The value of conservatives

This was in my inbox this morning, and gave me some food for thought. 

As I continue to sort my thoughts regarding the schism in our country, I have come to realize that I don't - and never have had - a personal issue with conservatives when the word is used to describe the pre-Reagan Republican Party. I no longer agree with their platform, but I consider them the loyal opposition, and understand they're worthy of a place at the table. There is value in balancing the desire and need for change with the cautiousness of conservatism in a democratic republic. I used to be a Republican, after all.

There are still a few public servants out there who fall into this category, although they're few and far between these days. Mitt Romney. Liz Chaney. Susan Collins. Lisa Murkowski. The GOP calls them "RINOs," Republican in Name Only, and they're right - they are RINOs. Instead, let's call these Congresspeople conservatives, while the rest of the GOP can keep the moniker "Republican."

Because in today's political climate, to be a "Republican" politician is to work to undo our democracy through any means necessary to achieve Republican goals and to support the ultra-rich, disregarding the will of the vast majority of Americans. And if you stand by, see what's happening and do nothing, then you forfeit any claim you might have had to public service and patriotism, and you certainly forfeit any claim to the word "conservative." 

There are those who consider Islam, or liberalism, or progressives, or the boogie-man de jour an existential threat to our country and way of life. But I think it's those who would support autocracy who pose the biggest threat. Autocracy and authoritarianism are the exact opposite of how Americans are supposed to govern ourselves, and supporting it is the most unAmerican thing a citizen can do. 

January 6th was an insurrection, an attempted coup, and those who planned and executed it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of who they are and what positions they may have held or hold today. And those who passively supported it should never be allowed to influence our government again, in any capacity. Let them pay for their cowardice by becoming pariahs in the present and excoriated in the history books of the future. 

On the state of the Republic and my uneasy heart

The last two weeks have left me angry, sad, afraid, and completely scattered. I have so many thoughts and feelings about the events of January 6th and its aftermath, my mind is skipping from thought to thought, and my emotions are all over the place. I need to get a handle on these things, since I'm jumpy and on edge, and it's interfering with my work and my relationships. So here are my thoughts and fears, my rage and concerns, my grief and reactions, in no particular order. 

________

Lipstick on a Pig

Let's not mince words and refer to the group who invaded the Capital building as "rioters" or "protesters." They weren't. The correct word is insurrectionists. And just in case you need a refresher, here's the relevant Title: 

§2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

In the case of these particular insurrectionists, they were attempting to prevent the United States Congress and the Vice President of the United States from following the Constitution and executing their duty under the law in certifying the electoral vote. Insurrectionists. 

Language matters. Using "soft" language to describe the events of the 6th deescalates the seriousness of the crimes committed in the Capital building, including the murder of a Capital Police Officer who was killed for doing his duty.

________

This is why we can't have nice things

While my rage has diffused somewhat since the 6th, it has only gone from "apoplectic with rage" to "rage." The people who chose to breach the barriers of the Capital, and those who gave aid or comfort to those people, are fucking traitors to the Constitution and the nation it created. They claim to be patriots, and try to romanticize their bullshit by comparing themselves to the American revolutionaries who precipitated the birth of our nation, but they are wrong, spectacularly wrong, on both counts. Patriots don't attempt to hunt down and kill our political leaders because a legal and fair election didn't go their way. The American revolutionaries of our history rebelled against the Crown because they believed they were being treated unfairly and wanted a say in their government. Do you see the difference? The insurrectionists of January 6th do have a say in our government. They just didn't get the outcome they wanted - in other words, they lost. And in their mind, that means they're justified in throwing a temper tantrum of epic proportion, attempting a coup against the legally elected government of the United States. Traitorous motherfuckers, the lot of them, and all of them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and given the maximum sentences. 

And I'm also going to indulge in some "I told you so." On November 15, 2016, I wrote:

To those 47% of you that voted for Trump, I have to say - this is your dumpster fire. He has shown the country and the world who he is, again and again and again. But you wouldn't believe him. So when he continues to be who he is, I don't want to hear about how "you didn't know." Of course you knew. You just didn't care because he appealed to your baser instincts and you fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

You knew. You didn't care. And so you own this criminal piece of shit administration, this insurrection, this four years of lies, corruption, bad behavior, and mishandling of the epidemic. I hope you enjoy being on the wrong side of history. And if you voted for this reprobate twice? I don't even know how to respond to such an incredible display of poor judgement and White supremacy. 

________

Accountability: It's not just for the "low-class" anymore

So tRump finally became the bestest President in history by getting his ass impeached not once but twice. He's winning!

Actually, he's really not. He's a big fat loser and the walls are closing around him because he finally went too far even for Vice President Pence and Majority Leader McConnell. He miscalculated his ability to act with impunity, and now he and his ill-begotten children are going to pay, and pay, and pay. Whether he wins or loses, he'll pay with the humiliation of another Senate trial. He's already paying with a loss of allies, advisors and champions. He'll pay as investigators continue to dig into what exactly happened on the 6th. He'll pay when the state and city of New York and the state of Georgia indict him. He'll pay when he has to declare bankruptcy (again!) due to his lost relationships with other businesses. His retRumplican sycophants will pay with a loss of political contributions for their complicity in enabling him. His shitty, entitled kids will pay with the loss of their social standing and reputation (like they needed any help on that score). And you know what? Fuck him. Fuck him and all his smug, criminal family. I have no sympathy for these immoral Marie Antoinette wannabes - they deserve far worse than what's going to happen to them. Nothing would please me more than for every damn one of them to disappear into the obscurity they so richly deserve. After their legal and financial troubles are widely reported, scrutinized, and commented upon, I mean. 

________

IDOR got your tongue?*

I find it funny (in a "Can you believe this shit?" way rather than a "funny haha" way) that the insurrectionists were So. Fucking. Stupid. I mean seriously - they filmed themselves going into the Capitol building, they took pictures and filmed themselves actually committing their crimes, and then promptly posted all this to social media where any old body could see it and use it to identify them as insurrectionists. Way to out yourself, genius! 

Did they think this was a game, and their goal was to be "seen" being a big, bad tough guy on social media and the news? Wrong answer, idiot. The FBI, the Capital Police, the Metro Police and the Secret Service aren't laughing. At all. And now you're shocked - shocked you say! - to discover that your group is being rounded up and arrested for your part in this travesty? Get the fuck out of here. Your misanalysis of the situation does not excuse your acts. 

