Over the past week or so my partner Alex's mom, Margaret Nicholson, has been in the ICU at Duke with a serious respiratory disorder. A week ago we didn't think she'd last longer than a day. Needless to say, the days leading up to Christmas have been difficult.
Yesterday Margaret woke up, and has been talking up a storm ever since. Well, as big a storm as someone as intubated and heavily sedated as she has been can create. There's some delirium and funny stories I'm sure she'll appreciate later, and of course there's still a chance of regression, but I feel comfortable enough now to put into writing that it looks like she'll be okay.
Heartwarming Christmas miracles aside, Margaret is one of those people that is encouraging in her purity, and just somehow...gets it. I'm not quite sure what 'it' is, but when encountering Margaret's generosity and overall good nature, one begins to suspect she possesses some sort of deep secret that only age and a small town life can reveal.
While considering what to write in today's blog, I came across a poem that seems to somewhat describe that 'it.' I've read it a few times before, but for some reason, today it resonates deeply.
The poem is called Desiderata and was written in 1927 by Max Ehrman:
Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love, for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is perennial as the grass.
Take kindly to the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.
- Max Ehrmann
I'm sure in a few months I'll find this blog post ridiculously cheesy, as some of you may be finding today. I think for now I'll indulge in the moment, and worry about my reputation as a writer when cynicism once again sets in.
24 December 2008
13 December 2008
Papers and Obligations
It always takes me forever to begin a research paper, the one I just wrote being no exception. It’s about the dynamic of the multilateral relationship between Beijing, Pyongyang, and Washington – one of those that you pretty much already know the likely conclusion of your research before you start, but you take on as a topic anyway because there’s a lot of data out there and it’ll be an easy A. Plus, there’s tons of background information there that may eventually be useful for my thesis. Good stuff. Well, boring stuff, really. But I like it.
If the paper were broken down into smaller projects throughout the semester – each with deadlines – and eventually brought together into one big paper, it would be a much easier to handle – more palatable, I should say. Actually, I take that back, as we did do precisely that when I was an undergrad, and we bitched about writing papers then too. I think there was just an overall aversion to doing more work than necessary.
Or maybe we were avoiding the risk of learning something outside the classroom that wasn’t spoon-fed to us by our exasperated professors. Avoiding, I say, because this information may be known by no one else inside our classroom – professors included – which presents a twofold obligation: a). to take the information into account when presenting anything related to that nugget of data; and b). to connect that information to your reputation and risk being debated on the topic. In other words, we would risk being treated as an expert when we had neither the inclination nor the background to claim that title. And last thing we ever wanted to do was to fail expectations. At least, the last thing I ever wanted to do. Perhaps I’m projecting.
Eventually I just reach into that part of myself that numbs my surroundings and is focused on getting the job done, and then do just that.
If the paper were broken down into smaller projects throughout the semester – each with deadlines – and eventually brought together into one big paper, it would be a much easier to handle – more palatable, I should say. Actually, I take that back, as we did do precisely that when I was an undergrad, and we bitched about writing papers then too. I think there was just an overall aversion to doing more work than necessary.
Or maybe we were avoiding the risk of learning something outside the classroom that wasn’t spoon-fed to us by our exasperated professors. Avoiding, I say, because this information may be known by no one else inside our classroom – professors included – which presents a twofold obligation: a). to take the information into account when presenting anything related to that nugget of data; and b). to connect that information to your reputation and risk being debated on the topic. In other words, we would risk being treated as an expert when we had neither the inclination nor the background to claim that title. And last thing we ever wanted to do was to fail expectations. At least, the last thing I ever wanted to do. Perhaps I’m projecting.
Eventually I just reach into that part of myself that numbs my surroundings and is focused on getting the job done, and then do just that.
10 December 2008
Ask Not DVD Update
For those of you who either can't make it to any of the 'Ask Not' screenings or can't wait until June to watch the somewhat truncated version of the documentary on PBS, Ask Not is available on DVD as of...well, a month ago, actually. I will say that the documentary captures Servicemembers United's message quite well, and is very useful for convincing those straggling friends of yours who don't understand why it's so important to push for DADT repeal. Go back a few posts and you'll catch my admittedly biased semi-review of the doc. For more thorough reviews, just google 'Ask Not' and 'Johnny Symons' (the director), and you should get a better picture of exactly how powerful the film is.
If and when you're ready to buy the DVD, it's available at http://asknotfilm.com/anordertwo/. For public/school copies for mass screenings, the best thing to do is to contact Johnny directly, here: info@persistent-visions.com.
As far as future screenings go, I believe a few weeks before the doc launces on PBS there will be a nationwide screening at 50 theatres to promote the film. More on that later.
Seriously, this film is incredibly powerful, and one more useful tool in the fight against DADT.
If and when you're ready to buy the DVD, it's available at http://asknotfilm.com/anordertwo/. For public/school copies for mass screenings, the best thing to do is to contact Johnny directly, here: info@persistent-visions.com.
As far as future screenings go, I believe a few weeks before the doc launces on PBS there will be a nationwide screening at 50 theatres to promote the film. More on that later.
Seriously, this film is incredibly powerful, and one more useful tool in the fight against DADT.
07 December 2008
Sometimes You're Caught Off-Guard
The last thing I expected to see last night while watching National Geographic was a friend’s death on camera. I won’t say which show it was, and I won’t claim we were close. We did train together, and I recall liking him a heck of a lot, which is not surprising, as he was well liked. One thing that I most deeply recall about him is his overall uncommon genuineness and dedication to his family.
