Hey, guys,
For all future blog posts, go to the new site at http://servicemembersunited.org/?cat=13. This will be my last post on blogspot. See you on wordpress!
-Jarrod
29 May 2009
27 May 2009
Sand and Seals
Sand flies through the air, for a second providing a brown tinge to the haze already obstructing the sun. A few grains land on my face, in my eyes, on my tongue. I don’t mind, as I know I will be looking at moments like this nostalgically in just a few days. In moments the bluish-grey returns, an ever-present mist as much a part of Monterey as the local seals barking less than twenty feet away, their language muffled only slightly by that same fog. We used to joke that the barking signified the beginning of mating season, periodic as it was. Or periodic as we thought it was. I suspect we only noticed the barks when the comfort of regularity was interrupted by uncommon events.
Brown suddenly rises, falls. Sand again hits my face. I wipe a little off, wincing as the grains remind me of the sunburn from a few days ago that still has yet to heal. Sand mixing in with greasy sunscreen somehow remains less appealing - as it does when you are young and impatient with practicality – so I don’t castigate myself too much for carelessly staying out in the sun too long. The pain is more an annoying heat, anyway, and doesn’t last more than a minute.
Brown, grey. I wipe sand off my cleanly shaven head, pale in contrast to a pink face because the hair was removed the night before. I had sworn to my roommate I would bic my head if I were to pass the DLPT, a promise I would not have kept were it to anyone else. Debts of gratitude somehow make honoring ridiculous bets more feasible.
Once more the brown obscures my vision, this time accompanied by angry grunts and mad noises. I realize the sounds are not as sudden as I thought, as I jump out of my self-indulgent thoughts into a tirade of frustration.
“…failed! Again! What is wrong with me, Chappy? I studied so hard for this, so hard - you were there! - and I missed again by one point. One point!” Sarah kicks another clod of sand up in frustration.
I duck to avoid this latest attack, no longer motivated by the prospect of nostalgia. “With only one point, I can’t imagine they won’t let you try again,” I appease, rather unconvincingly. Another attempt was highly unlikely. The only reason we as a group were allowed to retake the DLPT the first time was a result of the command feeling external pressure due to the abnormally high attrition rate of Korean linguists.
“Every night I fell asleep listening to my tapes, Chappy!” Sarah continued, as if I had not spoken. I’m suddenly reminded why I had spaced out in the first place. “I don’t know what happened, but I could not understand anything during the test. The audio was horrible!” She was right, the audio was horrific: no joke, a test for Korean language listening ability required the speaker to fill his mouth with cotton and caramel before recording the audio with his mouth on the receiver. This alone was not justification for complaint, if not for the fact that the average rating for the listening test for any other language was typically at least a half tier higher than that of a Korean linguist. Sarah’s 1+, one point shy of the necessary 2, was understandably hard to swallow. I had passed by the same margin.
“Well, what did the command tell you?” I interject, trying to steer the conversation towards finding a solution. I already knew the answer, however, justifiably earning Sarah’s withering look.
I had accompanied Sarah back to Alpha Company after we had received our scores. After Sarah had revealed her score to a platoon sergeant, he looked over at me and asked if I had failed as well. I shook my head slightly, not wanting to bring attention to my own accomplishment when Sarah was feeling so miserable. The platoon sergeant understood, and quietly told Sarah to “take a weekend pass, and we can discuss options on Monday after formation.”
Of course a weekend pass was not the solution, not when Sarah’s friends were packing and leaving for Texas. I had already scheduled the movers to pick up all the random junk I had accumulated over eighteen vigorous months at DLI. It seemed I would have to leave a few things behind. Not yet, however. Today was for Sarah.
I make a quick joke about Doritos and squirrels that to this day only Sarah would appreciate, and finally a hint of a smile sneaks on her face. Good. Now to get her to laugh.
Eventually the fog remains a steady grey as we talk and reminisce over the next few hours. And as I go to bed that night and wipe the remaining sand from my lips, I at last let myself be excited for the future.
Brown suddenly rises, falls. Sand again hits my face. I wipe a little off, wincing as the grains remind me of the sunburn from a few days ago that still has yet to heal. Sand mixing in with greasy sunscreen somehow remains less appealing - as it does when you are young and impatient with practicality – so I don’t castigate myself too much for carelessly staying out in the sun too long. The pain is more an annoying heat, anyway, and doesn’t last more than a minute.