And to add insult to their injury, these dumbasses had previously flocked to a social media platform that marketed themselves as a private, secure, unmoderated platform championing unfettered free speech. Here was a place where the right-wing extremists could exalt in their hate and also plan their misdeeds without interference from the "liberal media." However, Parler didn't hire the best or the brightest or even the minimally competent to architect their platform. Which led to the platform having such a basic, giant security hole in its software that you could launch a Saturn V through it. And people did. Prior to AWS shutting down their servers, hackers waltzed on in and scraped every bit of data they could find, including all the messages, photos, and videos on the site, which included the metadata associated with each object. For those who don't work in technology, this means the people who have archived Parler's data now have a treasure trove of information that will help law enforcement identify and analyze the ringleaders of the insurrection. Parler's technical team made it easy for them, and you can rest assured that ALL of this data is now public, right down the GPS coordinates of where the posts were made. You can even find out what your neighbors have been posting, if you're so inclined.

I could make a "stupid is as stupid does" or "we deserve a better class of insurrectionist" joke here, but it seems like shooting fish in a barrel. 

________

Dishonor before Death

I have a special kind of hate in my heart* for the veterans who chose sedition on the 6th. These are the same hypocrites who are constantly parading around their veteran status with grand announcements about how their "oath never expires" and then turn around and join the "Oath Keepers" or "The 3%ers," or other extreme militias/hate groups who participate in domestic terrorism. Make no mistake - these people have absolutely betrayed their oath, no ifs, ands, or buts. Their oath was to defend the Constitution, and here they were, shaming their service by attempting to stop the Constitutionally mandated duty of Congress and the Vice President. I am ashamed of them, and ashamed that their previous "service" lumps them in the same category as me and the other honorable, patriotic veterans of my acquaintance. They even wanted to kill their own Vice President for the heinous crime of following the Constitution in the execution of his duties. Yeah, you're keeping your oath, all right, you piece of shit. 

________

Business first

I have mixed emotions about the way Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple, AWS and others have basically shut down the social media presence of extreme and far right activists, including retRumplicans. I understand exactly why they did it, of course. These companies currently occupy four slots in the Fortune 50, and the one who didn't make that cut - Twitter - is extremely powerful in this context because tRump relied on it so heavily to stoke his populist flames. But let's be honest, here. They're in business to make money, regardless of what their PR folks would have you believe. Their fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders, not some nebulous ideal of protecting democracy or whatever. And having the federal government in an uproar and forcing citizens to become even more uncertain about the future of our nation is not good for business. A stable society that respects the rule of law is a much better business environment than chaos and insurrection. The second these companies started to consider tRump and his ilk a liability rather than an asset to their business plans, they made a business decision and dumped him and his hard-core supporters like a hot rock. 

On the one hand, speech encouraging violence and sedition should be banned by private companies. But then it raises the question of who gets to decide? Big Tech executives? Why are they empowered to do so? What makes them more qualified to determine what crosses the line and what doesn't? How would I feel if the current "banning" bias was against liberal thought and opinion rather than conservative? These companies represent a huge market share in the areas where they do business, and I'm not sure I want private corporations to have this much power over political discourse. 

Yes, yes, the 1st Amendment does not apply to corporations, only the government. I took a college level civics class, unlike actual retRumplican politicians who have presumably passed the Bar. But this is not the 18th Century, and I'm not sure our Founders had an instant information society driven by private industry in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. In this specific case, I'm starting to think some measure of government regulation over these issues might be in order, or at least worth discussing. I miss the Fairness Doctrine. 

________

Worn out, worn down

I've spent the last four years on a slow boil from a politics perspective, wondering when this nightmare would end. And the answer appears to be "Not in my lifetime." Anonymous sources have been telling reputable media outlets for weeks that the reTrumplicans in Congress knew full well the election wasn't "rigged" or "stolen." But they continued to support this nonsense because tRump's base and their base have significant overlap, and it's more important to them to get reelected than to be honorable people and fulfill their oaths to the Constitution. 

And I don't really see any way to bridge this gap. Almost half of American voters chose White supremacy over character in November, in spite of all the evidence that proved tRump to be dishonest, misleading, incompetent, stupid, ego-driven, entitled, and generally a person of poor character. They were convinced by a con man that creating an egalitarian society is actually an abrogation of the rights of White people. He brought to the surface and stoked the idea that the Blacks and the browns and the wimmin were coming for their guns, their money, their place in society, their privilege. 

Well, that last item IS actually true. 

It makes me throw up in my mouth that these selfsame "patriots" who only wanted to ensure the election was "free and fair" are calling for national unity now that their tRump has come home to roost. You're four years too late and 74 Electoral College votes too short, you corrupt, dishonorable wretches. This is your legacy now -- an armed insurrection inside the Capital building, enabled and tacitly approved by you, in service to your ego and your ambition. 

So I'm sad and exhausted. I'm sad about what tRump's manipulations, lies, authoritarianism and fascist tendencies have done to people I know and care about. I'm exhausted by a political system that allows the minority to dictate policy to the majority based on shenanigans and greed. I'm sad about the no-end-in-sight polarization of our political parties which will probably continue until well after I'm gone. And I'm exhausted by my own cynicism about the country I swore to protect with my life. 

________

*"IDOR" stands for insecure direct object reference, the security hole that hackers used to scrape Parler data from their servers.  

**My intense feelings surrounding this small group bothers me. Hate is a vile emotion, and poisons people from the inside. I have work to do in order to get a handle on this. 

Sea Change

 

On December 3rd, the Secretary of Defense announced that the Armed Forces would begin offering all jobs, including ground combat positions, to qualified women. This announcement includes the various Special Forces units, such as the Navy SEALS, Army Special Forces, etc.:

“There will be no exceptions,” Carter said. “This means that, as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before.”

Naturally, this announcement stirred up a shitstorm. Will the standards be lowered to accommodate women? Will women's inclusion in combat units negatively affect unit cohesion? Will women now be subject to Selective Service? Will PMS play a role in women's effectiveness in combat?*

These are all concerns that need to be addressed. Well, except for that last one. Several people have asked me my thoughts, so here they are. Please note I have a tendency to use Navy-centric terminology because of my background, but I'm quite sure the same points apply to the other branches, as well.

Will the Special Forces lower their standards to accomodate women? 

