So I was reading through Fox News online a few days ago when a news story caught my eye, that story being about a survey that was just released concerning the topic of homosexuals being allowed to serve in the military. Seems that someone out there took a survey of people who were actually serving in the military and asked them what they thought of the idea of openly homosexual people being allowed to enlist, and whether or not the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law should be scrapped.
And surprise, surprise, a whopping 70% of the people surveyed said they were okay with homosexuals being allowed to enlist, and supported the idea of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” being scrapped!
Honestly, I have to admit that I’m surprised by this. I knew that opposition among service members to the idea of homosexuals being allowed in the military wasn’t anywhere near as strong as it was when I was in the service, but I must admit that I didn’t think it had changed that much. And I also believe that this is a good thing for both those people who want to serve and the nation who needs people willing to serve.
I just flat-out don’t see the opposition to someone being denied the chance to serve their country, to give back something to the country that has given them so much, based solely on the grounds of their sexual orientation. As I’ve said before, as long as someone is physically capable of carrying out their assigned duties, and as long as they conduct themselves according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed in the Armed Forces of the United States. Of course, the UCMJ will have to be amended because homosexual acts are prohibited by military law, but once DADT falls by the wayside I have a feeling that the necessary changes to the UCMJ will take place in very short order.
Unfortunately, there are still some folks out there who don’t see it this way. I had the occasion to have the “homosexuals in the military” discussion with one of them two weeks ago, and it was not exactly what I’d call an either pleasant or enjoyable conversation. This person stated flat-out that he didn’t think homosexuals should be allowed in the military for one reason and one reason alone: because the Holy Bible said homosexuality was wrong. Period. No other dissenting reason was given, because this person thought that alone was enough.
Needless to say, I think this is one of the most ludicrous, short-sighted, unrealistic, and just plain stupid things I’ve ever heard in my entire life, and I told the other person so.
Didn’t matter. What I said didn’t make a dent, not that I expected it to.
Those of you who have been reading my blog or who have talked to me in person know my feelings on religion in general and the Holy Bible in particular, so I won’t bore you with the details. You also know that while I respect the opinions of others and their right to have them, I also will quickly state that no one’s opinion is “right” and the other is “wrong” – they’re “different.” What galls the living shit outta me is when people take those opinions and try to force them on others, or try to dictate how others can and cannot live their own lives because of their opinions – especially when those opinions are based on their religious beliefs, no matter what the religion. As the saying on the bumper sticker goes, “I have no problem with God – it’s his fan club I can’t stand.”
Sure, I’m fully aware that our nation was founded on Christian principles, and I’m all for that. I’m also fully aware that our nation was founded by a bunch of folks who left their native country to avoid religious persecution, too. So be very careful before you start swinging that particular sword around, my friend, because it cuts both ways.
Like it or not, the world is constantly changing around us, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Most of the time it’s for the better, regardless of what some folks will tell you. 35 years ago I would have been one of those people telling you that letting homosexuals into the military would be the death of discipline and the death of the military itself, but as the old saying goes, “That was then, and this is now.” Since then I’ve grown up and matured, and I see things in a broader, more practical sense than I did when I was filled with the exuberance and inexperience of youth. I’ve also had plenty of first-hand experience in some areas to help me wise up and see things for the way they really are.
And the bottom line in this case, in my opinion of course, is that there is absolutely no reason that anyone should be denied the chance to serve their country in the military for the reason that they’re homosexual. What’s more, I fully expect the Department of Defense to abandon the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the very near future – especially now that the service members themselves are saying it’s OK with them.
I’m sure there are people out there who will vehemently disagree with my opinions and the abolishment of DADT, but all I can say to them is this: Times change. Either change with the times, or get left behind.
It’s as simple as that.
IHC
Monday, November 29, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Security or Privacy - Take Your Pick
For the past few days the news has been full of stories about people complaining that the new TSA security procedures involving either full body scans or strip searches are "an invasion of privacy" and "violate a person's Constitutional right to privacy."
The easy one first.
The US Constitution doesn't say that. Show me where the Constitution guarantees the "right to privacy" and I'll kiss your ass on Main Street and give you a week to draw a crowd.
As for the procedures being an "invasion of privacy," I disagree on that one too. If you want to get technical, the US Supreme Court has ruled that in a public place - such as an airport - you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" since the area is out in the open and is designed for full public access.
But on the other hand, I understand why people are upset about both procedures. The full body scan shows whoever is looking at the screen an outline of your body sans clothing, which can be unsettling at best. And the pat-downs just go against the natural resistance to having someone touch your body that you don't necessarily want touching you.
Unfortunately, the reality is simple: thanks to the radical Muslims who have been wreaking havoc on the world in unconventional ways, the airlines and the Feds are now forced to take unconventional measures to prevent further attacks. So if you want to be pissed off at someone, be pissed off at the radical Muslims and not the Feds or the airlines. I've always said that the two things in life that everyone wants but are not convenient are safety and security. You don't get either one by doing nothing, and you have to sacrifice and/or be inconvenienced to get both.
The other reality is that if the Feds and the airlines stop their procedures because of the complaints about "invasion of privacy" and we lose another airliner to a terrorist attack, the same people who complained the loudest about the "invasion of privacy" will also be the first ones to jump up and complain that the Feds didn't do enough to prevent the attack.
