe that his parents conspired to get him elected to the Presidency, some 48 years ago, and so they hid the fact that he is a Kenyan all those years ago, despite his automatic American citizenship based on his mother's citizenship, no matter where he was born.  The xenos believe he is some sort of "sleeper" agent and closet muslim.  All of this is made worse by the fact that Barack Obama is an African American.  You see, xenos tend to be virulent racists (no matter what color they are).  The xenos will tell you that their support of this birther nonsense isn't about The President's ethnicity, because in their hearts, they know that their racism is evil, they just can't help themselves.

The xenophobes truly can't accept that a black man could have been elected President by the American people, to them, that defies logic.  Therefore there has to be some conspiracy to explain it.  Never mind the fact that, as smart as I believe President Obama to be, Mickey Mouse could have beaten the Republicans after eight disastrous years of George W. Bush.

So much for the xenophobes.  They are the hardcore haters.

Next we have the right-wing ideologues, those who believe that the way to push their morally bankrupt agenda forward, is to destroy the messenger of a better agenda.  The ideologues have nothing.  They are out of ideas.  They have nothing to offer except bleating about taxes, spending, and security... as if they hadn't spent the past 8 years in an orgy of excess, with their snouts deep in the trough of taxpayer money.  Hey, for my part, I'll have a little more taxpayer money spent on the people instead of on corporate greed, thankyouverymuch. 

Anyway, the leaders of the ideologues can be found on FOX news, readily telling the xenophobes their viewers that health care reform is needed, but shouldn't go so fast.  Well, I don't need to be Keith Olbermann to tell you there reasoning for that... I am sure that you can figure it our for yourself.  The thing to remember about the ideologues is that they have to be confronted with this very important question:  If your party believes that health care reform is even slightly important, why have they done nothing about it when they controlled bot the executive and legislative branches of government for so long?

The bottom line on the ideologues is that they don't want every American to have health insurance.  More importantly, they don't want any government regulation on the health care industry.  How does that make you feel?  I hope it doesn't make you feel all tingly and good because the GOP is trying to protect you from "Big Government", because that is just so much crap... remember, those are the same people that kept "Big Government" from regulating the banking industry.  We saw how that turned out, didn't we?

Then there is the last group of "birthers", these are what I call the "Israeli Stooges", and they are led, indeed the whole group seems to be led, by a Moldovan-born (some have said Russian-born), dual U.S.-Israeli citizen named Orly Taitz.  Ms. Taitz, who is a Dentist and a "lawyer" (with some online JD), has filed motions in California courts (the only place she is allowed to practice law), to prove that Barack Obama is constitutionally disqualified from being President.

Does it strike anyone as odd that the person making the most noise about this "birther"nonsense is a foreigner?  A foreigner with citizenship in a country that is already known to be wary of President Obama because he won't mouth their propaganda in knee-jerk response whenever their Prime Minister
(and lobby) says he should?

Of course, I am talking about Israel... our staunch middle eastern "ally".

Many Americans will justify any Israeli activity, no matter how extreme, because of our "Judeo-Christian" heritage.  While that may be fine for many people, and it may be authentic, and it may be right most of the time, it doesn't mean that our President, as so many Presidents have been in the past, should be the stooge of whomever is calling the shots in Tel Aviv.  This is a problem.  This is where the Xenos, Ideologues, and Stooges all come together (I would say nyuk, nyuk, nyuk... but this isn't funny).

All three of these groups are led by a foreign agitator.  All three of these groups are dancing to the tune of a person who has become that Zsa Zsa Gabor of the right wing.  All three of these groups are under the sway of a person who may or may not be an agent of the Israeli government, bent on undermining the leadership of a person who may, or may not be, the malleable puppet most American leaders are.

The "birthers", laid bare, are a tool of foreign leadership. 

For shame.

Addendum:  My comments about Israel should not imply any antipathy towards Jews.  So please, don't give me the anit-semitic crap, ok?

The Problem with "Equality"

In democratic societies an awful lot of time gets spent talking about equality.  For some reason we seem to think that the concept of equality is important.  It's that whole "leveler" mentality... and you know what?  I hate it.

