Jones To The Grindstone

I sympathize with those in the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). It’s not easy making that patchwork quilt look good. Bringing together 27 member countries of vastly different, proud cultures, while only 17 of them use the euro as their currency, and just about none of their politics are united – what a stretch.

Ever made a quilt? I have. It’s about the perfect cutting and secure sewing of varying fabric pieces to fit together, making an attractive coverlet. If the cuts aren’t straight, of the exact measurements, or the colorful fabric swatches clash with each other, the end result is a cattywampus embarrassment that no one wants to display: a failure of precise planning, engineering, and executing. Sounds like the lingering European Union (EU)’s euro crisis.

I can sit here and judge because I know what that’s like, in a way. I consider the U.S.’s longtime federal budget flop to have some similarities.

Often the U.S. is called the “Melting Pot,” but in reality it’s more of a chunky stew. Right now, Europe’s crisis of trying to get a bouquet of cultures to agree with each other on how to meet financial goals, how to deal with the effect of immigrants flowing across their borders, and balancing the reality of certain EU states holding more economic power than others – it sounds so familiar. 

It’s because the U.S. has been doing it for more than two centuries while the EU, formerly the European Economic Community (EEC), was first founded in 1957. On top of that, the common currency of the euro arrived 42 years later on Jan. 1, 1999, and even that was in “cyber form” until paper bills and coins arrived two years later.

The EU is still young and inexperienced in comparison to the U.S. Also, it’s a bit ironic since the Europeans seem to enjoy rubbing it in how juvenile the U.S. is compared to their much more lengthy histories.

The EU’s population is close to 500 million and America’s is around 313 million, according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) official Web site. The numbers were the latest since mid-July of 2011. Nevertheless, America has more states to placate when arguing about a problem. With 50 states and Washington, D.C., there’s quite a spread of multicultural influences from within the regions (such as the West Coast, the Deep South, the Northeast, the Midwest) to the influence of immigrant enclaves, from long ago and now.

Can the world, or at least the EU members, now see how hard it is to manage it all? Do they now “get” what it’s like to strive for a stable economy, try to handle all the varying cultures without offending or disenfranchising some group?

Unfortunately, the EU has some members with less than desirable credit ratings, such as Greece and Ireland. So, not only does the EU have our overspending problem, they ran off and did the “bail out thing,” too, like we did with our mismanaged financial industry.

According to the CIA.gov page, the EU’s external debt as of June 2011 was at $16.08 trillion and the U.S.’s same bill was at $14.7 trillion. Both the EU and the U.S. are scrambling to solve their budget nightmares. For the world to lose total faith in the euro and the dollar – chaos.

Lately, there have been suggestions of a “two-speed” Europe. This has a ring of “us and them” to it, where the stronger economic countries figure out a way to slowly flick the “little people” off their shoulders like unwanted lint. The biggest, most stable economies are Germany, France (who may drop in the ratings soon), Netherlands, Denmark, the U.K., and Sweden. Of note, those last three countries don’t even use the euro.

Supporting the notion of superiority, I read some snarky blog posts on the U.K.’s The Telegraph newspaper. One by Lord Norman Tebbit on Oct. 28, 2011, stated that “Once again, Britain must save the masters of Europe from self-destruction.”

Another blog, “Europe on the breadline: Greeks and Italians blame culture of corruption,” by Jon Henley of Britain’s The Guardian, stated on Oct. 21, 2011, that he found “nepotism, bribery and systemic low-level corruption are as much to blame for southern Europe’s crisis as anything else.”

Americans do that, too, blaming someone else’s culture within the union. Sometimes it’s true.

Some of you may be wondering about the European monetary superhero, Norway. Their currency, the kroner, is strong and the country has a budget surplus. Well, they’re not in the EU. Switzerland and Iceland aren’t either. Iceland being out of the game is OK, considering their economy went belly-up in 2009.

The CIA page states, “Because of the great differences in per capita income among member states … and in national attitudes toward issues like inflation, debt, and foreign trade, the EU faces difficulties in devising and enforcing common policies.” Yep.