So take your pick, people, security or privacy - you can't have both.
Some folks have suggested that since the Muslims are the ones responsible for this the only ones that should go through the procedures are Muslims. To me, this is nothing short of just plain stupid, not to mention illegal. Can you say, "PROFILING," boys and girls? How about "DISCRIMINATION?"
The big problem with this flawed line of thinking is that you're going to single out every single member of the world's largest religion and punish them - and that's what it would be, make no mistake about it - for the actions of a radical group within that religion. Yeah, I've heard the saying, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" before, and I agree with it. But the simple fact is that you can't punish the entire group for the actions of a few. This is not only stupid, it's also wrong and in this country, it's illegal.
Aside from that, sooner or later - and I'm thinking sooner than later - another radical group out there, or maybe the radical Islamic group itself, will figure out that you're only looking at Muslims, so they recruit non-Muslims into their movement. Next thing you know one of those non-Muslims blows up an airplane, and everyone will sit back wondering, "Now just how did THAT happen?"
And then there's this: just how do you tell who is a Muslim and who isn't? By their name? Their clothing? Their facial hair? I know plenty of people who were born and raised Muslim but renounced that religion for Christianity, but they still have their Muslim name, still wear their traditional clothing, and still look like a Muslim.
But they're not Muslims. So now what, genius?
The bottom line is this: profiling a part of the population for ANY reason is illegal, it's wrong, and it's stupid. It goes against everything this country stands for, and in case you forgot your American History 101, this country was founded by people who fled their native-born land to escape religious persecution. And the idea of screening Muslims and only Muslims is exactly that - religious persecution.
And that's wrong. PERIOD.
You got a problem with the screening and security procedures at the airports? Fine, no problem - jump in your car and drive. Take a bus. Take the train. Do something else, but just don't fly.
What, it's too inconvenient to do any of that because it takes too long?
Hmmmmm, what was I saying about safety and security being inconvenient?
IHC
The easy one first.
The US Constitution doesn't say that. Show me where the Constitution guarantees the "right to privacy" and I'll kiss your ass on Main Street and give you a week to draw a crowd.
As for the procedures being an "invasion of privacy," I disagree on that one too. If you want to get technical, the US Supreme Court has ruled that in a public place - such as an airport - you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" since the area is out in the open and is designed for full public access.
But on the other hand, I understand why people are upset about both procedures. The full body scan shows whoever is looking at the screen an outline of your body sans clothing, which can be unsettling at best. And the pat-downs just go against the natural resistance to having someone touch your body that you don't necessarily want touching you.
Unfortunately, the reality is simple: thanks to the radical Muslims who have been wreaking havoc on the world in unconventional ways, the airlines and the Feds are now forced to take unconventional measures to prevent further attacks. So if you want to be pissed off at someone, be pissed off at the radical Muslims and not the Feds or the airlines. I've always said that the two things in life that everyone wants but are not convenient are safety and security. You don't get either one by doing nothing, and you have to sacrifice and/or be inconvenienced to get both.
The other reality is that if the Feds and the airlines stop their procedures because of the complaints about "invasion of privacy" and we lose another airliner to a terrorist attack, the same people who complained the loudest about the "invasion of privacy" will also be the first ones to jump up and complain that the Feds didn't do enough to prevent the attack.
So take your pick, people, security or privacy - you can't have both.
Some folks have suggested that since the Muslims are the ones responsible for this the only ones that should go through the procedures are Muslims. To me, this is nothing short of just plain stupid, not to mention illegal. Can you say, "PROFILING," boys and girls? How about "DISCRIMINATION?"
The big problem with this flawed line of thinking is that you're going to single out every single member of the world's largest religion and punish them - and that's what it would be, make no mistake about it - for the actions of a radical group within that religion. Yeah, I've heard the saying, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" before, and I agree with it. But the simple fact is that you can't punish the entire group for the actions of a few. This is not only stupid, it's also wrong and in this country, it's illegal.
Aside from that, sooner or later - and I'm thinking sooner than later - another radical group out there, or maybe the radical Islamic group itself, will figure out that you're only looking at Muslims, so they recruit non-Muslims into their movement. Next thing you know one of those non-Muslims blows up an airplane, and everyone will sit back wondering, "Now just how did THAT happen?"
And then there's this: just how do you tell who is a Muslim and who isn't? By their name? Their clothing? Their facial hair? I know plenty of people who were born and raised Muslim but renounced that religion for Christianity, but they still have their Muslim name, still wear their traditional clothing, and still look like a Muslim.
But they're not Muslims. So now what, genius?
The bottom line is this: profiling a part of the population for ANY reason is illegal, it's wrong, and it's stupid. It goes against everything this country stands for, and in case you forgot your American History 101, this country was founded by people who fled their native-born land to escape religious persecution. And the idea of screening Muslims and only Muslims is exactly that - religious persecution.
And that's wrong. PERIOD.
You got a problem with the screening and security procedures at the airports? Fine, no problem - jump in your car and drive. Take a bus. Take the train. Do something else, but just don't fly.
What, it's too inconvenient to do any of that because it takes too long?
Hmmmmm, what was I saying about safety and security being inconvenient?
IHC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)