You read that right.  Good ol' Gunfighter isn't so much for the equality thing.  Oh, sure, I believe that people should expect (and receive) equal treatment under the law, but that is where my thoughts on equality pretty much fizzle out.

You see, I believe that the notion of strict equality is damaging to our country.  The notion that everyone's opinion is as good as another person's is absolute crap, and is responsible for so much turmoil in the United States today.  If you don't believe me, I give you this fine group of people as an example:

The "birthers"

What a bunch of effing morons!  Morons, I say.  Why is anyone paying any attention to them?  Why is anyone giving them air time?  Why is anyone paying attention to them in courts of law?  I'll tell you why! It's because we cling to the absurd notion that "my opinion is just as good as yours!", and that my friends, is an entire railroad car full of steaming bullshit.

Look, people have opinions based on their previous knowledge of a subject, event, or person, or their education in related areas.  People also have visceral reactions to certain stimuli.. the reliable "gut feeling", that people frequently talk about.  Opinions, in order to have any sort of validity have to be based on something real, otherwise it's just a notion.

Here is an example.  It is my belief that George W. Bush was a failure as a President for a number of reasons, allow me to cite some of them:  Our country is involved in two wars that we didn't have to fight;  Our economy is in a shambles because Mr. Bush's administration wouldn't hear of regulating the banking industry; and because his administration violated the Constitution on a number of occasions for vague reasons pertaining to "National Security"

Now, you may not agree with those positions, and that's ok, but my opinion in this sense is valid because it is based on tangible things that may be seen different ways by different people.

Here is an example of a non-valid opinion: "George Bush was a GREAT President and will be remembered as such by history.  I have nothing to base this on.  It's just how I feel."

The whole "birther" movement, and other whackjob movements tend to gain steam amongst the benighted and those who feel themselves to be on the fringes.  Much like the old, stupid meme about the American government shipped guns by the carload in L.A. so the Crips and Bloods would go around killing each other, and other black people.  Valid?  No.  Stupid?  Yes.  Given credence by a bunch of f***ing dummies?, oh, hell yeah.

It is time, my friends, to stop pretending that the opinions of the stupid, are as good as those who... well, aren't stupid.  You know you agree with me.

As I said before, I believe that people should be treated the same under the law, without regard to their gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, or what their first language was.  Neither do I think that the law should disfavor the stupid (any more than it already does, anyway), but holy moley, do we have to pretend that stupid, invalid opinions aren't exactly that?

In Memoriam

Today's Fatherhood Friday post is being pre-empted, but please, take just a few second and read this:

Here at A Modern Warrior's Life, we would like to take the opportunity, on this sad day, to extend our condolences to the family of Border Patrol Agent Robert Rojas, who was killed in the line of duty, on July 24th.

Agent Rojas was shot to death in U.S. territory, about 100 feet north of the border, by an assailant who had just crossed from Mexico.

Agent Rojas was with several other agents who had responded to a call about four intruders from a Border Scout at about 8:45 P.M., approximately 60 miles east of San Diego, California.

When the agents arrived, a foot chase ensued, and at least one person fired at the agents, striking Agent Rojas in the head and fatally wounding him.

The murderer and his accomplices are believed to have fled back to Mexico.

This morning, in just a few hours, Agent Rojas will be laid to rest, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, colleagues and loved ones in their bereavement.

______________

While not on the topic of fatherhood, I thought that this was just too important to let go by.  Agent Rojas died in the service of his country, enforcing the laws that he was sworn to uphold.  For his sacrifice, I am grateful.

President Obama, Professor Gates, & James Crowley

By now we have all heard, ad nauseum about the recent arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates.  We have heard, also ad nauseum, about President Obama's thoughts on the arrest, in response to a question asked of him at a Press conference... and God knows how sick and tired I am of Sgt. Crowley, the arresting officer, and a host of other cops, Union Bosses, and Right-wing/birther/crackpots on television all bleeding day, today.

It's time to stop, now, folks.  Really.

Let me first state that I know as much about the case as anyone who wasn't there... which means just about everyone except for Gates, Crowley, and maybe a few others.