I don’t think I can go farther without sounding trite.
I don’t think I can go farther without sounding trite.
06 December 2008
A Change of Heart
You know, this post was initially intended to be a warning that the Proposition 8 aftermath and the associated gay militantism could scare the upcoming administration into shying away from tackling DADT anytime soon, but I think continuing on that line of thought would be defeatist and pessimistic, as future developments within American politics are already panning out in a predictable fashion, as they tend to do. So, no lecture today, unfortunately.
Why such a swift change of heart? Two reasons:
a). The American public has a ridiculously short attention span.
I know, duh, right? But, for a second there, the rise of civic engagement surrounding the Obama campaign seemed to be forcing a reexamination of cynically held truths of American political involvement.
Fast forward one month after the election, and – Proposition 8 musical and court challenges aside – most of the violent protests and newsworthy events have already died down. The initial reaction to the passage of Proposition 8, while exciting, was also unsettling, as there was an accompanying subtle threat that a significant civil rights surge could begin a few months before the advent of the Obama administration, when the same kind of surge would be much more useful four years ago - or perhaps even four years from now. Should the level of response initially exhibited continue through January, I think at best an awkward situation for the Obama administration would have been created, and quite possibly gay rights activists would have looked foolish to the greater American public for taking attention from much more pressing issues, specifically the economy.
It seems, however, that gays are indeed just as American as anyone else – crazy, I know – and Americans hate focusing on anything longer than necessary. This may change, but I’m guessing we won’t be seeing any large Prop 8 protests during Obama’s inauguration. Or at least any warranting media attention. Which is a good thing.
b). I don’t think Obama has any intention of actively pushing repeal of DADT within the first few years of his presidency, anyway. Why? Outside of dodgy comments regarding the issue that have made their way to the media, I have spurious and dubious observations of my own, based on Obama’s official civil rights agenda:
- the first two items on the gay rights list are Hate Crimes and ENDA, both of which should be ready to go through Congress immediately;
- if the placement of the first two items are any indication of priority, the placement of repeal of DOMA and passively opposing any sort of Federal marriage amendment before the repeal of DADT is telling;
- the wording used in the agenda, similar to sound-bites in the media, stress working with military leaders in repeal. While this is absolutely how the issue should be approached, it also subtly states Obama will not make the same mistake Clinton did, and force military leaders to examine the possibility of open homosexuality in the military under sharp Congressional and media scrutiny. Which in turn indicates every incentive for Obama not to even address DADT within the first few months – perhaps even years – of his administration.
What does this mean for the DADT movement in general? Mainly that we still have our work cut out for us. Given the same lack of attention span of the American public mentioned above, DADT needs to stay in the media through repeated events and research that show even more appalling costs of the policy for it to remain a priority on the gay rights list. Most importantly, more time means more opportunities for meetings with key individuals that will eventually be party to the inevitable debate once the policy does hit the floor of both Houses.
In other words, Servicemembers United is just as important as it ever has been. Rest assured, we will live up to the high standards we have set for ourselves through the Call To Duty Tour and the Flags on the Mall event, and we aim to only set the bar higher.
I have no doubt that 2009 will be an exciting year.
16 November 2008
Catchy Titles
I love writing catchy titles, which for me entails an enticing statement that is bold in its sentiment and unwavering in its intent. Unfortunately, my academia training is ruining the fun, in that I feel this constant overwhelming need to cushion my statements with caveats saying basically there is no way to prove 100% that what I say is true. And so it goes.
It is this same line of thinking that - naggingly - forces me to appease any sort of controversy my writing may create: if there is controversy, it’s only because I didn’t express myself clearly enough, and/or didn’t provide enough caveats or statements of uncertainty.
So I removed my last post that was basically a call for a more honest campaign, admittedly biased towards Obama.
For the record I was (and am) pro-Obama not for his political leanings, but because he seems to be making the precise statements and setting up the exact administration that seems to reflect the consensus of academics discussing what the U.S. should do to accommodate its necessary transition to a much more global mindset. Don’t believe me? Read pretty much any book describing future global trends – I highly recommend Zakaria’s Future of Freedom – and get back to me.
Why does this matter, now that the campaign is over? Two reasons:
a). These ideas for the most part do not conflict with the core of true, Jeffersonian Republican beliefs, and Obama’s victory may indicate a more pragmatic and less cynical future for the Republican party;
b). There are a number of you who got pissed at my anti-McCain rant about a month ago, which may have given the impression that I’ve abandoned the idea that both sides of the aisle are needed for repeal. I haven’t. Though I still maintain McCain’s campaign was run incredibly poorly, I do not believe any Republican running would have made the same mistakes, and there are a number of Republicans I would have found quite electable.
Relevant to DADT repeal, a Democratic majority in both Houses combined with an admittedly pro-repeal President work very well in the movement’s favor, much more than a McCain administration would have – no caveats necessary here. I’ll actually be bold and say that we may very well see repeal of DADT within the next four years, barring any obstacles.
That said, there are things a-brewin’ that may ruin our chances of repeal for quite awhile, which is the topic of my next post. Stay tuned.
It is this same line of thinking that - naggingly - forces me to appease any sort of controversy my writing may create: if there is controversy, it’s only because I didn’t express myself clearly enough, and/or didn’t provide enough caveats or statements of uncertainty.
So I removed my last post that was basically a call for a more honest campaign, admittedly biased towards Obama.
