Don't Ask , Don't Tell

The issue of homosexuals openly serving in the United States military has received a large amount of publicity as of late. Thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision, the parameters of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy have been ruled unconstitutional. Paradoxically, despite his push to repeal the act, President Obama’s White House has appealed the ruling. The reasoning is that such a policy shift is best made legislatively and not judicially. In other words, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was put in place by Congress (as are most Department of Defense directives) and should only be altered by Congress.

While morality certainly plays into the issue for several people (because they disagree with the lifestyle,) it is imperative that we remain objective as to what is constitutional to enforce. After all I may not think Satanists are moral, but that is no credible basis to prevent them from serving their country. All I ask is that you remain objective concerning policies and their impact within the sphere of military service.

Before we begin, it may be helpful to look at significant events that have shaped the current policy we have now.

                 A History of Homosexuality and the American Military

1778	Lieutenant Frederick Gotthold Enslin is removed from the Continental Army for sodomy and perjury.
1916	The “blue discharge” or “blue ticket” is introduced and primarily utilized to dismiss African-Americans and some homosexuals from military service. Classified as neither honorable nor dishonorable, it still denies recipients many military benefits.
1947	“Blue discharge” is repealed and replaced with either “general” or “undesirable.”
1956	Congressional Gold Medal winner and humanitarian Thomas Anthony Dooley III is forced to resign from the Navy for “participating in homosexual activities.”  He is later cited by John F. Kennedy as an inspiration for the Peace Corps.
1957	The U.S. Navy releases the Crittenden Report which states that there is “no sound basis for the belief that homosexuals posed a security risk."
1981	The Department of Defense issues directive 1332.14 which states: “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission.” Homosexuality is views as a “disability” and gays are honorably discharged under the directive.
1986	In Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court upheld a Georgia law criminalizing sodomy citing that the US constitution did not confer “a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.”
1993	D.O.D directive 1304.26 (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue) is implemented which forbids recruits from disclosing bisexual or homosexual orientation, but also forbids commanding officers from attempting to discover sexual orientation.
2003	In Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court reverses Bowers v. Hardwick by decriminalizing consensual acts of sodomy between consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation.

The intent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was to “identify and exclude those who are likely to engage in homosexual acts while prohibiting direct inquiries into an applicant’s sexual orientation.” It served as a compromise between those who wished to actively seek out and exclude homosexuals and those who wished to allow them to openly serve.

According to a 2003 article in the Army Times by Charles Moskos, 80% of the discharges for homosexuality since D.A.D.T are the result of voluntary statements. He speculates that one reason for this high percentage is that claiming homosexuality  “is now the quickest way out of the military with an honorable discharge” because unless the statement is made under suspicious circumstances (such as after the individual is stop-lossed or immediately before combat) such a statement would be taken at face value without generating an investigation.

It is also important to remember that the repealing of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will not fundamentally change whether or not homosexuals serve in the military, it will just allow them to embrace both lifestyles openly and concurrently. A 2010 study by UCLA estimated that there are already 66,000 lesbians, gays and bisexuals currently on active duty in the United State Military. Under current policy, these individuals would be allowed to continue serving as long as their orientation was never revealed to a commanding officer and they were never caught engaging in homosexual behavior. If the law was repealed, the substituted policy would allow these current soldiers to reveal their orientation without repercussion and allow future soldiers to be forthright at the recruitment stage without being immediately rejected.

Many point to the unique circumstances of military service, such as living in close quarters for extended durations, as creating uncomfortable situations and undermining camaraderie amongst troops. Having never been in the military it would be disingenuous of me to dismiss such concerns outright so I have only the empirical data gathered from soldiers themselves.

In 2006, a Zogby poll of 545 active military personnel (85% of whom were male and 51% of whom identified themselves as Republicans) had the following responses:

·         55% admitted that the presence of gays and lesbians is already “well-known” within their unit

·         Of those who are currently serving with gays or lesbians, 66% believed that the presence of homosexuals has had no impact on their morale.

