Electile Dysfunction

Hello, again, everyone. I've been away for a bit, but I return now and have all kinds of issues to discuss with you. The most important day of the year behind us (St. Patrick's Day), we can once again, fully recovered, turn our attention to the pressing matters affecting our lives in the gay and military communities. So welcome back, shipmates, to another edition of "Mailbuoy Watch"!

If you have never visited the site called "Urban Dictionary", I encourage you to check it out. It's a hip, user-generated and -evaluated collection of all of those slang expressions we hear (and say) on a day-to-day basis but were afraid to ask the meanings of for fear of losing cool points. I refer to it frequently to remain relevant during discussions with my college-aged nephews. I also subscribe to the urban word of the day (uWOD as I like to call it), and sometimes they shoot a uWOD that really piques my interest.

"Electile dysfunction" is one such phrase - I absolutely love this one. According to the Urban Dictionary, this expression means "The inability to become aroused over any of the choices for President put forth by either party during an election year."

We find ourselves at the end of the primary season, and our principal presidential petitioners are Republican candidate, John McCain, and Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. For me, these three candidates have resulted in a most severe case of electile dysfunction, and I'm trying desperately to locate some political viagra for a little candidatudinal stimulation.

Having no little blue pill to offer for presidential selection, I am going to take you down this Sailor's approach to political analysis. There will be a little controversy contained below that I ask you to accept merely as one man's opinion, however irrational it may seem to you upon reading it. Before I offend you with my subjective positions, however, I will begin with a totally objective assessment of the candidates, based on where the candidates are on the two big gay equality issues.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell"

• Both democratic candidates are for the repeal, according to the HRC scoresheet. John McCain is against the repeal, feeling instead that "Gay troops pose 'an intolerable risk' to national security." (gay.com article)

Gay Marriage.

• All three candidates are against gay marriage, although both democratic candidates endorse civil unions.

If you navigate to the HRC scoresheet, you will find no difference between the reported positions of the two democratic candidates. None. They are exactly the same on ALL of the issues. How, then, do we determine our personal candidate of choice? Here's how I came to determine mine. First - I apply what I believe to be a set of reasonable assumptions:

• Assumption 1. All politicians are created equal. If I am honest with myself, I must admit that I really have no way of accurately measuring the 'purity of character' of any presidential candidate. I know none of them personally, and the only datapoints I am able to evaluate are the bias-rich ones provided by the American and world media. I must therefore assume that all of the candidates are of equal corruption, equally likely to exchange questionable campaign promises for votes, and equally likely to... mentor... young interns with personal attention in the oval office.

• Assumption 2. The GOP will recognize gay equality several hundred years after God has destroyed the earth by fire. Remember, it's the gays' fault for.... well... everything. Remember our friend, Major Davis, from my last post who thinks we cause more deaths during war. He could be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (Gen. Pace) with forward thinking like that! He should consider changing Services.

• Assumption 3. General party platforms and responses to 'crises-du-jour' are the agendas elected presidents are going to pursue, regardless of their personal campaign platforms.

So, with these three assumptions working in the background, I evaluate the candidates on a purely subjective basis. I apply my years of military service and position as a gay veteran to my train of thought. Here goes.... don't hate me.

John S. McCain

I know as a gay man, I should not vote for a republican candidate. This one has proven that he suffers from the characteristic close-mindedness and intolerable prejudice of his republican compatriots. But, he is a prisoner-of-war survivor and a true military veteran. This is both a good and bad thing. The civilian control of the military concept is somewhat compromised when a veteran of significant service takes the head job. However, as a veteran, I am very OK with the idea that the Commander-in-Chief knows what the heck he (or she) is doing through relevant military experience. His stated positions on gay equality and applying assumption three, I must eliminate John McCain from consideration. Unless.....

Barack Hussein Obama

Everyone should know that I have conducted seven deployments to the Persian Gulf region. One of these was a year tour in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. And, when I wasn't fighting the good fight in theater, I was fighting it back at the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida. I hunted bad guys like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden for years. I lived in the ridiculously hypocritical society of Muslim Saudi Arabia, where we Servicemembers were not even allowed to look at the Saudi women. I watched as the 'bin Laden Construction Company' was building the big high-rise in the middle of Riyadh. I can say without any hesitation whatsoever that those people hate us, and, furthermore, this hatred is not justified based on their own societal behavior. Therefore, based on my years of service in that region, I have to admit I struggle with his name (and his America-hating preacher).