Karen in Norway celebrating their National Day, May 17th.

I’ve heard some people say, “Who cares about Norway?” Well, more Americans should because Norway (Norge) is often cited as a shining example of socialism. And, with next year’s big election, chances are good that the word “socialism” is going to be tossed around like beads at a Mardi Gras parade. Understanding Norway may be a decent guide to an education on socialism.

As far as the rest of the world caring about the small Nordic country goes, Norway.org, the nation’s official US website, boasts that “Norway has been ranked the best country to live in by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) several times during the past decade.” Norway clearly identifies itself as a welfare state and provides significant benefits to its residents, like a public health system and a national insurance scheme.

Apparently, the good news is spreading worldwide, resulting in Norway’s immigration levels to rush in like flash floods. The February 2011 KAS Reports by Norbert Beckmann-Dierkes and Johann C. Fuhrmann reveal that, “The number of immigrants in Norway has risen dramatically in a short space of time: since 1970 the total has risen nearly tenfold.” When weight is put on the body too quickly, the heart is strained — Needless to say, Norway has had its difficulties providing a Utopian environment to its bumper crop of new Norwegians and keeping it secure for the natives.

Even though I am American and have no heritage rooted in Scandinavia, I have been to Norway four times in the past twelve months.
Normally, when I travel, it’s only for a few days up to a couple of weeks. However, my visit this past May into June lasted nearly six weeks. This was the first time I had been there long enough to get past the tourist sensations and start to “get real” while in the country of nearly 5 million people. On the top of my list was to decipher what is the name of the system that sustains its population’s high quality of life.

I turned to a friend first and then to social networking. I posted on Facebook, “I felt a bit foolish the other day when discussing what
kind of government Norway has. I have been educated to believe it is socialist. However, a Norwegian friend of mine balked at that, saying that socialist means communist. I know Norway is not communist. So, what is it, then?” This was my first predicament on the matter.

Many responses followed. The list goes like this: democratic constitutional monarchy, democratic socialism, socialist democracy, unitary parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy, and, lastly, a liberal democracy. I decided to use my laptop’s browser and found another descriptor, hereditary constitutional monarchy. Also, after reading the string of Facebook comments, I realized how few of us, including myself, know when to properly capitalize anything written about political philosophies or parties. That was my second perplexing situation.

It is easier to clear up the capitalization matter. According to The Associated Press Stylebook, “Capitalize Communist, … Liberal … Socialist, etc., when they refer to a specific party or its members. Lowercase these words when refer to political philosophy.” Now that we have that behind us, let us figure out more about Norway’s political system.

None of my over 1,000 Facebook friends suggested, including my Norwegian friends, Norway’s officially accepted answer. Norway.org
states, “In formal terms, Norway is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democratic system of governance. Democratic because the source of political power and legitimacy according to the Constitution lies with the people, in that all citizens are able to participate in the Storting (Norwegiannational assembly), county and municipal councils [sic].” Note that nowhere is the word, “socialist.”

Comprehending Norway includes realizing that socialism is not its ruling government, but instead a part of its mixed economic policy. The travel guide website, World66.com, creatively describes Norway as “a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism.”  Furthermore, World66 states, “The economy is modeled on a free market capitalist model, subject to varying levels of government regulation and intervention.” Not to be played down, Norway supports its generous public sector programs with some of the highest taxes in the
world. On April 11, 2011, CNBC.com’s Constance Parten’s article, “World’s Highest Tax Rates” reported Norway to be ranked as number 8 with a tax rate of 41 percent of the gross domestic product. While not the highest on the planet, that percentage is still staggering.

Americans are often criticized for not bothering to know about the world outside her borders. I was happy that my Facebook friends tried to identify Norway’s government. Even though none of them got it perfectly correct, they were pretty close. There are a lot more interesting undercurrents to this northern European country and I plan to uncover them.