Brown, grey. I wipe sand off my cleanly shaven head, pale in contrast to a pink face because the hair was removed the night before. I had sworn to my roommate I would bic my head if I were to pass the DLPT, a promise I would not have kept were it to anyone else. Debts of gratitude somehow make honoring ridiculous bets more feasible.
Once more the brown obscures my vision, this time accompanied by angry grunts and mad noises. I realize the sounds are not as sudden as I thought, as I jump out of my self-indulgent thoughts into a tirade of frustration.
“…failed! Again! What is wrong with me, Chappy? I studied so hard for this, so hard - you were there! - and I missed again by one point. One point!” Sarah kicks another clod of sand up in frustration.
I duck to avoid this latest attack, no longer motivated by the prospect of nostalgia. “With only one point, I can’t imagine they won’t let you try again,” I appease, rather unconvincingly. Another attempt was highly unlikely. The only reason we as a group were allowed to retake the DLPT the first time was a result of the command feeling external pressure due to the abnormally high attrition rate of Korean linguists.
“Every night I fell asleep listening to my tapes, Chappy!” Sarah continued, as if I had not spoken. I’m suddenly reminded why I had spaced out in the first place. “I don’t know what happened, but I could not understand anything during the test. The audio was horrible!” She was right, the audio was horrific: no joke, a test for Korean language listening ability required the speaker to fill his mouth with cotton and caramel before recording the audio with his mouth on the receiver. This alone was not justification for complaint, if not for the fact that the average rating for the listening test for any other language was typically at least a half tier higher than that of a Korean linguist. Sarah’s 1+, one point shy of the necessary 2, was understandably hard to swallow. I had passed by the same margin.
“Well, what did the command tell you?” I interject, trying to steer the conversation towards finding a solution. I already knew the answer, however, justifiably earning Sarah’s withering look.
I had accompanied Sarah back to Alpha Company after we had received our scores. After Sarah had revealed her score to a platoon sergeant, he looked over at me and asked if I had failed as well. I shook my head slightly, not wanting to bring attention to my own accomplishment when Sarah was feeling so miserable. The platoon sergeant understood, and quietly told Sarah to “take a weekend pass, and we can discuss options on Monday after formation.”
Of course a weekend pass was not the solution, not when Sarah’s friends were packing and leaving for Texas. I had already scheduled the movers to pick up all the random junk I had accumulated over eighteen vigorous months at DLI. It seemed I would have to leave a few things behind. Not yet, however. Today was for Sarah.
I make a quick joke about Doritos and squirrels that to this day only Sarah would appreciate, and finally a hint of a smile sneaks on her face. Good. Now to get her to laugh.
Eventually the fog remains a steady grey as we talk and reminisce over the next few hours. And as I go to bed that night and wipe the remaining sand from my lips, I at last let myself be excited for the future.
30 March 2009
Two New Developments
First, Ellen Tauscher can no longer head the Congressional repeal effort, mainly because the new Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security will very soon no longer be in Congress. MREA will be lacking leadership, at least for a few seconds. Congressional momentum is effectively stalled.
Second, SecDef Gates has confirmed the Obama administration intent of keeping DADT on the back-burner. Executive momentum: also stalled.
Analysis: DADT is not getting repealed anytime soon, for reals this time. Though, as I've said in previous blogs, this should not be surprising to anyone. Let's not be dramatic by wasting our time whining re: campaign "lies," and instead utilize this opportunity to grow our base.
I've got a longer anecdotal blog coming up. In the meantime, I invite you to check out new SU blogger Dylan Knapp and his blog An Army of Fun. When you're done with that, cruise through the rest of the SU blog-roll. We really have collected quite the phenomenal team, and I couldn't be prouder.
Second, SecDef Gates has confirmed the Obama administration intent of keeping DADT on the back-burner. Executive momentum: also stalled.
Analysis: DADT is not getting repealed anytime soon, for reals this time. Though, as I've said in previous blogs, this should not be surprising to anyone. Let's not be dramatic by wasting our time whining re: campaign "lies," and instead utilize this opportunity to grow our base.