For the record I was (and am) pro-Obama not for his political leanings, but because he seems to be making the precise statements and setting up the exact administration that seems to reflect the consensus of academics discussing what the U.S. should do to accommodate its necessary transition to a much more global mindset. Don’t believe me? Read pretty much any book describing future global trends – I highly recommend Zakaria’s Future of Freedom – and get back to me.
Why does this matter, now that the campaign is over? Two reasons:
a). These ideas for the most part do not conflict with the core of true, Jeffersonian Republican beliefs, and Obama’s victory may indicate a more pragmatic and less cynical future for the Republican party;
b). There are a number of you who got pissed at my anti-McCain rant about a month ago, which may have given the impression that I’ve abandoned the idea that both sides of the aisle are needed for repeal. I haven’t. Though I still maintain McCain’s campaign was run incredibly poorly, I do not believe any Republican running would have made the same mistakes, and there are a number of Republicans I would have found quite electable.
Relevant to DADT repeal, a Democratic majority in both Houses combined with an admittedly pro-repeal President work very well in the movement’s favor, much more than a McCain administration would have – no caveats necessary here. I’ll actually be bold and say that we may very well see repeal of DADT within the next four years, barring any obstacles.
That said, there are things a-brewin’ that may ruin our chances of repeal for quite awhile, which is the topic of my next post. Stay tuned.
14 July 2008
Ask Not
Real quick blog (and yes, a new substantive blog is coming, etc, etc):
A ton of you guys have been asking lately about the documentary that's making the rounds, and in at least a few cases, the emails have come days after the film already screened in their respective areas. To help alleviate this problem, a very brief FAQ follows:
Q: What role do you have in the documentary?
A: A good portion of the documentary follows the Call To Duty Tour, as well as some post CTD work such as the Flags on the Mall project. As Alex and I - functioning as the creators - were deeply involved in those projects, our faces and stories are quite prevalent in the documentary. Also predominant in the film are Admiral Steinman and Fred Fox, two essential members of the CTD project. The film covers roughly 2 years of our work, among other efforts.
Q: Can I get a copy?
A: Not yet. The film is just now making the film festival rounds, and will be aired in a somewhat truncated form Summer of 2009 on PBS. I imagine the film will be on DVD sometime close to the PBS airing, but, as of now, I don't believe DVD rights have been fully negotiated. More detailed and updated information will be posted on the film's website.
Q: When will there be a screening near me?
A: Best place to check, again, is the films's website, at http://asknotfilm.com.
Q: Will you be at the next screening?
A: Possibly. Email me and ask. Every screening so far has had at least one panelist who was signifigantly involved in either Call to Duty or Servicemembers United, and all panelists involved in the film definately have unique and interesting perspectives on the film to share.
Q: I have other questions not metioned above.
A: Going to http://asknotfilm.com is probably your best bet, but if not, feel free to email me at jchlapowski@servicemembersunited.org.
Hope this helps.
A ton of you guys have been asking lately about the documentary that's making the rounds, and in at least a few cases, the emails have come days after the film already screened in their respective areas. To help alleviate this problem, a very brief FAQ follows:
Q: What role do you have in the documentary?
A: A good portion of the documentary follows the Call To Duty Tour, as well as some post CTD work such as the Flags on the Mall project. As Alex and I - functioning as the creators - were deeply involved in those projects, our faces and stories are quite prevalent in the documentary. Also predominant in the film are Admiral Steinman and Fred Fox, two essential members of the CTD project. The film covers roughly 2 years of our work, among other efforts.
Q: Can I get a copy?
A: Not yet. The film is just now making the film festival rounds, and will be aired in a somewhat truncated form Summer of 2009 on PBS. I imagine the film will be on DVD sometime close to the PBS airing, but, as of now, I don't believe DVD rights have been fully negotiated. More detailed and updated information will be posted on the film's website.
Q: When will there be a screening near me?
A: Best place to check, again, is the films's website, at http://asknotfilm.com.
Q: Will you be at the next screening?
A: Possibly. Email me and ask. Every screening so far has had at least one panelist who was signifigantly involved in either Call to Duty or Servicemembers United, and all panelists involved in the film definately have unique and interesting perspectives on the film to share.
Q: I have other questions not metioned above.
A: Going to http://asknotfilm.com is probably your best bet, but if not, feel free to email me at jchlapowski@servicemembersunited.org.
Hope this helps.
12 June 2008
Two Words
After three years, it is likely safe to admit that starting the Call To Duty (CTD) project was a very innocent and naive endeavor.
We were aware, of course, that the void we were intending to fill was a very necessary niche; however, I don't think that we fully understood the size of the void, nor did we comprehend the pedantic details and endless coordination of schedules filling that void would entail. Add on the challenge of creating and implementing the project within four months and you can see that accomplishment of the mission was quite miraculous and involved an incredible amount of luck.
Even rushed preparation becomes comforting in its own pattern, and the cusp between preparation and action bears a tremendous amount of uncomfortable anticipation. The cusp for the CTD project occurred at Harvard - a necessary starting location if we were to have any chance of attracting the funding and attention required to prepare CTD in such a short time - creating a situation that really was a trial by fire.
How did we prepare the speakers for this challenge? In all honesty, we didn't. Knowing that the purpose of the whole tour was to humanize the debate into something tangible rather than simply argue points of data, the panel was instructed not to prepare anything but the most basic of notes, and simply tell their story as they would a friend. Given the media experience earned in promoting the tour over the few months prior, we sandwiched the speakers between myself and Alex so as too bookend the panel with a little insurance against failure, even though there were very few similarities between a couple of well thought media bites and an eight minute intimate monologue. I would go first.