The right wing fruitcakes are all like "The Commander-in-Chief was disrespectful of all police officers!  Waaaaah!"

The lefties are all like "Racial profiling is keeping the black man down!  Waaaaaaaah!"

The television news scandal pimps are all like "Will Sgt. Crowley apologize?, Will The President apologize?, are there any apologies to make?  Watch Black in America2, with Soledad O'Brien!"   Ka-ching!

Hey. 

HEY!  Are you listening?  Anyone who is paying even a little attention should know this by now, but in case you weren't let me hip you to the closest thing to the truth you are going to get on this stupid distraction piece:

The cops showed up because they were called.  This wasn't "profiling", they simply responded to a call for service (that's what we call it in the biz).  The cops encountered Gates, Identification flew, words flew, and house-sized, professorial egos flared (A celebrity Harvard professor no-less), house-sized police egos flew and an arrest was made. 

OK.  The local DA or Commonwealth's Attorney, or whatever they have in Cambridge decided not to charge Gates... which was smart of them... there wasn't much of a case to make.  Sergeant Crowley, by all accounts a decent bloke, keeps his dignity by not being punked by an asshole professor, Gates gets some serious air time... which all celebrities love.

Still with me?

Good.

Then during a Press conference, a reporter asks President his opinon on the arrest, and the President gives his opinion that the officers acted stupidly.  Then all of this nonsense well and truly goes into orbit!

Last night, I had a facebook exchange with a Republican echo chamber member who was all nuts about this issue... and today, reading the Huffington post, all of the lefties were huffing, puffing, and snorting righteous outrage about cops being "bullies" and "power mad" and claims that "cops control the country" etcetera.

What a load of nonsense.

Let me explain a few things.  Academics have egos... huge ones.  Don't believe me?  ask Mrs Gunfighter, she is an academic who works among academics (in her world, the undereducated have Masters degrees), in her office there are approx. 65 people, and all but about 5 have Ph.D's... she'll tell you.  Let me explain further, Cops have huge egos.  I know this, having been a lawman, myself for the past twelve years.  In my world, you have to be prepared to back your own play, and anyone not strong enough to do that isn't worth the money that he or she is being paid.

This whole incident has become about race. 

It isn't about race.

It's about class and ego.

Harvard professors aren't used to being challenged.  In their world, there is them, and the people that are deferential to them... which is to say, everyone else.  Gates wasn't going to be pushed around by some asshole cop, especially in his own home... who can blame him?  On the other side of this is the fact that Cops don't like being challenged.  In our world, there are the good guys (us), the bad guys, and the people who call us for help.  The Sergeant, a blue collar man, and no doubt proud of his chosen profession, wasn't about to be pushed around by anybody, asshole professor from Harvard or not.

Gates should have kept his cool.  He didn't.

Crowley should have kept his cool.  He didn't.

A legitimate, but totally unnecessary arrest was made.

We see the result.

The President?  Well, he gave his opinion when he was asked a question.  Was he wrong for saying the police acted stupidly in this case?  Not really, because if they hadn't acted stupidly, we wouldn't still be talking about this bullshit story a week or more later.

There is nothing to see here, folks.

Disperse.  Go home. 

Don't be distracted from the real issue of the day, which is getting health care reform enacted.  Don't be put off by stupid "birther" stories.  Don't be put off by the echo chamber and spin machine.

Go in peace.

United States Armed Forces Sex Blog

There, that title ought to tickle the search engines.

Today, I'm writing about SEX.  That's right.  SEX.  Close your eyes if you aren't over 18.

Specifically, I want to talk about sex in the United States Armed forces. 

While nearly everyone in America is nearly killing themselves to be the loudest in extolling the virtues of the men and women of United States Armed forces, we haven't been paying attention to a serious issue that has been true of armies since time immemorial, and remains true today, even in the nearly-perfectly-virtuous US armed forces.  That issue is the quasi-sponsorship of prostitution and human trafficking that is funded and fueled by American servicemen stationed in various parts of the world.