Over 1.5 million people, and counting, have accepted to take part in the Facebook event called, “No Gas Day.” All the participants are committing to not buy gas on an upcoming appointed day. I’ve seen such intellectual pap before and will likely see it again. This is yet another misguided attempt to punish “big oil” companies, like ExxonMobil and Chevron, as the accused evil manipulators who enjoy running up citizens’ fuel bills.

The event’s logo is of a gasoline pump’s handle in red with a big circle around it and a line going through the handle. The organizer says she her name is Sarah Thompson. “This is about taking a stand, together, against greedy people whose commodity happens to affect all other commodity’s prices,” wrote Thompson on the event’s description.

The problem isn’t these publicly owned oil companies, but rather the packs of whiners and their narrow educations on the issue. Consumers should be grateful instead of bitter about the success of our oil companies like ExxonMobil (Exxon).

Participants in the “No Gas Day” may be tired of the rising prices at the pump: However, simply buying gas the day before or after the scheduled boycott is trite. That’s what’s going to happen – we have to buy gas sometime. We are dependent on petroleum products. We made that decision a long time ago.

“That’s silly,” said George Jones, 72, of Houston, Texas, in response to the pending event, “The only way to have any economic impact is to reduce consumption.” Jones, now retired, was a technical expert for a large oil company for nearly 40 years. His specialty was natural gas, but provided advice in the oil business as well.

“These types of activities [boycotts] just cramp things up,” stated Jones, “and often give harm to people that are not the intended targets.” Jones is speaking of, for example, the owners of the gas stations, which are increasingly owned by private individuals instead of the oil companies. 

Being angry with Exxon or any other publicly owned “big oil” companies in America for our personal fuel bill woes is a mistake.  “We’re mad as hell, and are tired of watching the big oil companies laugh all the way to the bank while we all suffer,” Thompson added.

If she and her followers were to succeed at shrinking the oil companies’ bottom line — they would be hurting their own countrymen — not some imaginary group of men in suits that have cash sticking out of their pockets, are skipping to the bank, and howling in laughter. According to the March 11, 2011, edition of Value Line, Exxon net profited over 30 million in 2010, but it paid 40.7 percent in taxes. Imagine our country’s federal budget without such padding; I wince at the thought.

Exxon making a profit benefits Americans in many avenues. The company is run well and it’s the responsibility of Exxon to wisely invest its money for its shareholders. Yahoo’s Finance web page on March 27, 2011, showed that 1,734 institutions own 48.9 percent of Exxon. The top listed institutional investor in Exxon is The Vanguard Group, an investment management group. Also, ranked in the top 10 institutional owners are Bank of America and The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. The number one mutual fund investor in Exxon is again Vanguard and at number six is the College Retirement Equities Fund-Stock Account.  Individuals own the rest of Exxon without a single person owning more than five percent. Many of America’s banks, other companies, and retirement nest eggs depend on Exxon continuing to be sound. Our economy would sink even lower if Exxon were to lose some steam.

Other countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela own some of the largest oil and gas companies in the world. In those countries, the government owns the mineral rights. At least in America, a person can own a piece of the pie. A person doesn’t even need a stock broker – it can be done directly through the company. It’s as easy as visiting their website and following instructions.

With Exxon and other companies like it, our economy is better overall. Thompson and her ilk should watch what they wish for. Practically the entire country owns a part of Exxon, but it runs its finances a hell of a lot better than our government does. Go check the balance sheets.

In the interest of disclosure, I did not receive payment to promote Exxon in this article.

Mr. Bartley’s Gourmet Burgers, a Harvard Square landmark since 1960, knows what it’s talking about. Sitting in its primo location in Cambridge, Mass., it will change its menu of burgers to include new blends of toppings and renames its beefy works of art after current events and people. At the busy times, customers line up outside the restaurant and read the menu ahead of being seated. The hungry captives smirk, politely cover their mouths, and guffaw as they read the list of slams disguised as “burger descriptions.”