Of the five stories, mine should have been the least interesting: I was not discharged under DADT, nor did I serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only thing I had to offer, really, was the openness of my sexuality while serving, and even that was shared by one other panelist - Patrick, who did serve in Iraq - if to not as strong a degree.
My role, then, was not to relay my story, though the speech revolved around my experiences. Instead, it was to reveal to the crowd who and what a gay soldier was, and how a gay soldier thought, spoke, looked, walked, and joked. Most of that was accomplished with one sentence, the first: I served five years in the United States Army as a Korean linguist. It wasn't until I revealed my initial coming out story, which included the first unintentional joke in the speech, that the audience really warmed up and leaned in eagerly to hear more. The audience was ready to hear the rest of the panel with more willing ears than may have been offered otherwise.
In later events - in more conservative areas - this eagerness was accomplished with two words:
Good evening.
We were aware, of course, that the void we were intending to fill was a very necessary niche; however, I don't think that we fully understood the size of the void, nor did we comprehend the pedantic details and endless coordination of schedules filling that void would entail. Add on the challenge of creating and implementing the project within four months and you can see that accomplishment of the mission was quite miraculous and involved an incredible amount of luck.
Even rushed preparation becomes comforting in its own pattern, and the cusp between preparation and action bears a tremendous amount of uncomfortable anticipation. The cusp for the CTD project occurred at Harvard - a necessary starting location if we were to have any chance of attracting the funding and attention required to prepare CTD in such a short time - creating a situation that really was a trial by fire.
How did we prepare the speakers for this challenge? In all honesty, we didn't. Knowing that the purpose of the whole tour was to humanize the debate into something tangible rather than simply argue points of data, the panel was instructed not to prepare anything but the most basic of notes, and simply tell their story as they would a friend. Given the media experience earned in promoting the tour over the few months prior, we sandwiched the speakers between myself and Alex so as too bookend the panel with a little insurance against failure, even though there were very few similarities between a couple of well thought media bites and an eight minute intimate monologue. I would go first.
Of the five stories, mine should have been the least interesting: I was not discharged under DADT, nor did I serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only thing I had to offer, really, was the openness of my sexuality while serving, and even that was shared by one other panelist - Patrick, who did serve in Iraq - if to not as strong a degree.
My role, then, was not to relay my story, though the speech revolved around my experiences. Instead, it was to reveal to the crowd who and what a gay soldier was, and how a gay soldier thought, spoke, looked, walked, and joked. Most of that was accomplished with one sentence, the first: I served five years in the United States Army as a Korean linguist. It wasn't until I revealed my initial coming out story, which included the first unintentional joke in the speech, that the audience really warmed up and leaned in eagerly to hear more. The audience was ready to hear the rest of the panel with more willing ears than may have been offered otherwise.
In later events - in more conservative areas - this eagerness was accomplished with two words:
Good evening.
10 June 2008
Pockets and Clubs
COC Number Four (+) happened to involve Anne's roommate, this one being a COC of a new variety: the Indirect COC (ICOC).
This was the first instance in which I was outed by someone without my consultation, which in most cases would be described as gossip. In this situation, however, Anne wasn't giving my sexuality away carelessly, and in fact felt she was doing me a favor, as here roommate, Sarah, was a). a lesbian, and b) in with a pocket of other gays in the unit. Sarah soon-after would out me to that pocket, with myself completely unaware of the multiple ICOC occurrences.
Before I go further, I think it is necessary to explain briefly the 'pocket' phenomenon in the military. Essentially, gays have an inherent knack for finding each other wherever they're stationed, creating cliques or 'pockets' of about 6-12 service members who generally arrive in the duty station simultaneously that last the duration of a particular service member's tour, which nowadays can be between 1 and 5 years. Upon arriving at a new duty station - usually accompanied by a few members of the old pocket - the service member either finds the local pocket or creates a new one, depending on the context. The pocket serves as not only a link to the larger gay community in the area, but as a support structure for those needing empathy and comfort in an environment that encourages silence in such matters. I don't think this trend is necessarily restricted to the military, though this type of behavior seems similar to civilian gay life roughly thirty years ago, as I understand it.
I doubt Anne fully understood the details of military gay pockets - none of us did, actually, as we thought our situation quite unique - but she intuitively knew the introduction of me to the group would be very useful, and it was.
Now, how I discovered Anne's outing will be described in the next blog, as it involves Patrick's story, which eventually leads to my involvement in Servicemembers United.
This was the first instance in which I was outed by someone without my consultation, which in most cases would be described as gossip. In this situation, however, Anne wasn't giving my sexuality away carelessly, and in fact felt she was doing me a favor, as here roommate, Sarah, was a). a lesbian, and b) in with a pocket of other gays in the unit. Sarah soon-after would out me to that pocket, with myself completely unaware of the multiple ICOC occurrences.
Before I go further, I think it is necessary to explain briefly the 'pocket' phenomenon in the military. Essentially, gays have an inherent knack for finding each other wherever they're stationed, creating cliques or 'pockets' of about 6-12 service members who generally arrive in the duty station simultaneously that last the duration of a particular service member's tour, which nowadays can be between 1 and 5 years. Upon arriving at a new duty station - usually accompanied by a few members of the old pocket - the service member either finds the local pocket or creates a new one, depending on the context. The pocket serves as not only a link to the larger gay community in the area, but as a support structure for those needing empathy and comfort in an environment that encourages silence in such matters. I don't think this trend is necessarily restricted to the military, though this type of behavior seems similar to civilian gay life roughly thirty years ago, as I understand it.