·          Of those who are not currently serving with gays or lesbians, 58% believed that the presence of homosexuals would have a negative impact on their unit.

·         The most prevalent reason given for excluding gays and lesbians from military service was “their presence undermining the unit.”

In 2010, Military Times conducted a poll of 3,000 service members were asked whether they thought homosexuals and bisexuals should be allowed to openly serve and 51% responded no.

In the past several years, high profile military personnel have openly favored repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Colin Powell, Current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili are all in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly. In November 2008, 104 retired generals and admirals signed a petition to allow openly gay soldiers to serve.

Certainly there is still a large number within the military that oppose open homosexuality, but it is somewhat telling that the more time a heterosexual soldier spends serving with a homosexual soldier the less trepidation they have about their impact. From the surveys it appears that our fear of a negative impact far outweighs the reality of that impact.

It is also advantageous to look at how other countries have handled the issue. As of 2010, 25 nations (including Great Britain, Canada, Israel, South Africa, and Australia) allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. Ironically, the two countries with policies closest to our own are Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I cannot, in good conscience, tell someone who is willing to selflessly die to protect my freedoms that they must first repress their own. How dare we devalue the sacrifice of a soldier because they happen to find a certain gender attractive? If we are to protect the rights of a splinter religious group to obscenely taint the memorial services for a fallen hero, how can we tell the young men and women we send into combat that they are unfit for their calling if they value honesty over deception? All Americans soldiers, regardless of color, creed, religion, or sexual orientation deserve our gratitude and respect. Let’s give it to them.   

One Woman, One Dream, One Thousand Pounds

Donna performing gastrointestinal warm-ups

New Jersey resident Donna Simpson has a dream, while others have squandered their fleeting existence by developing childhood vaccines or attempting to eradicate the scourge of cancer, she has never fallen prey to such asinine distractions. Her quest, if completed, will earn her a place in the history books and likely have a dramatic impact on the third quarter earnings of McDonalds. That is because Miss Donna Simpson has vowed not to stop consuming food until she has become the “fattest woman alive.” Her target weight is 1,000 pounds of artery-clogging-heart-palpitating-pancreas-decimating land monster.

Surpassing the curb weight of a 2008 Honda Goldwing is certainly no pipe dream. As of a few months ago Donna tipped the scales at 630lbs and recently was inducted into the Guinness Book of World Records as the heaviest woman to ever give birth. It took a team of thirty physicians (rumor has it that three doctors administered intravenous gravy) to perform the caesarian section that brought her daughter, Jacqueline, into the world.

While Donna constantly struggled with obesity as a child, she was able to get her weight down to 150lbs during her teenage years through a combination of diet, exercise, and some festively-tinted diet pills which have undoubtedly been recalled by the FDA. It was during this time that she met her first husband, who was gainfully employed as the chef at a steak house.

She recalls, in Lipitor-prescribing detail, how her new beau would return from work bearing “huge piles of steak, mashed potatoes, and gravy with butter” that they would gorge themselves on until the small hours of the night. She fondly recalls that initial weight gain and the self-esteem boost it provided, “He said I was sexier when I was bigger, and I felt happier too.”

After their relationship ended, she met 150-pound Philippe on a plus-sized dating website. He later sired the daughter that would put Donna in the record books and wholeheartedly supports his girlfriend’s mission to outweigh the entire U.S. Olympic Figure Skating Team. Simpson sheepishly admits that Philippe is “a real belly man” and would “like it if I was bigger.”

So with the support of her current squeeze, pre-teen daughter, and the stockholders of Frito-Lay, she consistently consumes in excess of 12,000 calories each day and purposefully moves as little as possible. To maintain this unparalleled intake of sustenance, Donna spends roughly $750 a week ($39,000 a year) on food.  

While a lesser woman would have turned to government subsidies to supplement her income, Donna has created her own website where hundreds of men pay a subscription fee to access videos of her eating while baring her stomach (take that, Internet porn). Many of these male admirers shower her with culinary gifts, such as high-calorie protein shakes, to expedite her weight gain.