Hillary Rodham Clinton

If you're still reading after that exclamatory ejaculation, here is where I stand with Hillary. You have probably deduced that she is the candidate I am supporting. As totally lukewarm as the other candidates, she is the democratic candidate I can vote for. There is one thing I really like about Hillary: she's a woman, hear her roar. I would love to have a female president in the oval office. England had a female Prime Minister years ago. There are many countries with female heads of state - why is America obsessed with the sexist idea that only men can run the country??? I say put a female in the office for four years and see what she can do. We can always chuck her out in four years if she screws it up.

So there you have it. None of them very arousing, but we have to find a way to pick one - it is our duty as Americans to vote in elections. I firmly believe that, or that may be the Boy Scout brainwashing talking. No, Americans who do not vote fail the country. So, whatever system you use to determine your candidate of choice, exercise your decision in November. And remember to respect the opinions of others (especially mine ;-).

Until Mailbuoy Watch is posted again, I bid you fair winds and following seas! Happy tax day!

60 Minutes of Infamy

The bad news is.....

.....if you missed 60 MINUTES on CBS tonight (16 DEC), you missed a provocative and intellectually stimulating bit of broadcast journalism entitled, "Military Soft On Don't Ask, Don't Tell? 60 Minutes: Is Military More Tolerant Of Gay Members In Wartime?"

The good news is.....

.....the above link will take you straight to it.

This video is a "must view" (and review) for everyone associated with the DADT repeal effort. Having now watched the video a few times myself, I put together a few perspectives I would like to share on Mailbuoy Watch.

I would like to focus my critical review of the story by reflecting on the two proponents of DADT interviewed. They were Congressman (and presidential candidate) Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Major Daniel Davis, United States Army.

Let us begin with the Honorable Duncan Hunter of the 52nd Congressional District of California which, interestingly (to this Sailor anyway), is comprised of the greater geographic part of San Diego County. San Diego is the home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and while Representative Hunter's district does not include the principal Navy bases themselves, it does serve as home to THOUSANDS of Sailors stationed at these bases. So listen up, shipmates in San Diego, here is what your representative is saying out loud....

First of all, should Hunter be elected President, he would be ineffective for his first several months in office. Instead of leading our nation, he would be deeply engaged in repairing our NATO relationships, impaired due to the egregious insult he issued to the courage and "combat-hardenedness" of their militaries.

Hunter made the appalling point that because the American military deployed to places like Fallujah where the combat is "rougher", we needed to be more combat-hardened than the NATO militaries. Since they deploy to softer, more "peace keeping" locations, it's OK, in those less critical places, to allow the gay presence to weaken combat readiness within those units.

I wonder if Congressman Hunter is envisioning Sailors and Soldiers who PT with feather boas or stand watch in high heels. To clarify for you, Congressman Hunter, I offer the following observations. The gay men and women serving honorably in today's military, as well as all of those throughout American and world history, are as fierce, as strong, as patriotic, as loyal, and as proficient as any of their straight compatriots. Maybe more. The first man down in Iraq was gay (link to story). He was not wounded to disability by hiding beneath his desk.

I am almost certainly inadequately capturing the blatant ignorance of such Congressional positions, and I encourage you to tune in to the video to hear for yourself what he said. I will write, in his defense, that he did get at least one thing right. When confronted with the overwhelming successes of foreign militaries' allowing gays to serve openly, he was able to accurately report that Americans were neither the Brits nor the Swedes (grin). I encourage all gay constituents, especially those Servicemembers, of the 52nd Congressional District of California to let Mr. Hunter know you respectfully disagree with his position and that a career change might be in order (contact him).

The second proponent of DADT interviewed was a Major in the U.S. Army named Daniel Davis, who shared with us some equally shocking positions. But before we get to his statements, let's talk about his rank for just a minute. My former rank (Lieutenant Commander) is equivalent to Davis' rank (Major) - both O-4. Don't get me wrong - it is a very cool rank - but, at the end of the day, it is not all that senior. I have to wonder why the senior military member speaking on behalf of DADT on the 60 MINUTES program was a mere Major.

Of course, listening to his statements, I think I can safely speak for the military by suggesting that Davis would not have been their first choice.

Are you ready for this........?

He said, in the true spirit of Congressional wisdom of the 52nd California District, that gay people would actually cause more combat deaths and military unit failure. There must be a bond, a cohesiveness, that a gay presence would diminish, and he confessed himself unable to "cohese" with gays. Of course, since he mentioned it, I confess myself unable to "cohese" with gay people, either, as I have absolutely no idea what that is. Perhaps he meant "cohere", but it is, after all, his quote. The bottom line for my fellow field grade is, homosexuality is "morally repugnant" and he wants nothing to do with gays.