I doubt Anne fully understood the details of military gay pockets - none of us did, actually, as we thought our situation quite unique - but she intuitively knew the introduction of me to the group would be very useful, and it was.
Now, how I discovered Anne's outing will be described in the next blog, as it involves Patrick's story, which eventually leads to my involvement in Servicemembers United.
08 June 2008
The Consequences of Coming Out
If you've seen any of our speaking engagements, you know the first person I ever came out to was Rob Hicks, who, along with Alastair Gamble - among others - was part of that media attention-grabbing wave of linguist discharges in 2002, mentioned a few blogs ago. What rarely comes up, on stage or in conversation, are the subsequent second, third, etc. coming-outs - comings-out? - that happened soon after, even though quite a few of those may ultimately have been of more consequence.
My second coming out - to a mutual friend of both Rob and myself - was not one of any particular significance, though having two good friends come out simultaneously did amount to a certain degree of shock for someone already familiar with gays, pre-Army. Number three, however, is much more interesting, and much more in line with the Coming-Outs of Consequence (hereafter COC's):
Anne was, and is, arguably closest embodiment of pure intent I've ever encountered, incredibly good-natured and altogether a pleasure to be around. I enjoyed Anne tremendously, so when I discovered she was going through a deep relationship crisis privately I wanted to do what I could to help ease her burden. This, of course, required a significant amount of trust on her part, so to make it easier I offered her the same amount of trust, and came out to her.
Setting what would eventually became a pattern, Anne's reaction was first shock, followed by warm acceptance, and the desired effect of the two of us being able to become closer through this trust exchange was achieved. No longer was I a nice guy mysteriously aloof about my personal life, but a full, functioning human being that was able to fit in more completely in Anne's, and eventually the unit's, periphery and core.
My second coming out - to a mutual friend of both Rob and myself - was not one of any particular significance, though having two good friends come out simultaneously did amount to a certain degree of shock for someone already familiar with gays, pre-Army. Number three, however, is much more interesting, and much more in line with the Coming-Outs of Consequence (hereafter COC's):
Anne was, and is, arguably closest embodiment of pure intent I've ever encountered, incredibly good-natured and altogether a pleasure to be around. I enjoyed Anne tremendously, so when I discovered she was going through a deep relationship crisis privately I wanted to do what I could to help ease her burden. This, of course, required a significant amount of trust on her part, so to make it easier I offered her the same amount of trust, and came out to her.
Setting what would eventually became a pattern, Anne's reaction was first shock, followed by warm acceptance, and the desired effect of the two of us being able to become closer through this trust exchange was achieved. No longer was I a nice guy mysteriously aloof about my personal life, but a full, functioning human being that was able to fit in more completely in Anne's, and eventually the unit's, periphery and core.
19 May 2008
The Beginnings of an Activist - Though I Use the Term Loosely
After finally seeing Ask Not I can very honestly say I am thoroughly pleased with the final product.
For the many of you who might not yet be aware of Ask Not, the film tracks DADT - and those who fight it - through 3 viewpoints: those trying to serve, those currently serving, and those who have served already. Servicemembers United, of course, represents the last viewpoint, which chronicles a full two years of our work. Incidentally, the filming began two weeks before I ended my term of service in the Army, so watching the film returned a certain nostalgia regarding the surreptitious excitment surrounding the beginning of the project.
About July of 2005 I was at a friend's moving away party in Seattle. This friend, Michael, was a Coast Guard veteran heavily involved in the local chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER), many members of whom were attending this particular cocktail party. I was for the most part unfamiliar with these veterans and the organization, so I spent a good part of the party attempting to cure that ignorance.
Through those conversations - combined with past knowledge and experiences with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) - I quickly discovered two items of interest: a) there didn't seem to be much in the way of public outreach on DADT, particularly in areas most needing that outreach (such as the South); and b) very few young veterans seemed to be involved in the issue, even though it is those youths that bear the most relevant information as to the most current enforcement of and experiences under DADT. Both of these points I relayed to Michael, if hesitantly.
It seemed Michael had been waiting eagerly for someone to raise these exact concerns for quite a while, and for the rest of the party we excitedly laid out plans for a mass, media-driven campaign exposing the reality of DADT through the eyes of young veterans. The main idea was to have a single day in which young veterans throughout the country held a city hall meeting describing their experiences under DADT, the media impact of which would force a mass national discussion of the issue and encourage reexamination by Congress.
This plan never came to fruition - though it is an idea that may find itself expressed in 2009 (nudge, nudge). Nevertheless, the conversation did set the stage, personally, for my future involvment in the issue, and it was with this now established subtle excitement that I received that initial invitation to become involved in what is now Servicemembers United.
For the many of you who might not yet be aware of Ask Not, the film tracks DADT - and those who fight it - through 3 viewpoints: those trying to serve, those currently serving, and those who have served already. Servicemembers United, of course, represents the last viewpoint, which chronicles a full two years of our work. Incidentally, the filming began two weeks before I ended my term of service in the Army, so watching the film returned a certain nostalgia regarding the surreptitious excitment surrounding the beginning of the project.
About July of 2005 I was at a friend's moving away party in Seattle. This friend, Michael, was a Coast Guard veteran heavily involved in the local chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER), many members of whom were attending this particular cocktail party. I was for the most part unfamiliar with these veterans and the organization, so I spent a good part of the party attempting to cure that ignorance.