Ask any man that has spent time in the armed forces... especially any man that has spent time stationed in Okinawa, Japan; South Korea; Thailand; or Vietnam.  Let's not forget Germany; Britain; Holland; Italy; Greece; Portugal, and many other countries.  Go ahead and ask.  If you do, you'll find out that our service men (with their naturally high libidos) have been boinking with the best of them, creating a flourishing sex trade, wherever they put down stakes.

For many years this behavior was not only tolerated but winked at by high-ranking officers as well as senior Non-commissioned officers.  During my time in the service (1981-1989), it was common to hear things like "what happens in Okinawa stays in Okinawa".

It is common for people to respond to this situation by saying: "Oh, its just young, fit, horny men acting the way young men do... what's the problem?"  Well, for starters, the problem is the fact that prostitution, in most of the places that I mentioned, is illegal.  Another problem is  that incredible increase in human trafficking (for the sex trade) from eastern europe.  Another problem is the exploitation of desperately poor women.  Another problem is the spread of disease.  Another problem is the toll taken on marriages & families.  I could go on, but you get my drift, right?

Well, guess what?  Your Generals and Admirals don't care.  Your national leaders don't care.  The American people, in large part, don't care.

What do they care about?  Gay people serving in the military.

Yes... prostitution is ok.  The moral turpitude of our soldiers in ok.  Male and female service members swapping partners more than they change their skivvies is ok.  The rampant swinging or "wife swapping" that happens in married quarters on base is ok (not making that up, I know, first hand)... but for the love of God, if a soldier is gay, that is going to wreck the morale of the armed forces and damage good order and discipline to the point of making our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, unable to wage war.

As comrade Shakespeare would have said:  "That would be scanned"

There are reports that say that the number of women that contract venereal diseases in the United States Marine Corps is something near 40 percent higher than the national average... Using the logic of the homophobes, I guess that Marines infecting one another is alright, as long as these ladies aren't infecting each other.

All of this leads me, rather erratically, I know, to a discussion of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that has been failing since it's inception. I won't parse the policy here, because you probably already know what it is... if you don't, follow the link and find out. 

I think that this is a stupid and discriminatory policy that not only prevents patriotic people of different sexual orientation from serving openly in the armed forces, but hurts the readiness of the American armed forces in general by removing a significant segment of the young, available pool of warfighters.

Unfortunately, as wrong as this policy is, it is still policy, which brings me to the case of Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, late of the United States Air Force, and Lt. Dan Choi, late of the United States Army.  These two officers recently came out (and in Fehrenbach's case, was outed) and have become the poster people for the gay community's efforts against "Don't Ask", Don't Tell".

The gay community is in an uproar, as they should be, about this policy, but have taken to attacking President Obama for not getting this policy overturned quickly enough.  I'm sure that if I were gay, I would want this done immediately.  Having said that, I understand that things like DADT are best handled later in an administration rather that the very beginning.

Sure, you can say that my attitude towards all of this is poor, or that I am unsympathetic because I'm not gay, and I suppose, depending on your own personal perspective, you might be right, but hear me out on this.  Politics isn't about ruling by decree.  It's about trying your best to do what you CANdo, as best you can.  Most Americans want President Obama to succeed.  Most want him to do the best that he can do to lead this country, and I think that with a fairly thin majority in the Senate, the President has to be careful that he doesn't spend all of his political capital repealing DADT.

Since the repeal of DADT would give the GOP a hefty stick to beat him with in the 2012 election, you can expect that there won't be a huge amount of movement on the issue until he wins re-election.

Which brings us back to Lt. Colonel Fehrenbach and Lieutenant Choi.

These worthy gentlemen, whom I believe to be Patriots, and good officers who are both committed to service, should have known what they were getting into.  In Choi's case, he had to have known, smart guy that he is, that coming out would be his military undoing.  There is no way that he didn't know that he wasn't going to get the boot, and that going public with his dismissal wasn't going to save his army  career.  Bad policy or not, the policy is current and firmly in place for the time being. 

It isn't the place of a junior officer to try to change policy by grandstanding.  Good luck in the civilian Mr. Choi, I wish you all the best in your future, which, no doubt, will be bright.