I sure as hell hope not. The standards are there for a reason, and people's lives depend on their shipmates being able to meet them. Will maintaining them mean that fewer women will be able to qualify for these jobs? Damn straight. The same way they weed out men who are not fit enough, strong enough, or agile enough to meet them. Men have been washing out of BUD/S for decades, and no one ever suggested the Navy lower their standards so more of these poor, delicate snowflakes could be included in the program. What's the difference? A woman (like a man) who applies to be a SEAL isn't really interested in being protected. 

Will women's inclusion in combat units negatively affect unit cohesion?

Meh. I’m not going to be baited on this one. This is the same nonsense we went through when women were first assigned overseas, assigned to support ships, allowed to serve at all. Integration won’t be easy, but the cultural shift will occur, just as it's done for every other sea change in the military. As my friend Sarah brought up, we have always fought, and attempts to rewrite history to downplay women's roles doesn't change that. 

Will women now be subject to the draft in the same way men are?

I think the better question here is why the hell aren't they now? Here's the thing about wanting "equal opportunity." To achieve true equality, to be considered truly equal in the eyes of your peers, you MUST accept equal responsibility and equal risk. During my early years in the Navy, I was not afforded the same responsibility as my male peers. I couldn't serve on combat vessels, and in fact many women completed their entire careers without serving on Auxiliary ships, either. I was not subject to the selective service. And yet, I received the same pay and benefits as my male peers with similar rank and years of service. No wonder women weren't treated as equals - in the eyes of many men, we had all the perqs and none of the risk. The fact that these circumstances weren't my fault or my choice didn't make my male shipmates feel any differently about it.

By forcing women to participate in Selective Service in the same way men are, we are acknowledging that we are equal partners in citizenship with our male fellows. We accept the same privileges, as well as the same responsibilities and risks, as everyone else who's allowed to vote in this country. On a moral level, this is only right and fair.

Will PMS play a role in women's effectiveness in combat?

Really? THAT'S the question you think deserves the most consideration in this integration effort? Get the fuck out of here - adults are talking.
_____

I have no doubt that after the current generation of service members retire, the integration of women into these roles will be complete and with the exception of a few neanderthal hold-outs, people in uniform will wonder what all the fuss was about. In the meantime, professional Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Guardsmen will continue to do what needs to be done, and let the pearl-clutchers and hand-wringers burn themselves out. They always do.


*I wish to fuck I was making that last one up.

On Refugees, Risk, and the Value of Courage

In the beginning, there was death, and also facts

Everyone's talking about it - the press, the Presidential candidates, the President, the Governors. Every other post on social media relates to it, with people coming down on both sides of the issue, usually, predictably, along party lines. Some people want to ensure the Syrian refugees are welcomed in the West, and are helped to build a new life. Some people want to keep them out, on the grounds that they may be dangerous.

When the terrorist attacks occurred in Paris and Daesh took responsibility, I decided I needed to know more about this group. Who they were, what they wanted, their philosophy. I quickly expanded my search to include facts about terrorism in America, what the risks are, where the danger lay, and the historical context of refugees in America. It's a complicated subject, and I won't try and regurgitate what I've read. Anyone with an open mind and in Internet connection will easily find the same material I did, and I'm far from an expert on these topics. But I will state some facts that have informed my opinion on this topic.

1. ISIS (Daesh) is an apocalyptic cult. It is based in 7th Century Islamic law, and its adherents are attempting to bring on the end-times by, among other things, establishing a caliphate in Syria.
2. Daesh has very definite ideas about who is an apostate when it comes to their medieval belief system. Number one on their list of better-off-deads is people like me, followed closely by moderate Muslims who prefer to live in the 21st Century instead of the 7th. Christians are last on their list, provided said Christians pay a tax called jizya and acknowledge Sharia.
3. Approximately 23.2% of people in the world identify as Muslim - roughly 1.6 billion people. Daesh's total fighting force is estimated at 20,000 fighters, or approximately .0000125% of the Muslim population.
4. Many of the refugees from Syria who are seeking refuge here and in Europe are fleeing Daesh. The Caliphate has taken over their neighborhoods, and rather than being hung, or crucified, or being sold into slavery, they ran.
5. So far, none of the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks in Paris have been identified as refugees. They've all been identified as European nationals.
6. Since 9/11, nearly twice as many people in the United States have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims.
7. Drawing a direct line between the United States' military endeavors in the Middle East and the rise of Daesh is a completely supportable thesis.

_____________

My thoughts on the topic of Daesh and the plight of the Syrian refugees can be divided into three areas: Geopolitics, risk, and values.

Geopolitics

When I observe the world stage, and the continuing conflicts between radical Muslims and the West, I can come to only one conclusion: What we're doing isn't working. Bombing the hell out of Afghanistan, toppling Saddam Hussein, leaving without a plan or providing nation building - all of these things have made the situation worse, not better. It's led to minor and major terrorist attacks, the fraying of our alliances, and the continued deterioration of our nation's reputation on the world stage. Our strategy didn't work, and calling for "more of the same" seems the height of stupidity.

I'm not going to try and pretend that I'm in any way qualified to devise a strategic vision for dealing with the Middle East in all its complexities. Smarter people than me have failed for decades, and I don't have the education or the experience to even take a stab at it. But I do believe that any such strategy needs to be driven by a common goal that we can share with the regional stakeholders, and guided not by American arrogance in assuming our way is the only way, but by compassion.

By agreeing to help with the Syrian refugee crisis, Americans are telling moderate Muslims that we stand beside them in their struggle against Daesh. We're saying that we consider Daesh our common enemy, not a "Muslim problem." We're welcoming moderate Muslims into our community, a community built on civilized, egalitarian behavior, and offering them the protection of the greatest country in the world. To deny them refuge because they're Muslim, or only to allow those who pass a religious litmus test is profoundly bigoted, and reinforces the worst stereotypes about America.

Risk

The argument I keep hearing about opening our borders to the Syrian refugees is that the Boston Marathon bombings were carried out by refugees, so therefore we must ban all refugees in order to protect our citizens.

I do not deny that the cretins responsible for the Boston Marathon terrorist attack were Chechen immigrants. Their parents were granted asylum in this country, and that's why they lived here. But they weren't refugees, and they were not connected with any specific terrorist organization. I don't think you can draw a direct line between their immigration status and their decision to do evil.