Through those conversations - combined with past knowledge and experiences with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) - I quickly discovered two items of interest: a) there didn't seem to be much in the way of public outreach on DADT, particularly in areas most needing that outreach (such as the South); and b) very few young veterans seemed to be involved in the issue, even though it is those youths that bear the most relevant information as to the most current enforcement of and experiences under DADT. Both of these points I relayed to Michael, if hesitantly.
It seemed Michael had been waiting eagerly for someone to raise these exact concerns for quite a while, and for the rest of the party we excitedly laid out plans for a mass, media-driven campaign exposing the reality of DADT through the eyes of young veterans. The main idea was to have a single day in which young veterans throughout the country held a city hall meeting describing their experiences under DADT, the media impact of which would force a mass national discussion of the issue and encourage reexamination by Congress.
This plan never came to fruition - though it is an idea that may find itself expressed in 2009 (nudge, nudge). Nevertheless, the conversation did set the stage, personally, for my future involvment in the issue, and it was with this now established subtle excitement that I received that initial invitation to become involved in what is now Servicemembers United.
25 April 2008
A Hasty Appeasement
I'll start by stating there's no clever reason for the lack of blog posts other than lack of prioritization, which is something I hope to change in the next few weeks. I hope to start at a weekly pace, and see if I can up it from there.
Now, that said, I'm going to look like an ass here and post something that is not entirely new, and in fact is something I posted in a previous blog roughly a year ago (which in turn is adapted from a paper I wrote for a Political Leadership class - hence the APA style). Still, it's interesting and relevant, I think, and fits the overall theme of this blog, so insert it I will. New content within seven days, or...probably nothing, to be honest, with the exception of further loss of credibility - which in a way is pretty harsh, no?
Well, regardless, I ramble. Psuedo new post follows:
From its onset, the creation of the All Volunteer Force under the Nixon administration had been considered publicly a resounding success; after the first three years of implementation, the highest foreseen hurdle of meeting recruitment numbers seemed to have been crossed, with troop levels similar to that of the draft at quality levels surpassing those previous to All Volunteer Force implementation (Moskos, 1982). However, a decade's worth of All Volunteer Force utilization quickly revealed flaws not immediately visible, flaws dealing specifically with maintenance. Though active duty force levels were decreased to accommodate predicted decrease in enlisted availability, even reaching those numbers proved to be difficult, creating failed recruitment goals, as well as an overall decrease in quality of new enlistees: in 1964, "one in six of the draftees and one in eight of the enlistees…had some college," whereas the number had decreased to roughly one in twenty five by 1982, despite a rise in education levels in the general American populace (Moskos, 1982).
To counteract such dismal prospects, the military began a marketing campaign in the early eighties geared to sell the Army to politicians and the general public as the best military in existence, designed with the sole purpose of misleading for the purpose of attracting more recruits (Henderson, 1990). Quality tests were remade to make comparisons of All Volunteer Force recruits seem as high quality as those before implementation of the Force, and nuclear tensions prevented any real war to break out that would test the size limitations of the standing army (Henderson 1990), which included a reserve force hundreds of thousands smaller than the amount mandated by Congress (Henderson 1990).
With the nuclear umbrella eliminated with the end of the Cold War, the current situation in Iraq is at last testing the true flaws of the All Volunteer Force, forcing the military to adopt various waiver programs geared to increase numbers. In 2006, the age limitation for enlistees was raised not once, but two times (Burgess, 2006), from 35 to 40 and from 40 to 42 (Burgess, 2006), while quota limitations on low quality recruits are challenged by decreasing standards on quality control tests again. Regardless of these attempts to increase the recruiting pool, the Army continues to miss recruiting goals (Associated Press, 2007), creating a recruitment crisis similar to that predicted by General Bartlett, who stated "in the next war 'we will fight outnumbered and with little, if any, technological superiority' (Henderson, 1990)" in a briefing before Army officers in 1987.
Given the United States' current issues in recruitment while trying to manage an All Volunteer Force, a discussion of possible solutions to include possible reinstitution of the draft will assuredly take place sometime in the very near future. As such conversations will likely be difficult and fraught with political controversy, a most ideal environment for conducting such discussions and possible implementation must be researched, and a thorough acknowledgement of previous instances of draft implementation would provide invaluable data to that ideal, as would a deep investigation of contemporary attitudes as to who should be allowed to serve and under what conditions.
In other words, when dealing with this recruitment crisis proves inevitable, national leaders must be in tune with precepts catered to the contemporary environment for successful promotion and implementation of the inevitably controversial move.
What can be said, however, is either through reimplementation of some sort of selective - or universal, for that matter - service system or through isolated legislation, the inevitible first step in dealing with this crisis will be repeal of the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy in favor of a personnel policy more accomodating to open sexuality. That said, it should be considered of highest national importance that the discussions and debates necessary for such a change to take place happen now, so that the transition to such a change will seem inevitable rather than controversial.
Sources:Associated Press (2007). Army Misses Recruitment Goal for Second Straight Month. Foxnews.com. Retrieved on July 26, 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288693,00.html
Burgess, Lisa (2006). Army Raising Maximum Enlisted Age. Military.com. Retrieved on July 26, 2007 from http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,102539,00.html
Henderson, William D. (1990). The Hollow Army: How the U.S. Army is Oversold and Undermanned. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Moskos, Charles C. (1982). Social Considerations of the All volunteer Force. In General Brent Snowcroft, Military Service in the United States (pp.129-150). Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
That's all for now, folks.