In the case of Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, things change a bit.  From what I understand, he was outed by someone.  That's a shame.  A shame because Fehrenbach was compliant with the policy, and his career, which has been stellar, from what I understand, has been destroyed two years short of his eligibility to retire.

For all of the trauma to gays in the armed forces that the examples of these men typify we cannot... or at least certainly should not be shocked that the DADT policy was not the first thing on the President's agenda.

This doesn't make Barack Obama a back-stabber.  It doesn't mean that he has no intention to deal with this issue, but timing, as is frequently said, is everything.

So there you have it friends... our soldiers are cavorting with prostitutes, giving each other the clap, screwing each other's spouses, and even prostituting themselves on our ships and in the barracks... but as long as these liasons are hetero (and still technically illegal), nobody cares... as long as they aren't gay.

 

 

Old Ladies

When we were in Florida a few weeks ago, we had the occasion to try and hide out from a fast-moving thunderstorm (as you get in central Florida in the afternoons), right as we neared the Norwegian pavillion at EPCOT. 

While we joined the queue for the Norwegian themed ride called Maelstrom,were were joined by two young couples from Providence, Rhode Island, who were behind us in the line, just as we were behind a family group the consisted of a boy of around 10, a young teen-aged girl, a woman in her 40's and an older woman, who seemed to be the matriarch of the group, who was using one of those electric scooters that are fairly common to folks with mobility problems.  The old lady's family were all in front of her, and she pulled up the rear, directly in front of me, In her scooter.

Well, the line was progressing steadily towards the ride's loading area, when all of a sudden, my family and the group behind us were assaulted by what had to be the most horrendous fart in human history.

Now, friends, you know that I don't really like to talk about such things at my blog.  I think things scatalogical are best left for other venues... but I have to tell you that this was bad.  Wait.  No, it wasn't just bad.  To say that this was bad would do a grave in justice to the gravity of this situation.  this was just plain freakin' horrible!  You know, I get I get it... I understand that we can all be gassy at times.  I understand that we all have our moments, but this was just too much.  This evil cow didn't even have the grace to play the old lady card and laugh and say "oops!  Sorry about burning your eyebrows and nostril hairs off with that one."

Seriously.  Who does that? 

I'll answer my own question:  Boorish old ladies do it, that's who!

To prove my point, we will shift scenes and fast forward to last week, while I was shopping at Wegmans, I went to get some baking soda (soccergirl needed it for her itchy bug bites acquired at Girl Scout camp), and there was an older couple and a few other people in the aisle.  The older couple was standing right where I was going... and when I was about three feet away I heard a loud Brrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaap!coming from the old lady.  Everyone in the aisle looked aghast, and the lady never flinched.  Her husband had the grace to look mortified, as everyone else, with a look of horror on our faces, turned and fled the aisle.

Now, really.  No seriously.  That ain't right.  It's not even close to being right.  The very least she could have done would be to have gone someplace else to let that thing fly.

What is it that I am missing here?  That type of sophomoric behavior is usually the province of young men in their teens and early twenties.  Is it some sort of old lady empowerment thing?  Do they not care because they are getting too old to be bothered with the niceties of civil behavior?

Help a brother out, here.

Here is a picture of the offender in Florida.  The dirty cow!

 

A Memorial Day Reminder

Today is Memorial Day in the United States.  Today is a day that we commemorate, above all others, the sacrificed lives of our dead Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines.

For a great many people, today is a day off from work, and a day spent with the activities associated with the beginning of summer... and that's fine, just don't forget that hundreds of thousands of American fighting men (and women) have died in the service of their country, fighting on behalf of their government.  Their government, which is by, of, and for the people (that means US).

As we honor our war dead, let us remember that we, by electing smart, well-informed, and sane leaders, are directly responsible for sending these brave souls into battle.

Let us remember that, before we make decisions that may cost the lives of these brave men and women.  Let us remember that their lives aren't to be thrown away, or spent in a cavalier manner.  Let us remember that their dedication to our country shouldn't be misused for unscrupulous political reasons.

We owe those things to the memory of those we have lost, and especially to those we have yet to lose.