Today’s “The Democrat” hamburger has the parenthetical comment, “(Where’s the change?),” following the title and right before the toppings’ description of Swiss cheese, grilled sauerkraut, and Russian dressing: a multi-national homage. Currently, on Mr. Bartley’s web site, “The Republican” sandwich has the comment of “lying in wait” and “The Tea Party” reads as “throw the bums out.” None of the above say, “smothered in bullcrap.”

Of course Mr. Bartley’s doesn’t have bullcrap on its patties; it’s a restaurant selling mouthwatering burgers. However, what are America’s political kingpins trying to push? Their ravaged constituents are formed in line, too, and want to read what’s on the menu. And, the spin doctors are doing their jobs protecting their bosses and hoping to control the populace’s simmering anger.

Whatever’s being put out there, America still sees the truth: President Barack Obama’s term has erectile dysfunction.

I knew Obama would be flaccid. I sound like a Monday morning quarterback, but I’m not. In 2007, being a small town’s elementary school’s PTA President in North Carolina cast me as a political oracle. I learned, in person, that once the new chief — or perhaps, more aptly, the fool who let others talk her into the job with promises of great accomplishments in her name and ego stroking on how much she’s needed –  takes the oath of office, she does not get to act alone and accomplish all her goals.

Even Obama’s corny and cliché campaign buzzwords made the masses vote for him. “Hope and change are the words most associated with Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. His best–selling campaign memoir was titled, The Audacity of Hope, and Shepard Fairey’s iconic ‘Hope’ posters featuring Obama’s multi-colored face were seen all across America during 2008,” wrote Brendon O’Connor on Nov. 16, 2010, for The Lowy Institute for International Policy’s web site, “’Change we can believe in’ was the slogan most associated with the campaign and it was often displayed behind Obama when he spoke.”  

While Obama was running for office as a newbie to Washington, D.C., his campaign’s “hope and change” mantra was doomed to be pure hokum. Simply put, Obama had not been in D.C. long enough to have people owe him favors.

Other elected leaders must also approve of everything the board’s leader wants to have repealed, added, or modified. This means political backscratching. It only makes sense. I’m only stating basic American government policy. It’s easy to forget or brush aside this reality until it’s your problem. I had only been in my small town for a year before taking on the PTA. No one owed me anything and I didn’t have enough experience to smooth over my hardened adversaries. It was hell.

First, the pro-Obama people did a fine job of showcasing the opposition, Senator John McCain, then 71, as the old, white man.  ”’This one guy running is about as old as me,’ he [Democratic Rep. John Murtha, then 75] said, drawing laughter and applause. ‘Let me tell you something, it’s no old man’s job,’” reported the web site, The Huffington Post, on April 16, 2008, from Nedra Pickler’s article, “Murtha says McCain too old to be president.” This is a case of what one old, white man in office said about the other old, white man in office. Irrelevant.

Nonetheless, I translated the senior citizen part as an accomplished man who had an arm’s length list of people who owed him political favors.

Second, the anti-McCain efforts portrayed the senator as a President George W. Bush clone. “The Democrats like to say that electing Senator John McCain would usher in the third term of George W. Bush,” wrote Elisabeth Bumiller in her article, “How Close McCain Is to Bush Depends on the Issue,” for The New York Times on June 17, 2008, “and they do not mean it as a compliment.” As far as the successful Bush-McCain parallelism, the Democratic marketers used reverse psychology: many people voted for Obama to not re-elect Bush.

In 2008, it was clear to me that Bush was not running for a third term and I think even Bush knew that.

Next time, voters need to elect a seasoned, meaty presidential candidate that comes with a winning combination of toppings. Perhaps Obama should go order Mr. Bartley’s “The Viagra” burger, as we wait for him to “rise to the occasion.”

from sonofthesouth.net

Nobody could understand what the lady at the cash register was saying. Her raven, course coarse hair, that had some silver strands mixed in, was twisted up in a bun and she was wearing small, wire-rimmed glasses. She looked frustrated and anxious. 

Everybody in the long line turned to look at me for translation assistance, since I was the only white person waiting with them. 

