This is in response to retired Rear Admiral Semdberg's letter in Wednesday's Times Union about gays in the military.
It seams that the Admiral has over looked some rather striking points in military protocol, as well as The Uniform Code of Military Justice.
In his letter, he asks if the gay Platoon leader would assign his infantryman lover to a dangerous post. The question is not are the two lovers, but if they are, why are they breaking military law? If the two are following military law, the infantryman is an enlisted member, and the platoon leader is an officer. A relationship between the two is prohibited by military law. If there is a relationship, the relationship is illegal, and thus wears down the cohesion of the unit. Weather or not the lovers are both men is a moot point.
The same can be said of his next example, where a gay squadron commander would not assign his junior aviator lover to a dangerous bombing mission.
Again, this senior officer/ junior officer relationship is banned by the UCMJ.
Having openly gay military members only wears on unit cohesion if the others in the unit are as prejudges as the Admiral seams to be. Just because a member is gay doesn't mean he is openly, or even covertly, having a relationship with any members in his unit or within the service.
Those who support the "Unit Cohesion" argument should look at the fact that opposite sex relationships between junior and senior officers, junior and senior enlisted, and officer enlisted personnel are prohibited just as much as same sex relationships, and have the same effect on unit cohesion.
Also, in his closing statement, the admiral also states that substituting the word female for the word homosexual would make no difference. This is a saving grave on the outside, but in reality, it just points out yet another prejudges, this time against women.
In the history of women in the military, as well as the failing
"Don't ask, Don't tell" policy, there has yet to be an occasion where
someone has been killed, injured, or otherwise hurt by having been gay or female.
But there have been occasions where promising, talented young men and
woman, who only want to make a difference by serving there country, have been
discriminated against, lost there job, and even there life because of the
prejudges of others.
I am surprised that the admiral didn't say that you could also
substitute the words "Black" or "Hispanic", for
homosexual. He should at least show his well roundness.
The first degree murder conviction suggests that a boy (14 at the time of the killing) is and was at the time of the murder, mentally capable of reaching a decision, and understand the consequences of his decision, to kill another person.
In the state Florida;
A 20 year old adult is not old enough make the conscious decision, and understand the consequences of buying a beer.
A 17 year old is not old enough make the conscious decision, and understand the consequences of buying a pack of cigarettes.
A 15 year old boy is not responsible enough make the conscious decision, and understand the consequences of having consensual sex with an eighteen year old woman.
I agree that Joshua Phillips, the Jacksonville Fl. teen who fatally stabbed to death an eight year old neighbor girl, should be punished. He committed a crime that is unthinkable. But are we to believe that he really deserves to live out the next 40, 50, or even 70 years in prison?
Instead of serving justice, the criminal system has taken an eye for an eye. He took the girls life, and thus his life was taken from him.
Plato was commenting on a violent act that had been perpetrated by a young man at university in Athens. But Plato didn't blame the music that the child listened to. He didn't blame the clothes the child wore or the friends he ran with.
He blamed the child's own misjudgment for his misdeed.
We as a society are bent on casting the blame for all wrongs on the aspects of our own society that we find undesirable.
Banning rock music, enforcing dress codes and limiting our children's access to information will not answer the problems facing our children's generation of mankind. In fact these things will only give those children something new to rebel against.
When I was in school, it was "evil" heavy metal music, leather and denim jackets, and "vulgar" works of art by artists like H. R. Geiger.
When my father was in school, it was duck tails, greased hair and rock 'n roll. His father had flappers and jazz.
Today it's trench coats and "gothic" music.
What will it be tomorrow?
Remember this one bit of wisdom imparted to us by Jim Jones, of Jonestown fame: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
And remember, Jim Jones was a minister.
What is society coming to? In effect, this resolution, and thus the House of Representatives, is suggesting that religion, and the christian religion in particular, is the answer to all of societies problems.
Society did not create Erik Harris and his counterparts. They, along with all of us, created and maintain society.
Uniforms in schools, mandated prayer, and the posting of the ten commandments in public buildings will not change the behavior of our children.
Religions and social groups may be an answer for some, but not for all.
Better family upbringing and personal accounting are another answer, but these cannot be mandated by society, or by law, no matter how hard society tries to believe this.
Only when individuals themselves decide to change will society as a whole improve.
I didn't realize that music was such the scourge of the land. I didn't know that if it weren't for music, nothing bad would ever happen. I thank NBC for pointing that out to me. And to think that lyrics have so much influence on people.
Like a song by the infamous New Jersey punk band the Misfits, with the lyrics "5:25, august fifth, 1962, found her lying on her chest, her face all turning blue". I now realize that that song is glorifying death. When I listened to those lyrics in context, I had the unfortunate impression that the song was about Marilyn Monroe, and how her death just doesn't seam to have been a suicide.
Or maybe Rage Against the Machine's cover of "Killing in the name of" which proclaims "F*** you I won't do what you tell me" and screams the line "Killing in the name of" repeatedly. I always thought that song was about the injustices of the KKK, and how it is wrong to hate.
I spent my youth listening to Metallica, Anthrax and other Heavy metal bands that that I now realize are evil and must be destroyed. I'm glad to now know that I should not allow my son to get involved with songs about what heroin can do to you (Metallica's "Master of Puppets"), the plight of the American Indians (Anthrax's "Indians" and Iron Maidens "Run to the Hills") or even, god for bid, what it's like to be homeless (Pearl Jam's "Spoon Man" and Anthrax's "Who Cares Wins") or how some parents can hold you back or take advantage of you (Metallica's "Dyers Eve")
Funny, most of the music that taught me morals should have taught me to kill, rape and pillage. I never thought I could have been so wrong.
Thank goodness for Dateline NBC. I didn't realize
just what I was getting myself into.