I don't think Americans have a very good understanding of risk. For example, drowning causes approximately 3,500 deaths in the United States each year. Unintentional deaths from shooting causes approximately 600 deaths in the United States each year. And yet, people are much more cavalier about water safety than they are gun safety, especially as it relates to their children.

Daily, we drive our kids around in automobiles, even though 1 of every 4 unintentional injury deaths among children younger than 13 is caused by auto accidents. And yet, we accept this risk without thought, while collectively losing our shit over the possibility that a Daesh fighter might sneak in with the Syrian refugees.

I am in no way suggesting that the risk is "zero," nor do I think intelligence and law enforcement organizations should be lackadaisical in their approach to these issues. Due diligence is required when accepting any refugee population into our boarders. But a realistic evaluation of the risk/reward is required, and decisions should be made based on facts, not logical fallacies and emotion. And the fact of the matter is that I have more to fear from the white, Christian, secessionist whackadoos than I do from any moderate Muslim refugee.

Values

I served this country in uniform for 17 years. I don't think that service gives me more moral authority to speak to the values of the United States, but it did give me an impetus to analyze why I thought America was worth that service, and why I promised to give that last, final measure if required.

I served because I believe in America. I believe we're a nation of people who can accomplish anything. I believe we're a nation that values helping others, that values protecting the weak and opposing the oppressor. I believe we're a nation who wants to be seen by the world as a moral leader, who wants to retain our position as a Superpower and shape the world to our liking. And I believe we're a generous people.

So when I see that a growing number of states are "refusing" to take in Syrian refugees, I am deeply, profoundly ashamed. When I see that my fellow Coloradans are signing petitions to encourage Governor Hickenlooper to reverse his position on taking in the people who are fleeing Daesh, I am horribly embarrassed for them, and I judge their courage and compassion wanting.

We are Americans. How can we refuse these people in their hour of greatest need, when they are fleeing civilization's enemy, an enemy we helped create? Will we ask our all-volunteer Armed Forces to go into harm's way once again, to defeat our enemy on their own ground, while we ourselves cower in our corners, afraid to help those who have suffered the most at the hands of this scourge?

Will we learn nothing from history, where we refused entry to our nation to millions of Jews who were then exterminated by madmen? Will we instead intern Muslims, as we did Japanese-Americans, to our everlasting shame?

These people, the ones who want to close our doors in the face of the wanting, they're afraid, and I understand their fear. They see what happened in Paris, in Boston, and they're afraid. They see their own loved ones in the faces of the dead and injured, and they want protection. For them, forsaking our values in the name of safety is the right course.

And yet, such forsaking is exactly what Daesh wants from us. They want to sow discord among civilized nations, and turn us one against the other. They want us to turn away from our fellows, and invade their territory, thus hastening the end times.

We are Americans. We have a history of courage, and conviction. We see ourselves as the land of the free and the home of the brave. We must embrace our courage now, and stand up to the bullies who would have their own way on pain of death. We must welcome those who have fled from our enemy, and provide succor, and protect them with our might. We must accept the risk of doing the right thing, as a nation, instead of allowing our Armed Forces to always act as our proxy in this regard. We must not give in to fear. Courage is the act of doing what's right, in the face of fear.

I am afraid. But I will muster my courage, and I will welcome my Syrian neighbors. Because I am American.

To my Brothers and Sisters in Arms...

Thank you.

An Imperative of Citizenship

Over the last several days, I've seen this graphic on social media:

I find the message of this graphic profoundly disturbing.

I served this country in uniform for over half my adult life. My father served in the Armed Forces and later became a Deputy Sheriff. My family has a long tradition of service, and I respect my brothers and sisters in arms for the work they do and the risks they take on our behalf.

And yet, I judge them. 

Not only do I judge them, but I judge them more stringently than I would other professionals. The fact that these men and women put themselves between us and the barbarians at the gate means they are to be held to a higher standard, not a lesser one. There is nothing less seemly than an armed servant of the people assuming the mantle of entitled authority.

It's unseemly because members of the Armed Forces or Law Enforcement serve the citizens they protect. An assumption that the simple fact of their authority should naturally mean an obligation for citizens to obey them without question - whether their directions are lawful or not - automatically makes the relationship adversarial. It mistakes fear for respect. And it eliminates the possibility that community safety can be a joint endeavor, and not an "us versus them" scenario.

Let's make no mistake here: I support my brothers and sisters in arms. I understand the stresses of their jobs, and the danger they are exposed to every day. I believe that the vast majority are ethical human beings who take their responsibility and their duty seriously, and represent their organizations in the best possible way. I believe they should be paid more, receive full benefits, and know in their hearts that they and their families will be taken care of in case they're injured or killed in the line of duty. It's the right thing to do.

What I don't believe is that they should not be held to the highest standards while performing their duties. War and policing are no joke - they require a dedication few humans possess, and leave those who serve with an understandable pride in their choice. This is the pride of professionals, not amateurs. And professionals should expect, they should demand, that members of their select group be worthy of that pride. That means when someone exhibits poor judgement or illegal behavior that results in the injury or death of the citizens they are sworn to protect, they MUST be held accountable. They must be investigated by a neutral third party, and if innocent, returned to full duty with a clean slate. If guilty they must accept the consequences, whether it's being reduced in rank, losing their job, or going to prison.

And my status as a veteran and police family member does not give me the right to judge them in this way. It certainly informs my opinion, but the right to judge comes from the simple fact that I'm a citizen of this country, living here legally. The police and the Armed Forces are accountable to me, and to all of us. They are representatives of the government, and so must operate only with the consent of the governed.

I'm a pasty white middle aged suburbanite whose worst legal infraction is speeding and failing to stop completely at stop signs. And yet I, too, am scared of the police. I'm afraid that some innocent behavior on my part will be interpreted as aggressive, and a negative result will follow. If that's how I feel I can't imagine how people of color view these authority figures.

So judging the behavior of the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement isn't just "allowed" in this country. It's an imperative of citizenship, and a safeguard against the corrupting influence of power. The only people who should be afraid of police are criminals. There's no reason why the rest of us should have to view the police as "dangerous animals," as Brother Eric explains. It's unseemly. It's unprofessional. 