The Sears department store employee was speaking in mixed-up English with a thick Hindi accent. She was trying to communicate with a person who was from South or Central America. The other people in line created a motley cluster — the Middle East, the Orient, and Africa were all represented. 

The cashier was saying that her register was malfunctioning and that she needed help. The line was like a log jam. Because everyone was looking at me to clear up the message, I loudly stated the problem. Then, a sense of submission blanketed the patrons. 

The Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is a major international city in the United States. I lived in Alexandria, Virginia, for two years, in a highly multi-cultural pocket of the city. I was often asked to “translate” broken English into more clearly understood English. 

Each of those immigrants, or perhaps visitors, spoke in different tongues, but they all had a basic understanding of English. Making English the national language of America is not a dividing effort, but a uniting one. 

Nearly every congress session discusses this proposed amendment to the Constitution. Only a nine percent of Americans do not want English to be the official language, according to the May 14, 2009, Rasmussen Reports, a digital media company that specifically works in public opinion polling. Despite this minority opinion, the congressional attempts fail to pass. 

Those against the move feel that it is simply bigotry being made legal. One of the opponents’ main arguments is that the amendment is construed as unkind and racist toward immigrants, the very type of people who contributed to making our country what it is: a great “melting pot.” 

However, this melting pot often seems more like a chunky stew. 

The unfairness in the amendment is the attempts to roll into the package that all government documents or discussions in the workplace must be in English only. That is extreme, especially in states that border with Mexico. A more fair option would be to allow the individual states and counties to address their own needs, depending on the density of immigrant population. 

When living in America, knowing English benefits the immigrants. It allows for better job opportunities and an understanding of what’s going on around them. 

My hairdresser in Northern Virginia was Moroccan. She told me of her immigration and career progression tale. She said that she began working in a sandwich shop and that she only knew French and Arabic. She learned English quickly. She wanted out of the sandwich shop and in to the cosmetology school. She made it. 

Since no one at the sandwich shop spoke the Moroccan’s languages, she said she was forced to learn English. Unable to hide in an enclave of her native speakers at work, she was able to eventually have a job she enjoyed and financially flourish. 

The Moroccan commented that all the Hispanic ladies rinsing “heads” in the shampooing area were stuck there for years, even some for more than a decade. The Moroccan believed it was because the Spanish-speaking ladies enabled each other to only fluently know Spanish. 

She made a similar observation about the nail technicians, except they were of Asian descent. 

The other hair stylists at the Arlington, Virginia, salon natively spoke Turkish, French, and English. The proprietress was Cuban. The common language between all of them was English. 

Congress has failed to pass the English language as the recognized tongue of America because of precise wording in the legislation. The hairsplitting was first addressed between the words “national” and “official.” The word “national” was used to smooth over those who didn’t like “official.” The word “official” has more negative connotations than “national” does. 

After the word “national” was used, the next debate was that “national” could not be used in conjunction with “common and unifying” when describing English as America’s language. 

“From an outsider’s perspective this might seem slightly insane,” Benjamin Zimmer posted on the University of Pennsylvania’s website on May 19, 2006, “but it makes perfect sense in the context of congressional party politics.” 

What? 

Apparently, the moderates present did want to “have it both ways” and voted thus. However, there weren’t enough moderates to have anything agreed upon, due to, as Zimmer put it, “the adjectival divide.” 

The former British Empire once controlled some of the countries who teach English in their schools today. It is a part of their histories and makes them who they are today. 

Americans chose to use English when more and more people started piling in to the new colonies and kept it. Those people conquered the Native Americans. Those wars and other wars with foreign countries cannot be undone. 

We have a national anthem to unify us, it’s “our song.” We can have “our language,” too, to bring us together and improve us as a cohesive country. Language unifies people and English is the most used secondary language in the world. English is not an exclusive language; rather, it’s all-inclusive to most people around the world.

The tolerance level for the polarizing two-party system has hit code red.

“Right now the Republicans and Democrats in Washington seem, from the outside, to be an elite colluding against the voter,” wrote columnist Peggy Noonan in her June 1, 2006, online piece, “Third Time,” for The Wall Street Journal.