I've got a longer anecdotal blog coming up. In the meantime, I invite you to check out new SU blogger Dylan Knapp and his blog An Army of Fun. When you're done with that, cruise through the rest of the SU blog-roll. We really have collected quite the phenomenal team, and I couldn't be prouder.
13 March 2009
Not That I Needed to Prove My Point Further
Last night I had the opportunity to share dinner with a good friend from SLDN’s board and a new friend who works under what seems to be an individually a socially conservative Congressman with a very socially conservative constituency. The SLDN board member shares my frustration with the framing of the topic as a gay issue. The Congressional lawyer shared that his Congressman would never sign on to repeal of DADT, fearing the wrath of his constituency for supporting a ‘gay’ cause.
Case in point.
Case in point.
09 March 2009
Now, Let's Not Get Too Excited
It’s March, and not much progress has been made in repeal since Obama took office. This should not be surprising for anyone with any real grasp on both the Washington machine and the past history of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ though there are quiet grumblings the gay community is being thrown under the bus ala Clinton, etc, etc.
Enter Nathaniel Frank’s new book, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America. With quite a few interesting bombshells regarding DADT casually placed among some pretty neat stories of some gay and lesbian service members you may or may not be familiar with (plug, plug), Unfriendly Fire may well be this generation’s Conduct Unbecoming.
Well. The book actually launched last Tuesday at an event hosted by the Center for American Progress. Slated to speak were Nathaniel Frank – the author – and Larry Korb, former Assistant SecDef under Reagan and participant in a Blue Ribbon study and panel regarding the fiscal cost of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I’ve shared a panel with both in the past (preen, preen), so I knew both were quality speakers able to provide an engaging question and answer period much more substantive than you usually get at these sort of talks.
There were rumors that Representative Ellen Taucher would make an appearance at the event, though very few were aware of her intentions to announce the reintroduction of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (hereafter MREA). Suddenly this talk became much more relevant in the eyes of the media, and subsequently much more politicized and much less candid. Boo.
Now, the fact that MREA was reintroduced was not a surprise by any means. The bill has been in a constant state of limbo since Marty Meehan first introduced it in 2005, and has been a means to bring attention to the issue and show a slowly growing base of Congressional support. What was surprising was the tone of Taucher’s speech: Outside of somewhat outdated talking points you’d hear from pretty much anyone marginally familiar with the issue, Tauscher seemed insistent on framing the argument as a civil rights issue, deliberately and ostensibly dismissing more tangible and politically viable reasons for repeal.
Put differently: Tauscher, one of our more vocal powerful allies in this issue, sees repeal of DADT as a gay issue, not one of national security. And guess which party is more of a stickler for civil rights. Immediately MREA became much more polarized than it needs to be, than it should be. I would argue the movement to repeal DADT is to be blamed for this faux pas.
The week before the announcement, Alex and I had been making the rounds on the Hill, doing behind the scenes meetings with moderate Democrats just so we could get a good gauge on how close we really are to repeal, and to see whether or not Tauscher really has the votes she says she does. I can tell you right now that she doesn’t.
What we were told: [Insert Representative] is not ready to take a stance on repeal as [he/she] does not believe the current bill (MREA in its previous incarnations) fully accommodates all the sweeping changes that are associated with repeal of DADT. The new policy – as it stands – is flawed, and there is no reason to push forward a policy change when the current policy works just fine.
When asked for elaboration on the ‘sweeping changes’ of DADT, the standard responses of people who are simply uninformed would inevitably present themselves, namely new harassment policies, barracks accommodations, etc. While there may be a need for a deeper plan, these particular issues are either already taken care of, or are not realistic.
Other important aspects of the argument for repeal that were for the most part unknown: the usage of testimony from chaplains and psychiatrists as submissible evidence for discharge, the corresponding effects of DADT on the recovery of PTSD victims, the lack of training on the policy throughout the services and the associated non-uniform implementation of the policy by commanders, the many, many cases of open homosexuality within ranks that create no issue whatsoever, and so on.
These Representatives, these moderate Democrats from whom a good many people are expecting positive votes when repeal of DADT hits the floor, do not know the standard, non-civil rights oriented, arguments for repeal, and so do not feel comfortable enough to take a stance in districts they’re holding onto mostly because Republicans are not very popular right now.