I recently saw a YouTube video filmed three years ago of British Bobbies subduing a man on the street who was wielding a machete. They did so without the use of firearms, as is their process and tradition. The description of the event:

Angry man armed with machete is taken down eventually after taunting police by over 30 police officers with riot shields. According to the story he'd been CS gassed (pepper spray) and was still going strong.

Seems a little over kill to me. Then again this isn't America where they'd just open fire on him.

And we're a "civilized" country.

What a shame.

Defining "A Professional Emergency," a Public Service Announcement

As most of you know, I spent some years in the United States Navy. I achieved the rank of Senior Chief Petty Officer, and during my time in service, I discovered what constitutes a real professional emergency:

• A main space fire.
• A life threatening illness on a ship without a doctor, far from the nearest medical facility.
• Having some chucklehead compromise the military's cryptographic codes to our enemies for fun and profit.
• Having your steering fail during an underway replenishment (UNREP).
• Having communications fail during Flight Ops on a ship without a landing pad. 
• An in-country uprising near an American base on foreign soil. 

The following events do not constitute a professional emergency:

• A support person is unavailable to attend a customer meeting on an unqualified opportunity.
• Associates who are not "on call" do not respond to your e:mail/text/call at 2:30 a.m.
• Your colleague does not respond within 5 minutes of you sending a "priority" e:mail.
• A requirement for technical support on a project that is due two days after you ask for help.
• A request for six different proposal options on the same opportunity.
• Your colleague does not make themselves always available via IM.

This has been a Public Service Announcement brought to you by Hot Chicks Dig Smart Men. 

I Am the 1%

I was listening to the September 6th edition of Moyers and Company yesterday. The guest was historian, Vietnam veteran and noted conservative Andrew Bacevich, and they were talking about the possible military action in Syria. From the interview:

If you think back to 1980, and just sort of tick off the number of military enterprises that we have been engaged in that part of the world, large and small, you know, Beirut, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia — and on and on, and ask yourself, ‘What have we got done? What have we achieved? Is the region becoming more stable? Is it becoming more Democratic? Are we enhancing America’s standing in the eyes of the people of the Islamic world?’ ‘The answers are, ‘No, no, and no.’ So why, Mr. President, do you think that initiating yet another war in this protracted enterprise is going to produce a different outcome?

Um, yes. Just so. Not to be all isolationist or anything, but I'm honestly beginning to think that U.S. policy in the Middle East should basically consist of getting the hell out of there and letting those countries manage their own shit for a change. They'll either work it out and embrace the Enlightenment - or they won't. Because our very costly efforts to force the issue have been singularly, spectacularly unsuccessful, and I can't see why me and mine should go into harm's way (again) for a demonstrably failed policy.

But the part of the interview that really resonated with me was the thesis of Dr. Bacevich's new book, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country. He contends that since America now relies on a professional military rather than a citizen’s army, we've been lured into a morass of endless war. The military is no longer the tool of the people, Dr. Bacevich contends, but the tool of politicians, and no one pays the price for their use except military families - approximately 1% of the population. No sacrifices are asked of the population. There is no draft. We fund our wars with foreign debt. The price is paid purely and wholly by those families who send their young people off to serve, who may or may not return from their deployments.

My political views are basically diametrically opposed to those of Dr. Bacevich, but I have to say - the man's right on the money with this. The only difference is that in this case the 99% aren't supporting the 1% in some sort of orgy of consumerism and greed. The 99% are sending the 1%'s children off to die, they're fracturing military families, they're allowing a tiny minority to bear the entire burden of their elected officials' ideas.

And that's just wrong.
__________

ETA: Eric Garland has an excellent essay up on why American politicians are so blind to our failed foreign policy in this region. Worth a read. 

He Ain't Heavy...He's my Brother

When I was in the service, I was never called upon to participate in combat duty, and so never incurred a physical or psychological injury. I realize how very lucky I am in this regard, and it makes me respect my wounded brothers and sisters in arms all the more.

Which is why I'm very, very proud to be participating in my first 5K race this Saturday to benefit the Wounded Warrior Project. Their vision is "To foster the most successful, well-adjusted generation of wounded service members in our nation's history." A worthy goal at any time.

If you're able and inclined, please consider making a donation to this program at my fundraising page. Non sibi sed patriae.

Things for Thursday

So far, I'm enjoying working for Global Dynamics. While there's a been a few small hiccups in the administrivia that's always necessary when you join a new company, it's actually been pretty painless. I suspect that may change once I get my laptop and have access to the corporate network instead of using my personal e:mail and spending my time studying and training, but for now - cool beans.
__________

I have confirmed that my company owned assets from my last gig have been safely delivered (and signed for) via FedEx. One more thing to check off the list.
__________

Now that I've had a few days to quiet my mind and enjoy my "I don't work for my old company anymore" status, I have to say - this feels good. This kind of good:

Hehe.
___________

I'm such an optimist. Today I signed up for the Spartyka Wounded Warrior 5K in Colorado Springs on September 22nd. I've never run in any kind of "fun run" or "race" or whatever. But I figured since my new running shoes have turned out to be such a winner, I can safely assume I'll be able to run for 45 minutes without stopping and without pain. I chose the Wounded Warrior 5K because, duh - it's the Wounded Warrior Project. I'll post a plan to collect donations in support of my run as the date approaches.

Why my ladybrain should prevent my serving in a combat role

"I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat." - Rick Santorum, Cankerous Choad and anti-feminist

I have a confession to make.

Rick's absolutely correct. My ladybrain does, in fact, make me completely unsuitable for the military life: 

• It prevented me from learning the both the technical and military skills that were required for me to be an effective Radioman.*
• It prevented me from maintaining good order and discipline in my division.*
• It prevented me from waking up every morning with an attitude that my current rank would be my last rank, and behaving appropriately to ensure my sailors and ship always received my best efforts.*
• It prevented me from planning my pregnancy to ensure the needs of my family and the needs of the Navy would conflict to the smallest extent possible.*  **
• It prevented me from making considered and defensible decisions about my sailors and my duties, even in high stress situations.*
• It prevented me from achieving the required qualifications for my billet and rank, including the Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist.*
• It negatively affected my male shipmates' ability to perform their duties, because they were too concerned about me, delicate flower that I am.*

I propose a scientific experiment. Let's put Rick Santorum in a cage fight with any active duty military woman who is currently serving in a combat role - any service - and see how their ladybrain affects the outcome. Yeah.  