 It hasn’t changed in the past four years.

 A majority of people, those voters caught in the middle, are too often forced to side with the far left liberals or the far right conservatives. The time for a triumphant, functioning third political party – one that can represent the moderate majority and is worth its salt — is here. What makes this new age of real politics possible? The Internet.

photo from the movie "Threesome"

In the past, all third parties have had trouble making strides. Running as an independent or with any other party that’s not Republican or Democrat is risky.

There are at least three good reasons why third-parties struggle. First, third-party candidates tend to not have enough financial backing. Second, they don’t have a lot of heavy hitting friends who know the right people. And, third, voters who want to vote for the wildcard candidate are still unlikely to pull the lever for him if it looks like he’s not going to win.

People fear wasting a vote on the projected third place contender and end up abandoning ship. “This [fear] is precisely why support for third-party candidates often does tend to collapse at the end of an election …,” posted Nate Silver on fivethirtyeight.com on April 22, 2010. Silver calls this situation a vicious cycle.

Of course, lack of money makes the second and third reasons more likely to be issues. So, if reducing campaign costs was successful, there would be a better chance for a new political party. Funding is an important factor in getting a candidate’s name and platform out there. It’s no secret that money is power. During this time of economic recession, it’s chic to be cheap; it has mass appeal.

Raising political candidate awareness costs serious money with TV commercials, radio spots, and ad placements in the authoritative print outlets. However, a candidate can become a household name using only the Internet – for free or nearly free.

It’s a fact; it is no longer an impossible mission to take an unknown person and propel him into epic popularity.

Enter YouTube. Starting as a YouTube video star has served pop singer Justin Bieber very well. A music industry leader discovered Bieber’s videos and connected him with powerful entertainment people, like Usher. This jettisoned Bieber into fame as a top-selling artist on iTunes and making a platinum record.

Bieber is no political candidate, but his story shows the power of finding a new face online. Because of posting his amateur videos on YouTube, Bieber now has the right friends in the right places.

Additionally, blogs, websites, and social networking sites provide an infinite amount of space for affordable campaigns. With proper organization and execution, all of those venues could get the political platforms heard worldwide.

Free social networking sites like Twitter and its equally wicked sister, Facebook, boast millions upon millions of users. Those sites have the Midas touch in sending instant messages to a mobile device or at home on the desktop computer. Links to blogs and other websites supporting the third-party could be posted over and over again, becoming epidemic.

The jurisdiction of social networking is not trifling. Consider the Iranian presidential election of 2009. If it weren’t for Twitter, the world might have thought that the people of Iran were pleased about the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, we know the truth of their protests rather than only Ahmadinejad’s official government statement, including authorized media coverage of the events. The multitude of Iranian tweets revealed honest social insights; the kind that Ahmadinejad would’ve preferred to remain out of the public eye.

The Republican and Democratic parties aren’t going anywhere. However, they are big political machines that are in need of a recall. Even giant machines can be dismantled if the model is failing.

Think about the effect of Craigslist.com on the newspaper industry – their revenues went up in smoke. Craigslist rules the online classifieds. Beginning in 2003, it provided a better way, without charging, for the common person to list services or items for sale, or wanted, than the lumbering newspapers’ classified sections.

Newspaper classified ads revenue peaked at about $19.6 billion in 2000, but then sank to approximately $5 billion in 2009. Craigslist’s sharper blade slashed the behemoth print industry’s cash cow of classified ads. The accountants are wishing that bleeding wound would clot, but it won’t.

Sometimes third-party candidates seem like rebels without a cause, but they could become a cause with lots of rebels in tow. With enough name recognition and posting of the message and platform, the band wagon could be filled with loyal voters.

Over time, if enough people united, got organized, and worked on gaining momentum, a worthy, affordable third-party could be on par with the others. The tools are in place, the setting is ready, and we are plugged in. Time to reboot the system.