Although the 43-year-old has difficulty showering, cooking, and identifying her kneecaps, she insists that she has never been happier. To the critics of her lifestyle, many of whom send her hate mail, she insists that she makes people happy and isn’t hurting anyone. She hopes that her story will inspire others and lead to the acceptance of overweight women worldwide.

While I agree that society as a whole tends to be somewhat prejudiced toward the obese, I am not sure that a woman who can break a sweat dismounting her double-reinforced mobility scooter is going to open any new doors. There is a distinct line between being comfortable with your body and deliberately gorging yourself for publicity / Internet revenue and Donna lumbered over it years ago.

Conversely, it is still her God-given right as an American to biggie-size her way to a circulatory-system meltdown if she so chooses. I salute her resourcefulness and as long as the taxpayers are not footing the bill for her caloric indulgences, I see no reason to send her hate mail. Let the woman live in peace until the day when the roll is called up yonder and the industrial-sized gravy boat comes to ferry her home.

Cousin Eddie

In these challenging economic times, many Americans are utilizing creative ways to minimize their expenses. Some have taken roommates, others have begun carpooling but only one couple possesses the fortitude necessary to show up at a home they sold decades earlier and simply pretend they still live there. That couple is none other than Randy and Evi Quaid. 

While Randy is best known for portraying “Cousin Eddie” in the National Lampoon films, it appears that his financial solvency has dwindled in recent years. While a lesser man would have filed for bankruptcy or taken a supporting role in a Steven Seagal film, Quaid refused to allow his family’s dignity to be compromised. So after the couple was charged with defrauding a high-end Santa Barbra hotel of $10,000 last year, they decided that it was time to head for the old homestead.

Understandably miffed when their key did not work in the front door of the house they sold in the early 90’s; the couple decided to shack up in the guest house out back. This lasted only a brief period before the home’s current owner (who was not living there at the time) called the police on the Academy Award Nominated-squatter and his wife. The couple insisted that they had never actually agreed to sell the home and that the entire sale was a fraudulent transaction that involved the forging of a dead woman’s signature. The owner alleged that the couple caused thousands of dollars’ worth of damage while residing in the mother-in-law suite. Randy would admit to nothing more descriptive than “redecorating.”

After being released on bail, the couple trekked northward into Canada where they checked into a Vancouver hotel and skipped their court date. The judge issued a warrant for their arrest and Canadian officials nabbed Randy and Evi while they were out shopping. Faced with extradition, Randy finally decided it was time to play his ace. The couple has now officially requested asylum in Canada because they fear that their execution has been green-lit by the most feared shadow organization in Hollywood: “the Hollywood murderers.”

According to the Quaid’s, the “Hollywood murders” have been responsible for the deaths of Heath Ledger and David Carradine among others. They fear that Randy may be their next victim because the two previous victims were “personal friends” of the Quaids. The couple has even expressed concern for the safety of their dog if they to be incarcerated. When asked for comment, the couple’s attorney read only the following statement:

"We are requesting asylum from Hollywood star whackers."

First, and foremost, I would like to express my admiration for the Quaid’s attorney. That he was able to stand up in a court of law and read the aforementioned statement with even a semblance of sincerity is an unimpeachable testament to his professionalism. Secondly, if you are going to fabricate the existence of a homicidal cult that specializes in the assassination of film actors it might behoove you to give them a more creative moniker. Instead of “The Hollywood Star Wackers,” might I suggest “The Famous People Hurters” or “The Actors-Guild Assassins?”

If there existed an organization with the financial resources and formidable skill necessary to convincingly portray the deliberate slaying of two world-renowned thespians (on two separate continents) as accidents, I seriously doubt that Canadian sovereignty will provide Randy Quaid with the personal safety that he is going to require. If they can ambush David Carradine in a high-end Thailand hotel, I am sure traversing the Canadian border to rub out Randy Quaid at the Calgary Motor Lodge will not present an insurmountable challenge.