________________
*Not intended to be a factual statement.

**Why, yes, my birth control was in fact provided and paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, the entire time I was on active duty. Horrors! Communism! Socialism! Stalinism! Violation of Freedom of Religion!

So Proud

Brian J. Clark/The Virginian-Pilot/AP

You know, I'm always proud of my service in the U.S. Navy, and I'm always proud of my military alma mater. But, really, I've never been more proud than the moment I saw this photo and realized what it meant.

So proud.

My Band of Brothers

WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
    But one ten thousand of those men in England
    That do no work to-day!
 
KING. What's he that wishes so?
    My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
    If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
    To do our country loss; and if to live,
    The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
    God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
    By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
    Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
    It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
    Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
    But if it be a sin to covet honour,
    I am the most offending soul alive.
    No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
    God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
    As one man more methinks would share from me
    For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
    Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
    That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
    Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
    And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
    We would not die in that man's company
    That fears his fellowship to die with us.
    This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
    He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
    Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
    And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
    He that shall live this day, and see old age,
    Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
    And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
    Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
    And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
    Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
    But he'll remember, with advantages,
    What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
    Familiar in his mouth as household words-
    Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
    Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
    Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
    This story shall the good man teach his son;
    And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
    From this day to the ending of the world,
    But we in it shall be remembered-
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Happy Veteran's Day to my Band of Brothers and Sisters.

Self Determination and Dice Rolling

So the Republican candidates are once again frothing at the mouth, this time because the President has decided to entirely withdraw American troops from Iraq by December 31, 2011. Michele Bachmann is up in arms because she feels that America is being disrespected by the Iraqi people. Rick Santorum feels that we've "lost control" of Iraq. Herman Cain thinks it's going to "leave a vacuum." And all of them are (of course!) blaming the President for his "foreign policy failure."

Here's the thing. No responsible Commander in Chief is going to leave American troops in a foreign country without a Status of Forces Agreement. To do so would leave our men and women in uniform entirely vulnerable to the whims of whoever wanted to incarcerate or punish them as they saw fit. And our SOFA with Iraq expires on (surprise!) December 31, 2011. The Iraqi government has chosen not to enter into an acceptable agreement with the United States beyond that date, and by that legal act, has essentially told us to pack our shit and go home.

And they absolutely have the right to do so.

The bottom line is that Iraq is a sovereign nation, with the right of self determination in matters that pertain to their security and governance. If they choose to move forward without the help of the American military, then it's not really up to us to force the issue. Because doing so, you see, is called "Imperialism."

Which is not to say that the Administration should disengage. The region is still volatile, and it's in our interest to maintain relationships. But it's not in our interest to have a childish snit and demand that the Iraqi people reimburse us for the cost of our occupation (Bachmann's brilliant plan). They didn't ask us to come in and "liberate" them and poke the pooch so thoroughly on Day 2. As usual, the Republicans are allowing their hubris and exceptionalism to cloud the larger issue. Because that's worked out so WELL for the United States in the last ten years, don't you know.

The problem with liberating a people and allowing them to make their own decisions in a democratic fashion is that they may in fact choose to act against your interests in favor of their own. You rolls the dice, you takes your chances.

Triple Threat

When I was on active duty, my promotion trajectory was quite fast. Due to a now defunct program called "accelerated advancement," my ability to test well, and a sufficient number of openings in my job title, I was able to achieve the rank of First Class Petty Officer (E-6) in 4.5 years, at the age of 23.

And I took no end of shit for my accomplishment.

Nearly every non-commissioned officer with whom I had contact had the following opinion:

1. I was far too young to have been awarded the rank I had achieved.
2. I had not been in the Navy long enough to have been awarded the rank I had achieved.
3. A woman should not have been awarded the rank I had achieved ahead of a man.
4. The rank I had been awarded was obviously the result of my looks, or who I had slept with, or some other non-merit based criteria. 
5. Some combination of 1, 2, 3, and always 4.

I was promoted because I was smart, and worked hard, and learned the technical knowledge I needed in order to do well on the advancement exam. But I didn't "deserve" it because I was young, female, and attractive. And people - both men and women - felt perfectly comfortable saying this to my face, secure in the knowledge that their behavior was acceptable in  the culture in which we lived and worked.

And it made me think, "I wonder if their attitude would have been different if I'd had a penis?" I think you can guess the answer. Because there was a man in my command who was equally smart, worked just as hard, learned just as much, and got promoted almost as fast. And he was described as "ambitious," "someone to watch," and a "triple threat." I can guarantee I wasn't described in those terms by my peers, even though we shared the attributes that made him praiseworthy. Yeah.

I'm happy to say that the Navy has made some progress in changing the culture so that the assumptions that were made about me are not necessarily the norm anymore. The fact that women are equal in fact rather than only in policy helps tremendously, as did the post Tailhook house-cleaning. But I wonder...how many high quality sailors were run off because staying wasn't worth the grief they took whenever they excelled? Being constantly marginalized - especially as a result of excellence - wears a person down, and I can't blame my sisters-in-arms who made the choice to leave rather than continue to deal with that bullshit indefinitely. I personally consider my experience worth it, and I don't regret it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't still piss me the hell off.

Sea Change

Today the U.S. Armed Forces will formally acknowledge the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that prohibited gay and lesbian men and women from openly serving in the military.

In the seventeen years that I served in the Armed Forces, my shipmates were straight and gay. With few exceptions, everyone "knew" who the gay service members were. We shared berthing compartments with them, we shared meals, we shared showers. Believe me - we knew. And with the exception of a small, self-righteous minority, no one gave a good goddamn. The gender of your sexual partner wasn't really the issue, but whether or not you were a good Radioman, a good Signalman, a good Hospital Corpsman, a good Damage Controlman, a good Photographer's Mate, a good sailor. It makes me proud that the organization where I spent so many years is finally catching up with its members and acknowledging that sexual orientation simply doesn't matter in this context.

And yet, I worry about that small, self-righteous minority.

Evangelical Christians have made significant progress in infiltrating the military in an attempt to push their religious agenda and marginalize other faith traditions. And one of the tenants of this initiative is a belief that homosexuality is "wrong," "unnatural," and "sinful." There is no doubt in my mind that these self-styled "prayer warriors" will do whatever they can to marginalize those gay service members who choose to come out under the protections of this repeal. And they'll feel good about it. I can only hope the leadership of the Armed Forces will force the cultural change that will be necessary for gay and lesbian service members to serve openly and in safety.