“People who wear uniforms to work have more issues than a newsstand,” is a joke I’ve heard. As far as generally lumping together the men and women of the military and studying their character traits – such as warmongering and blindly following their superiors’ commands — there may be basis for the lighthearted wisecrack.

What isn’t a joke is that being in the U.S. military is an all encompassing lifestyle, not just a job, for the member and his or her family. To add to an already war stressed armed services, on Dec. 18, 2010, the military just got served a big platter of change to its unique culture – the repeal of the 1993 policy of no openly gay troops, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).

While the typical “man on the street,” including me, may be apathetic about whether or not the military has apparent homosexuals in uniform, the troops and their families will experience upheaval. This is an untimely burden to those serving.

This military culture shock could have waited. It’s not about keeping someone’s sexual orientation behind closed doors; it’s about the amount of new paperwork and man hours that will be put into this endeavor while the military is currently scraping to keep all its bases covered.

People who promote the repeal make a big point of emphasizing the civil rights of every citizen to defend his country, no matter his sexual orientation. Yes, sexual orientation should not be a reason to ban a man from government work. When put in those simple terms, it does sound stupid to keep a homosexual out of uniform.

However, the service people who are wiping their faces clean of Iraqi sand or those shivering in the mountains of Afghanistan – did anyone ask them what they want? The military has their talking heads and appointed leaders to speak for the masses, but how do those in the field feel?

A high-ranking, male service member, 41, deployed in Baghdad, who wishes to remain anonymous, emailed this to me,

“While I do not disagree with the idea of open gays serving in the
military, I do not agree with the timing of this policy change. As changes are made across the services to include open gays, I believe we will lose focus of
our current Iraq and Afghanistan missions and others issues at hand that are of great concern worldwide ….”
With nearly 20 years of being in the armed services, the quoted deployed member is familiar with what a policy change entails: massive bureaucracy called to action. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has already been mobilized.

“Successful implementation will depend upon strong leadership, a clear message, and proactive education throughout the force,” said the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in an official statement after the historic vote.

What Gates said, in laymen’s terms, means for “sensitivity workshops” to be organized, new manuals to be written, and an expected code of conduct to be developed for those who choose to be openly gay while serving in the military.

There are many major and minor points that will be haggled over. In fact, the OSD recently released comments about how to address the bathrooms and shelters for the welcoming of openly gay troops, “There will be no housing or special bathroom facilities for gays, except in special cases ….” The fact that the OSD brought up this segregation issue suggests that someone important asked about it.

Also, something that places the U.S. military apart from other American professions is the “Military Code of Ethics.” In summary, it purports there is supposed to be no change in conduct while on the post or out in the local community: This allows for the government to dictate what behavior is acceptable and what isn’t.

Furthermore, due to the hair splitting to be expected on what kind of homosexual soldier’s behavior is OK in public, the OSD will likely have to define “how gay” one can be while at work and off post. There may even be instruction on all the differing degrees of “gay behavior.”

For example, there probably will be no enormous limits on the gay or lesbian who blends in with America’s suburban stereotype of monogamy and a stable home life, but it is plausible that the flamboyant cross-dressing homosexual may still have to keep that in the closet. So, perhaps no pictures will be allowed on the work desks which display an alternative lifestyle.

Another sticky wicket which may be addressed is whether or not those gays who are legally married will be able to extend military health care privileges to their spouses. Single-sex marriages are legal only in a handful of states. If permitted in the gay-friendly states, will the health benefits be void in the non-gay-friendly states?
The military does not make light of its responsibility to inform the troops and their leadership about what action to take in almost any situation. There will likely even be points of contact and experts assigned to the transition. All of the decisions associated with the repeal of DADT, reams of paperwork and digital transmissions to be produced, and numerous meetings implementing it will exhaust a great deal of manpower. This could’ve been postponed until the warfronts were better contained and the troops were less taxed.

*** or for some, “Why didn’t they do this sooner, like before the wars?” –depending on your point of view.

Once upon a time in a land far, far away, a U.S. military member would drive up to an Air Force base’s entry point and a uniformed, strapping, young troop would check identification and allow admittance, sealed with a respectful exchange of salutes. There was an undeniable recognition, a sense of camaraderie, that both members belonged in the same weave and shared a way of life.