Such statements on the part of both the Congressman and the Major really speak for themselves. I am hoping that the lack of military backing for DADT in this story means that the military is actually ready to drop the ban. Perhaps if we processed out the close-minded and prejudicial instead of the gays we might get somewhere.

A few closing remarks.....

I must say for the record, that it took a lot of courage on the part of Servicemembers, both current and veteran, to step forward for interviews on this article. Well done and thank you! "Bravo Zulu" as we say in the Navy!

I would also like to apologize to readers for the sarcasm I allowed to seep into my writing. In general, I believe this approach to point-making cheapens one's own positions. The fundamental weakness in the DADT proponents' arguments was to the point of rudeness, so I allowed my anger to show in response.

All of that said, it's now time to bring another Mailbuoy Watch to a close. Until our wakes cross again, I wish you "Fair Winds and Following Seas."

Mailbuoy Watch

Greetings, readers, and welcome to a Servicemembers United blog written by a Navy veteran, trusty Shellback, and general globe-trotter. There is so much to write about on so many fronts, but I wanted to begin, at least, with the story behind my blog title and a short seasonal soundbyte. The United States Navy is a Service rich with tradition, and although "political correctness" is diluting many of them, playing pranks on boot camps will probably always be a popular shipboard pastime. One I remember with fondness is assigning Sailors to man the "Mailbuoy Watch."

This prank begins with convincing a young squid that a ship receives her mail via a system of mailbuoys scattered throughout the seas. As a ship is big and buoys small, a watchstander must be assigned to look out for the buoys as the ship comes within range of one. Naturally, this is ludicrous, but when you're 18 years old and it's your first time on a U.S. Navy war vessel - an awe-inspiring, floating mass of metal and machinery - it's easy to believe even the absurd is possible.

So we're left with the young Sailor peering over the bow or over the side looking out for something that is not there, while those on watch get a harmless chuckle at his or her gullibility. I am stealing the name of this prank as the title of my blog for three reasons. First - it is a uniquely nautical expression - as a Navy veteran, I felt compelled to honor my relationship with the sea Service. Second - like "mailbuoys", blogs only appear sporadically - so readers must check periodically to get the latest updates. Finally - there is an interesting metaphor relating the "Mailbuoy Watch" and the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell 'culture'.

Many among the military brass are "looking out" for an issue that simply isn't there. General Pace, the immediate past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calls homosexuality "immoral" while the federal government offers benefits to same-sex partners. In addition, the comfort level of having gay comrades-in-arms is pretty darn high (see Admiral's Call blog on this site). Proponents of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell know thousands of gay and lesbian Servicemembers are honorably serving, yet they are pretending to "see" a gay-free military - "looking out" for something that is not and will never be there.

So, those are this Sailor's motivations for "Mailbuoy Watch". Time to get the blog underway.

This time of year, my thoughts always turn to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, December 7, 1941. Usually my wandering thoughts on this topic are centered around a respectful remembrance of those who died and the impact the attack had on the United States. I reflect on my trip to the USS ARIZONA Memorial and look down in my mind's eye at the beaten, sunken battleship, left in place to remember the fallen heroes and remind America of the terrible cost of freedom.

This site is dedicated to allowing our fellow gay and lesbian defenders of American freedom to serve, themselves, freely and openly. With this in mind, I consider the 3,581 military and civilian dead and wounded on December 7th 66 years ago. Applying the "1-in-10" rule, at least 358 of those honorable patriots were gay. Society in those days, however, had a much different take on homosexuality than today's, more open-minded society does. I wonder in horror at the emotional damage forced suppression of their sexuality in that environment caused. They were not able to reach out to those with whom they daily risked their lives, and they did not have the benefit of a support system inherent in a strong gay community like we have today.

And Pearl Harbor was just the beginning. You may be aware that the U.S. WWII death toll was roughly 418,500 (about the size of today's active duty Navy). Again applying the "1-in-10" rule, 41,850 gay brothers and sisters died for our country, all unable to fully enjoy the very freedom they died to secure.

Fast forward to 2007. During the weekend of 01 December an event occurred honoring Servicemembers discharged under a policy that forces homosexuals either out of the military or into the closet. 12,000 - the well-publicized 14-year total. 12,000 folks forced out.... thousands still serving in silence.

That's all I have for you this time. Until our wakes cross again, Fair Winds and Following Seas. (....and Go Navy, Beat Army!!)