I have said this ad nauseum, and I will say it again: We cannot win this fight by creating partisan debate, and we cannot win this fight by framing it as a civil rights or gay issue. DADT is not a gay issue. Unsigned moderates will not flock to our side no matter what the polls say (well, not yet, anyway).
The public may be ready for repeal, but Congress is not. Let’s not get too comfortable, and assume repeal is inevitable. We’ve got a ton of work to do, still. And as the debate becomes more imminent, our time grows short.
Let’s not screw this up again.
Enter Nathaniel Frank’s new book, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America. With quite a few interesting bombshells regarding DADT casually placed among some pretty neat stories of some gay and lesbian service members you may or may not be familiar with (plug, plug), Unfriendly Fire may well be this generation’s Conduct Unbecoming.
Well. The book actually launched last Tuesday at an event hosted by the Center for American Progress. Slated to speak were Nathaniel Frank – the author – and Larry Korb, former Assistant SecDef under Reagan and participant in a Blue Ribbon study and panel regarding the fiscal cost of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I’ve shared a panel with both in the past (preen, preen), so I knew both were quality speakers able to provide an engaging question and answer period much more substantive than you usually get at these sort of talks.
There were rumors that Representative Ellen Taucher would make an appearance at the event, though very few were aware of her intentions to announce the reintroduction of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (hereafter MREA). Suddenly this talk became much more relevant in the eyes of the media, and subsequently much more politicized and much less candid. Boo.
Now, the fact that MREA was reintroduced was not a surprise by any means. The bill has been in a constant state of limbo since Marty Meehan first introduced it in 2005, and has been a means to bring attention to the issue and show a slowly growing base of Congressional support. What was surprising was the tone of Taucher’s speech: Outside of somewhat outdated talking points you’d hear from pretty much anyone marginally familiar with the issue, Tauscher seemed insistent on framing the argument as a civil rights issue, deliberately and ostensibly dismissing more tangible and politically viable reasons for repeal.
Put differently: Tauscher, one of our more vocal powerful allies in this issue, sees repeal of DADT as a gay issue, not one of national security. And guess which party is more of a stickler for civil rights. Immediately MREA became much more polarized than it needs to be, than it should be. I would argue the movement to repeal DADT is to be blamed for this faux pas.
The week before the announcement, Alex and I had been making the rounds on the Hill, doing behind the scenes meetings with moderate Democrats just so we could get a good gauge on how close we really are to repeal, and to see whether or not Tauscher really has the votes she says she does. I can tell you right now that she doesn’t.
What we were told: [Insert Representative] is not ready to take a stance on repeal as [he/she] does not believe the current bill (MREA in its previous incarnations) fully accommodates all the sweeping changes that are associated with repeal of DADT. The new policy – as it stands – is flawed, and there is no reason to push forward a policy change when the current policy works just fine.
When asked for elaboration on the ‘sweeping changes’ of DADT, the standard responses of people who are simply uninformed would inevitably present themselves, namely new harassment policies, barracks accommodations, etc. While there may be a need for a deeper plan, these particular issues are either already taken care of, or are not realistic.
Other important aspects of the argument for repeal that were for the most part unknown: the usage of testimony from chaplains and psychiatrists as submissible evidence for discharge, the corresponding effects of DADT on the recovery of PTSD victims, the lack of training on the policy throughout the services and the associated non-uniform implementation of the policy by commanders, the many, many cases of open homosexuality within ranks that create no issue whatsoever, and so on.
These Representatives, these moderate Democrats from whom a good many people are expecting positive votes when repeal of DADT hits the floor, do not know the standard, non-civil rights oriented, arguments for repeal, and so do not feel comfortable enough to take a stance in districts they’re holding onto mostly because Republicans are not very popular right now.
I have said this ad nauseum, and I will say it again: We cannot win this fight by creating partisan debate, and we cannot win this fight by framing it as a civil rights or gay issue. DADT is not a gay issue. Unsigned moderates will not flock to our side no matter what the polls say (well, not yet, anyway).
The public may be ready for repeal, but Congress is not. Let’s not get too comfortable, and assume repeal is inevitable. We’ve got a ton of work to do, still. And as the debate becomes more imminent, our time grows short.
Let’s not screw this up again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