However, this antiquated scene is being eroded. Now, it is more likely that a private security company’s employee, sporting an official logo patch on his deltoid, will wave the troops through. These guards frequently range from middle-aged to senior citizens and have noticeable “love handles.” And, finally, there will be no saluting.

In almost all aspects of the U.S. military, there is an ongoing drive to save money. To help achieve this, the government economizes the military through hiring less costly contracted labor to replace the uniformed members or instead leaves gaping vacancies. This crosses many career fields.

Take for example the Air Force’s chaplaincy headcount. It is low in numbers, but the members are still expected to perform a high volume of funerals, counseling, religious ceremonies, sacraments, etc. Despite this, to support the cutbacks, the Air Force community is giving their religious leaders the bum’s rush out of the ranks. Especially in times of war, this is a careless move — the troops deserve and need experienced military clergy.

There are those who think there is no problem in replacing the chaplaincy with hired help. The Air Force Times’ staff reporter, Scott Fontaine, wrote on Nov. 30, 2010, in his article, “Air Force looks to make cuts in chaplain force,” that not everyone finds the active duty chaplaincy as useful.

For instance, he quoted a retired master sergeant, Tom Keel, who worked as a chapel manager in his 24 years of service, as finding the bulk of the chaplains to be “’lazy, narrow-minded, and egotistical.’” In addition, Fontaine quoted examples of airmen not having their calls returned.

Furthermore, Keel explained that the Air Force has managed to make it with having “rent-a-cops” at the entry points and the military will similarly adjust to the ousting of the chaplaincy.

The bases’ entrance gate guards are under contract because most of the Air Force’s security forces are constantly in war zones while the leftover cops are on the base to cover other law enforcement issues. The active duty security forces are required to be physically fit and they don’t post old people at the gates.

I have a question. Is the hired cop, “Rip Van Winkle,” who is charged with guarding the base against terrorists, really prepared to sprint in hot pursuit and put a cap in someone?

All of the denominations’ leaders, like Protestant and Islamic, are being racked and stretched on duty, but the Roman Catholic priest supply is particularly bare boned.

“Today, the Air Force has 91 priests … [but] the service needs another 120 on active duty,” reported Fontaine in another Air Force Times article, “Contractors, civilians fill chaplain vacancies,” on Nov. 21, 2010. The other denominations’ chaplains are being involuntarily separated from the military while the Catholic priests can only exit through early retirement approval.

A unique issue to contracted clergy versus active duty clergy is that only the uniformed personnel can be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Troops often approach their religious counselors for hope and something to believe in before going off to a war zone. They are afraid of what might happen to them “over there.” An active duty clergyperson who has been in combat areas and dealt with the ugly realities of war will have a clearer understanding of the larger picture and can more appropriately handle military-specific crises.

“The need for priests in the war zones is even more acute. Most priests spend much of their deployment scrambling to reach as many bases as possible,” Fontaine reported on Nov. 21, 2010, “At some remote outposts, a priest might be able to only visit once per month – provided the weather cooperates and there is transportation available.”

Imagine a Catholic soldier in a war zone, lying in her hospital bed in the critical care unit after an explosion. What if there was no priest to administer her Last Rites? She should be able have a priest with her, an active duty priest who knows the pain and struggles of being in the military. It is important to have a spiritual leader available that truly knows and understands how the airman got to where she is now.

And she may have a family back at home – is there a military priest there to comfort them?

The “rent-a-cops” at the gates have not mishandled any globally known security breaches yet, but it’s not the optimal situation. Having hired or no military chaplains or priests available is similar.

Military members and their families often deal with adversity and manage it. An obvious idea is for the service people to go off the base for their religious needs. Regardless, being an active duty military person is not just a job, it is a lifestyle. Having the personal touches taken away, like a uniformed man of the cloth, erodes the morale and strength of the Air Force.