Of course, I will feel terrible if Quaid has an “unfortunate incident” at a Maple Leafs game or the couple’s dog suffers a debilitating accident involving the lawn sprinkler. Were the Quad’s suspicions to be confirmed, I would like to utilize this blog entry to formally reach out to the “H.S.W.” and ask if they accept requests. I have a short list I would like to submit when it is convenient. 

The Roofers

Several weeks ago, my wife and I found ourselves in need of a roofing contractor. I will readily admit that contractors, like mechanics, intimidate me because 80% of the time I have no idea what they are talking about and I simply nod my head in faux comprehension to retain some semblance of my manhood. Feeling in over my head, I asked a few friends if they knew a trustworthy roofer (this was often met with laughter) and when that turned up nothing I scoured the yellow pages for ads that were reassuringly absent of any grammatical errors.

I settled on two different local contractors who had positive ratings with the Better Business Bureau and websites that did not feature banner ads for AdultFriendFinder.com. Both men spent about twenty minutes on the roof before they descended and began using terms like “inadequately-distributed soffit ventilation system” and “undersized-gutter backflow.” I nodded solemnly to assure the contractor that I fully understood the grave nature of these structural shortcomings and would intermittently repeat the last line he said in the form of a question to highlight my attentiveness.

“Mr. Taylor, I would definitely recommend that you go with the shingle-over PVC ridge venting.”

“So you think the shingle-over ridge venting would be the best choice?”

They both agreed that I should pursue a homeowner’s claim as the damage appeared to be caused by hail. My insurance company sent out an adjuster named Tim who got on the roof and came to the conclusion that my contractor was delusional and that all the “hail damage” he had identified was the result of “boot scuffing” that was so widespread it appeared as though my home had been used as a set-piece for Riverdance. I then called the insurance company to request a second opinion, and from there the conversation quickly slid into madness:

“I would like to request a second inspection.”

“We can have Tim come back out as he is familiar with the property.”

“Why would you send the same guy back out?”

“Sir, I do not understand. Do you have a problem with Tim?”

“Not at all, but I am not sure how Tim can give me a second opinion.”

“Sir, we are trying to accommodate your request by sending someone out for a second opinion.”

“No, you are offering to present me with the first opinion for a second time. I don’t want to get into the semantics of this with you, but generally a second opinion has to originate from a second source.”

“Sir, was there something wrong with Tim?”

“I am sure his integrity is beyond reproach, but again, by sending Tim back out here you give him only two options. One is to reverse his prior findings thereby admitting either passive incompetence or outright dishonesty. The other is to retain his dignity and agree with himself. Do you think that situation fosters objectivity?”

“Now that you put it that way, I don’t know why we would send out the same guy again. Mark will be there next week.” 

After Mark came out and concluded that Tim must have “been on my neighbor’s roof,” we set a date and time for the contractor to begin. As I would later learn, an appointment to a contractor is not so much a fixed moment in time as it is an abstract concept to be studied in retrospect. One particular day they called me at 9:00 AM to ask me when I was going to be home to let the painters in. After reminded her that no one had told me the painters were coming and I was at work, she said that she would call me back and let me when they could “reschedule.”

The next morning around the same time, I received a call informing me that the painters would not be able to make it that day and needed to reschedule for the next day. When I again relayed to her that I was at work and no one had informed me that were slated to work that day at all, she said they would reschedule for the following day in order to accommodate me.

When the painters did arrive, they consisted of a husband and wife team named Earl & Judy. I soon learned that Judy’s grown son from a previous marriage had been living with them for almost a year and a half while he was “getting his life together.” At one point after Judy needled Earl about eating slow at restaurants, he responded “Why should I hurry when I eat since all I have to look forward to at home is staring at your son’s useless feet on my damn coffee table.”

They were a pleasant couple and informed me that the young man was slated to move out that weekend. When I jokingly asked if they were going to celebrate, Earl turned rather serious and stated that he planned to remain inebriated for the better part of three days. I knew that he meant every word.

To be fair, what the workers lacked for in punctuality they compensated for in craftsmanship. Most were friendly and only one made me slightly uncomfortable (he favored wife-beaters and had the habit of staring two inches east of the person he was addressing) but all in all it seemed to work out OK.