Quick note: stay tuned to your local film festival(s): the DADT documentary Ask Not is making the rounds, and you may see a familiar face or two as main subjects of the film.
Now, that said, I'm going to look like an ass here and post something that is not entirely new, and in fact is something I posted in a previous blog roughly a year ago (which in turn is adapted from a paper I wrote for a Political Leadership class - hence the APA style). Still, it's interesting and relevant, I think, and fits the overall theme of this blog, so insert it I will. New content within seven days, or...probably nothing, to be honest, with the exception of further loss of credibility - which in a way is pretty harsh, no?
Well, regardless, I ramble. Psuedo new post follows:
From its onset, the creation of the All Volunteer Force under the Nixon administration had been considered publicly a resounding success; after the first three years of implementation, the highest foreseen hurdle of meeting recruitment numbers seemed to have been crossed, with troop levels similar to that of the draft at quality levels surpassing those previous to All Volunteer Force implementation (Moskos, 1982). However, a decade's worth of All Volunteer Force utilization quickly revealed flaws not immediately visible, flaws dealing specifically with maintenance. Though active duty force levels were decreased to accommodate predicted decrease in enlisted availability, even reaching those numbers proved to be difficult, creating failed recruitment goals, as well as an overall decrease in quality of new enlistees: in 1964, "one in six of the draftees and one in eight of the enlistees…had some college," whereas the number had decreased to roughly one in twenty five by 1982, despite a rise in education levels in the general American populace (Moskos, 1982).
To counteract such dismal prospects, the military began a marketing campaign in the early eighties geared to sell the Army to politicians and the general public as the best military in existence, designed with the sole purpose of misleading for the purpose of attracting more recruits (Henderson, 1990). Quality tests were remade to make comparisons of All Volunteer Force recruits seem as high quality as those before implementation of the Force, and nuclear tensions prevented any real war to break out that would test the size limitations of the standing army (Henderson 1990), which included a reserve force hundreds of thousands smaller than the amount mandated by Congress (Henderson 1990).
With the nuclear umbrella eliminated with the end of the Cold War, the current situation in Iraq is at last testing the true flaws of the All Volunteer Force, forcing the military to adopt various waiver programs geared to increase numbers. In 2006, the age limitation for enlistees was raised not once, but two times (Burgess, 2006), from 35 to 40 and from 40 to 42 (Burgess, 2006), while quota limitations on low quality recruits are challenged by decreasing standards on quality control tests again. Regardless of these attempts to increase the recruiting pool, the Army continues to miss recruiting goals (Associated Press, 2007), creating a recruitment crisis similar to that predicted by General Bartlett, who stated "in the next war 'we will fight outnumbered and with little, if any, technological superiority' (Henderson, 1990)" in a briefing before Army officers in 1987.
Given the United States' current issues in recruitment while trying to manage an All Volunteer Force, a discussion of possible solutions to include possible reinstitution of the draft will assuredly take place sometime in the very near future. As such conversations will likely be difficult and fraught with political controversy, a most ideal environment for conducting such discussions and possible implementation must be researched, and a thorough acknowledgement of previous instances of draft implementation would provide invaluable data to that ideal, as would a deep investigation of contemporary attitudes as to who should be allowed to serve and under what conditions.
In other words, when dealing with this recruitment crisis proves inevitable, national leaders must be in tune with precepts catered to the contemporary environment for successful promotion and implementation of the inevitably controversial move.
What can be said, however, is either through reimplementation of some sort of selective - or universal, for that matter - service system or through isolated legislation, the inevitible first step in dealing with this crisis will be repeal of the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy in favor of a personnel policy more accomodating to open sexuality. That said, it should be considered of highest national importance that the discussions and debates necessary for such a change to take place happen now, so that the transition to such a change will seem inevitable rather than controversial.
Sources:Associated Press (2007). Army Misses Recruitment Goal for Second Straight Month. Foxnews.com. Retrieved on July 26, 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288693,00.html
Burgess, Lisa (2006). Army Raising Maximum Enlisted Age. Military.com. Retrieved on July 26, 2007 from http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,102539,00.html
Henderson, William D. (1990). The Hollow Army: How the U.S. Army is Oversold and Undermanned. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Moskos, Charles C. (1982). Social Considerations of the All volunteer Force. In General Brent Snowcroft, Military Service in the United States (pp.129-150). Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
That's all for now, folks.
Quick note: stay tuned to your local film festival(s): the DADT documentary Ask Not is making the rounds, and you may see a familiar face or two as main subjects of the film.
22 March 2008
So Perhaps I Spoke Too Soon...
Alright, I was wrong in the last post about the nominees becoming known - officially or otherwise. The gist of the post remains, and will continue to hold once the Dems get their collective act together and realize a split Democratic party is McCain's greatest asset. New post soon.
05 February 2008
A Time for Silence
CNN on the TV, I relax in my basic training PT sweats that miraculously still fit, though the news should be anything but relaxing.
Today's Ludicrously Super Tuesday results will undoubtedly be among the most important primary results for years to come, which is not news to anyone reading this blog, I'm sure. In a few hours, we will know - not officially, of course, but bullshit aside, we will know - the two candidates that will dominate our attention for the next ten months. Duh, I know.