Sea change is never, never easy. One of my children is a member of the United States Navy. The other is a lesbian. They will both be affected by this change, for good or for ill, and I can only hope that the example of Admiral Mike Mullen will inspire and inform people of good conscience:

Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution. I also believe that the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change. I never underestimate their ability to adapt.

Move forward with grace and courage, shipmates. Non sibi sed patriae.

Ask Hot Chicks Dig Smart Men, Edition the Eleventh

Today's Question comes from LucyinDisguise, who asks,

An Eric inspired question (not for me so much, but for my grandson):

What is the Marine recruiter NOT telling my grandson that is swaying his decision away from the Navy?

And, perhaps more important, could you give your five top reasons why he should choose the Navy over the Marines?

(11 months to final commitment)

I have given him my best shot at why the Marines would not be a good fit, but I am clearly biased (mostly based on my interaction with Marines through my Interservice Honor Guard duties* when I was in the Air Force - not actual day to day exposure).

LucyinDisguise, this is a difficult question to answer, primarily because I don't know your Grandson, and I'm unsure why the Navy might be a better fit for him rather than the Marine Corps. But I'll share my thoughts, and you can take away what you will. Please note that these are my impressions only - I never served in the Marines, and so my thoughts are incomplete, at best.

I would have to say that the differences between the Navy and Marine Corps fall into several categories: mission, culture, and organization. The differences in mission are available all over the Internet, so I'll concentrate on culture and organization. Bear in mind, however, that I don't consider the Navy to be "better" than the Corps - they're just very, very different, in all aspects of their service.

The culture of the Navy and the culture of the Marine Corps are very different animals. The modern Navy is a technological wonder - almost every rate requires extensive technical training, and hundreds of hours of on-the-job training to achieve levels of proficiency that allow the sailors to fight effectively. Each mission segment is somewhat isolated, and only in rare cases do sailors who specialize in, say, Surface Warfare, learn and become proficient in Construction Battalion (SeaBees) operations. Each mission is carried out at the lower ranks without much regard for the other groups. People tend to identify themselves in terms of their community (such as Submarines, or Aviation) rather than as "Sailors" outside their communities.

While the Marine Corps is also specializing more and more, the bottom line for Marines is that they are, first and foremost, Marines. Whether they work in military intelligence, aviation, or Marine Expeditionary Forces, they're all Marines, and they wouldn't dream of identifying themselves as "MI" rather than as "Marines" to someone not of their community. As a service, the Marine Corps is the smallest, the most disciplined, and in their minds, the most exclusive of the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. And that attitude is reflected in their culture. To them, all that matters is whether or not you're a good Marine.

There are advantages and disadvantages to the different cultural norms, of course. In the Navy, it's sometimes possible to live a life that does not wholly and completely revolve around the Navy, and to maintain an identity that isn't, at its core, being a sailor. That's not true for the Marine Corps. Marines are always Marines, no matter what, and no matter how long they've been out. If you're the kind of person who requires a certain amount of autonomy, of individualism, then the Corps is not going to be a comfortable home for you. However, if you're the kind of person who thrives and blossoms in an environment where there's lots of structure, where your inclusion in the fraternal cohort is the only thing that matters, then the Marines might suit.

One area where all the Armed Forces need work, but the Marine Corps ESPECIALLY needs work, is in the area of gender equality. Of all the services, the Corps is the most dependent on a warrior culture whose cornerstone is a macho, tough guy ethos. It's the reason they're so tight in their brotherhood, so inflexible in their commitment to never leave a Marine behind. I don't know how they can keep the latter without shitcanning the former, but I do know that the Corps is not necessarily a good career choice if you're a woman.

Organizationally, the Marines are also the leanest of the services. The ranks of their support personnel is the smallest on a per capita basis compared to the other services. This allows them to maintain their exclusivity, and their identify as, first and foremost, a fighting force. One of the reasons for this is that they depend on the Navy in large part for some of this support (including their military academy).

There are career choices that allow young service members to be a part of the Marines without actually joining them. The most obvious is that of Navy Hospital Corpsman. The Marines don't have corpsman of their own - they use the Navy's, and corpsmen who are accepted into that program, live, work and fight alongside the Marine units they're assigned to. The Navy SeaBees are also a subculture that more closely resemble the Marine experience than a generic sailor's.

LucyinDisguise, I guess the bottom line is, what does your Grandson hope to achieve by joining the service? Technical training? A sense of accomplishment? Fulfilling a desire to serve?  College benefits? A career? What kind of person is he, and in what environment will he thrive? The answer to those questions will determine what service (if any) is right for him. I suspect the Marine recruiter is downplaying your Grandson's chances of being deployed into a war zone, which (if true), is just bullshit. If your Grandson joins the Marines, it's extremely likely that he'll end up in Iraq, Afghanistan, or some other shithole, trying hard not to get his ass shot off by some insurgent. That's a risk your Grandson has to be willing to accept before he signs up. On the other hand, if he chooses the Navy, it's extremely likely he'll end up on 6-9 month deployments on a Navy warship, living cheek to jowl with 200-5,000 of his closest friends. The military is not an easy life - in any context - and going in with your eyes open is best for everyone.

I know I have a number of former sailors and Marines that visit this space - I hope they'll throw their two cents in, as well. Thanks for your question, LucyinDisguise.

Ask Hot Chicks Dig Smart Men Edition the Sixth, Part 2

Today I'm posting Part 2 of the response to my platonic boyfriend Eric, who asked,

If it's not too personal to ask: I'd love to know more about your decision to join the Navy. (I hope that counts as a question, or set of questions.)

A related question or set of questions if it's not to personal: I'd also be interested in your decision to leave the Navy for the private sector.

I answered the first part of this question yesterday, and today I'll be tackling the much more complicated part 2, why I left active duty for the private sector.

On leaving active duty for the private sector, i.e., Part 2

The short answer here is that I was a dumb ass. The end. Not specific enough? Drat.

When I was a young adult, my life was categorized by two things: professionally, I had a rocket tied to my ass. And personally, my head was firmly lodged there, as well.

On a professional level, my Navy career was awesome. I made Chief (E-7) in nine years, I served in a variety of duty stations, earned several medals for outstanding service, earned my Surface Warfare Specialist designation, and was selected to serve as a Company Commander at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis. I think it's fair to assume that had I continued, I would have ended up as a Master Chief or a Warrant Officer.