Let's, then, look to the implications of that knowledge. On the base level, as in any series of primaries, no longer will individuals who pretty much agree argue over pedantic points that more or less are irrelevant, but instead the candidates whose culmination of opposite interest groups and support will clash, finding any excuse to divide the country so as to gather the most obtuse popularity. Duh again. But keep reading.
So, the true battle for the presidency developing, the search for excuses will make issues out of things that for the most part should not be partisan, as the partisan issues are for the most part decided. To get straight to the point, DADT will be a very tantalizing target to make a wedge issue.
We cannot let this happen.
In any sort of risky situation, there are times to be zealous, and there are times to keep your mouth shut.
I learned this lesson March-ish of 2002, staying at then-boyfriend Chad's house in Gilroy California on pass. This was not my first weekend away, and in fact my command was well aware of the reasons why I took so many passes, though not from my own lips.
Six in the morning on a Saturday, and I find myself on the phone with my good friend Sarah who reveals that a routine contraband inspection exposed the secret lives of four of my close friends. I rushed back to Monterey, and immediately dispelled any sort of evidence that might overtly place me in the camp of those caught - which incidentally amounted to a photo of Chad sitting a little too close to me in a restraunt.
I was careful. I was smart.
I knew better than to bring the unspoken on post, and I was well aware of the number of unwelcome surprises that turned up in health and welfares. The wave of DADT discharges that were a result of this particular health and welfare were new, which is part of the reason why those discharges found their way into the news and helped bring attention to the number of linguist discharges.
Were these linguists stupid for placing themselves at risk like they did? Absolutely.
But remember that my command was still well aware of my own leanings, and did not proceed with discharge proceedings. The policy coupled with undeniable and unignorable evidence was responsible for the discharges, not the command, as obviously there was no issue before with the presense of gays in the unit. Nevertheless the command recieved a lot of flack for conducting a 'witch hunt,' when in fact no such actions were conducted.
A few months later, a week from graduation, and amidst a weekly Class A uniform inspection, my first sergeant asked me directly about my 'friend' in Gilroy. I responded in just as vague and generic terms, clearly understanding the message my first sergeant was trying to convey: he had no problem with my sexuality, and he appreciated that I never placed him in a position in which he had to respond in the negative.
Back to the elections.
Here's the current status of DADT relative to the primaries:
Today's Ludicrously Super Tuesday results will undoubtedly be among the most important primary results for years to come, which is not news to anyone reading this blog, I'm sure. In a few hours, we will know - not officially, of course, but bullshit aside, we will know - the two candidates that will dominate our attention for the next ten months. Duh, I know.
Let's, then, look to the implications of that knowledge. On the base level, as in any series of primaries, no longer will individuals who pretty much agree argue over pedantic points that more or less are irrelevant, but instead the candidates whose culmination of opposite interest groups and support will clash, finding any excuse to divide the country so as to gather the most obtuse popularity. Duh again. But keep reading.
So, the true battle for the presidency developing, the search for excuses will make issues out of things that for the most part should not be partisan, as the partisan issues are for the most part decided. To get straight to the point, DADT will be a very tantalizing target to make a wedge issue.
We cannot let this happen.
In any sort of risky situation, there are times to be zealous, and there are times to keep your mouth shut.
I learned this lesson March-ish of 2002, staying at then-boyfriend Chad's house in Gilroy California on pass. This was not my first weekend away, and in fact my command was well aware of the reasons why I took so many passes, though not from my own lips.
Six in the morning on a Saturday, and I find myself on the phone with my good friend Sarah who reveals that a routine contraband inspection exposed the secret lives of four of my close friends. I rushed back to Monterey, and immediately dispelled any sort of evidence that might overtly place me in the camp of those caught - which incidentally amounted to a photo of Chad sitting a little too close to me in a restraunt.
I was careful. I was smart.
I knew better than to bring the unspoken on post, and I was well aware of the number of unwelcome surprises that turned up in health and welfares. The wave of DADT discharges that were a result of this particular health and welfare were new, which is part of the reason why those discharges found their way into the news and helped bring attention to the number of linguist discharges.
Were these linguists stupid for placing themselves at risk like they did? Absolutely.
But remember that my command was still well aware of my own leanings, and did not proceed with discharge proceedings. The policy coupled with undeniable and unignorable evidence was responsible for the discharges, not the command, as obviously there was no issue before with the presense of gays in the unit. Nevertheless the command recieved a lot of flack for conducting a 'witch hunt,' when in fact no such actions were conducted.
A few months later, a week from graduation, and amidst a weekly Class A uniform inspection, my first sergeant asked me directly about my 'friend' in Gilroy. I responded in just as vague and generic terms, clearly understanding the message my first sergeant was trying to convey: he had no problem with my sexuality, and he appreciated that I never placed him in a position in which he had to respond in the negative.
Back to the elections.
Here's the current status of DADT relative to the primaries:
- After a strong appearance in the initial debates, DADT has pretty much gone unmentioned, or at least been relegated to irrelevant.
- Though somewhat quiet, the initial push to include DADT in the debates has lain a very partisan line on an issue that wasn't necessarily partisan prior to the debates.
A cursory look at the reasoning for such a split would lead to the obvious conclusion that, while trying to gather votes, Republicans must be associated with family while Democrats necessitate a focus on human rights. These are lines that can easily split the voting populous around either candidate, Iraq and Afganistan war be damned.
However, at the moment there is no reason to bring DADT back up, as the economy, healthcare and the wars still are very interesting to all the candidates. Let's not push it.
Otherwise we place the Republican candidate - whoever he may be - in a position in which he would have to respond in the negative.
Which would be stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