But personally - I was just a mess. I've mentioned before how awful my decision making skills were in those years. In fact, I can't think of one personal decision I made that would be considered an example of "good judgment." The contributing factors for this include (but aren't limited to) low self esteem, clinical depression, a deep seated need to please my father, poor impulse control, and subsuming who I was to what I thought I "ought" to be. Just a mess.

So about ten years into my service, my personal and professional lives collided. I don't particularly want to discuss the gory details here, but I made the decision to leave active duty and join the active reserves. I found a civilian job (paralegal at a law firm specializing in employment law), and joined my reserve unit.

A year later, my personal life fell apart once again and I moved back to Colorado, where I had grown up and my extended family lived. And this is where the real work began.

It took me a number of years, but during this time I did the self-examination and analysis that was necessary for me to figure out why I constantly made bad decisions in my personal relationships, why I subjugated my true self to what I thought I "ought" to be, why I had impulse control issues, why I felt the way I did. None of this was easy, and I choose not to share my insights - but suffice it to say that those years were the real crucible of my life. I got my depression under control. I determined who I really was, who I wanted to be and what I had to do to get there. I determined what I wanted from my relationships, and cut those people out of my life who missed the mark.

Simultaneously, I had also started work in my new civilian career (telecommunications). In spite of being dirt poor for the first several years, my military work ethic stood me in good stead, and I did what needed to be done in order to be successful.

Could I have done the work of my early thirties while still on active duty? I honestly don't know. It seems unlikely, though. One of the things I needed to fix was my tendency to identify myself in large part by my occupation, rather than who I was. Janiece, hot shot sailor, as opposed to just "Janiece." Having the courage to stand on my own as an individual, without the Navy to prop me up was an important step in my journey - and one which would have been infinitely more difficult had I stayed. Additionally, the institutional sexism and warrior culture of the Armed Forces isn't really conducive to the type of work I needed to do to repair my life.

So I guess the answer to the question is that I left active duty for the private sector to find myself, my true self. The journey's still ongoing of course, but I think the heavy lifting is over.

The unspoken question, of course, is "Was it worth it?" It depends on what day you ask me. Some days I'm very regretful about abandoning my Naval career. It's the culture in which I came of age and I loved it -being a Chief was one of the great joys of my life. I still have intense loyalty to my former shipmates and my branch of service. Most days, however, I look at my current life, and I think, of course it was worth it. I love my life, and I'm proud of how far I've come from a personal growth perspective. I certainly don't regret the place I ended up, here in the Big Yellow House with my Smart Man, and with decent relationships with my Smart Twins. I look at leaving the Navy as the price I had to pay for the outcome I wanted. The Navy, as much as I loved it, was not conducive to me becoming who I wanted - needed - to be.

Thanks for your question, Eric.

Ask Hot Chicks Dig Smart Men, Edition the Sixth, Part 1

Today's question comes from my platonic boyfriend Eric, who asks,

If it's not too personal to ask: I'd love to know more about your decision to join the Navy. (I hope that counts as a question, or set of questions.)

A related question or set of questions if it's not to personal: I'd also be interested in your decision to leave the Navy for the private sector.

Um, yes. Those are personal questions, and I've discussed it before in a vague sort of way. However, it might be worth exploring them in more detail, as those choices have fundamentally changed the course of my life. This one will be in two parts, I think.

On Joining the Navy, i.e., Part 1

I was a terrible student in High School. Terrible. I rarely went to class, I didn't do my homework, and I could always, always think of something I'd rather do. So as I approached graduation (by the skin of my teeth), I needed to make some decisions about a Plan. Because my parents, being the narrow-minded sticklers that they were, insisted I have a Plan that did not include working for minimum wage and living at home.

After drifting along for most of my senior year of high school, I started to explore the possibility of the military. My family has served the United States in uniform for over 150 years, and while military service has never been expected, it was always considered a viable alternative to college and trade school. I was the first woman in my family to consider service, though, so in that way I was something of an outlier. My parents tried to raise me to believe I could do whatever I wanted, any job, any profession, and I was still naive enough to think my gender wouldn't be an issue if I just worked hard enough.

I first explored the Marine Corps. My father was a Marine, and the Marines have always been the most exclusive of the services (more on that in a future post). So I approached the Marine recruiter that a number of my male friends had used to begin discussions. Well, in my first exposure to sexual harassment in the Armed Forces, the recruiter in question attempted to lay me rather than sign me up. This did not impress me, because while I didn't know shit about the Armed Forces at this point, I surely knew that a grown man, firmly ensconced in his military career had no business attempting to bed a seventeen year old high school student who was also a potential recruit. So I went next door to the Navy.

I had better luck over there, as the recruiters were all professional and reasonably honest with me about what the expectations would be and what my life would be like. I would never expect a recruiter to be 100% honest - they're sales people, after all, and their job is to fill their quota. I qualified for a large number of jobs, and selected Radioman, essentially a communications expert, and was scheduled to leave for Boot Camp in the Spring of 1984.

So the short answer to your question, Eric, is that I chose the Armed Forces because I needed a Plan that allowed me to live an independent life without benefit of college. The ethos of service that runs in my family pushed me towards the Armed Forces, which we have always considered an honorable profession. I chose the Navy because the Marine recruiter decided it was more advantageous for him to come on to me than to sign me up.

We'll explore my subsequent decisions tomorrow in Part 2. Thanks for your questions, Eric.

Happy Memorial Day

WESTMORELAND: O that we now had here
    But one ten thousand of those men in England
    That do no work to-day!
 
KING: What's he that wishes so?
    My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
    If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
    To do our country loss; and if to live,
    The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
    God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
    By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
    Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
    It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
    Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
    But if it be a sin to covet honour,
    I am the most offending soul alive.
    No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
    God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
    As one man more methinks would share from me
    For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
    Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
    That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
    Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
    And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
    We would not die in that man's company
    That fears his fellowship to die with us.
    This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
    He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
    Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
    And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
    He that shall live this day, and see old age,
    Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
    And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
    Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
    And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
    Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
    But he'll remember, with advantages,
    What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
    Familiar in his mouth as household words-
    Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
    Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
    Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
    This story shall the good man teach his son;
    And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
    From this day to the ending of the world,
    But we in it shall be remembered-
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Just so. Happy Memorial Day, my Band of Brothers - and Sisters.