For the past few months I have watched as stable and volatile Middle Eastern nations alike were shaken to the core by protests.
Although many of these protests were peaceful, some were not, and the response of the totalitarian regimes involved has been anything but peaceful.
As a retired vet, I think the Mideast unrest should teach us an important lesson - anything can happen at any time around the world, and our military needs to be ready.
Without the continual development of military equipment and technology, we may be caught off guard and overwhelmed by any number of catastrophic scenarios. I believe that the full and rapid development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is essential to our military preparedness.
As a veteran I can tell you that the difference between the best equipment and the next-best does not just bear a financial toll, but a death toll as well. From everything I read, the F-35 will make our pilots more effective in the air, maximize our troops chance of success on the ground, and bring more of our military men and women home safe.
I hope our leaders in Congress take this under consideration and come out in support of full funding of the F-35.
So we got the good news that legislative repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that kept LBGT folks from openly serving in the military has occurred, as the Senate voted Saturday to first cut off debate on the question (that's the vote that required 60 Senators to pass) and then to pass the actual repeal legislation (which also garnered more than 60 Senate votes, even though it only needed 51).
Most people would assume that once Bill (remember Bill, from Schoolhouse Rock?) made it out of Congress and over to the President to for a signature that the process of repeal will be ended-but in fact, there's quite a bit more yet to do, and it's entirely possible that a year or more could go by before the entire process is complete.
Today we'll discuss our way through why it's going to take so long; to illustrate the point we'll consider an actual military order that is quite similar to the sort of work that will be required from the Department of Defense (DOD) before the entire "DADT to open service" transition is complete.
I have a ton of things on the desk at the moment, and I don't have the time to really run out this story before Election Day, but I want to bring to your attention something very strange that I found on the 2008 "Christine O'Donnell for Senate" MySpace page.
What it basically comes down to is that the United States Marine Corps and the United States Army are "Christine O'Donnell for Senate" MySpace friends, or that there are persons who have created United States Army and USMC MySpace pages that purport to be official that have "befriended" her candidacy. There's also a Navy page that appears to emanate from a US Navy recruiting office in California on her '08 campaign's "friends" list.
At a minimum, all of this would seem to be a combination of inappropriate behavior and poor management of social media; at worst, you have activity that is "some kind of unlawful", either on an administrative or civil level.
I'll make this fast...but I'll also make it interesting.
Follow along, and you'll see what I mean.
Media Contact: Brennan Purtzer, Media Director
619-447-3246 / brennan@VoteRayLutz.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Candidate Lutz says Hunter bill creates black market for cigarettes
Rep. Hunter's bill specifically removes non-commercial shipping clause
San Diego County, Calif. (August 5, 2010) - "This isn't about disrespecting or denying the troops, this is a policy goof-up," said Democratic Congressional Candidate Ray Lutz. "Hunter's attempt is honorable but misguided. There's a better way to solve this problem that doesn't fund a black market that may support terrorists."
Lutz, 52, was responding to a bill introduced last week by freshman Republican Congressman Duncan D. Hunter. Lutz is campaigning for Hunter's 52nd Congressional District seat.
Hunter's bill (HR 6037) amends a Senate bill, known as "PACT-act," which went into effect June 17, 2010 (S.1147). The Hunter bill allows tobacco products to be shipped to soldiers serving in combat zones unconditionally, which Lutz says is overly-broad and creates the opportunity for abuse. The PACT-act currently allows up to ten shipments per month - a maximum of ten ounces per shipment - (totaling about 100 packs per month) shipped Express Mail only, for age verification purposes.
"Part of the goal of the act was to end illegal trafficking in cigarettes, which, along with the opium trade, is believed to be fueling the insurgency," Lutz said. "Lifting the weight, frequency and non-commercial requirements of PACT kicks opens the dangerous door it took Senator Kohl (D-Wis.) eight years to shut."
Lutz continued, "Many legislators complain that there are too many laws, too many loopholes and exemptions, but now, instead of simply getting the United States Postal Service to change their requirements, Congressman Hunter is actually writing legislation to exempt black market trade."
Lutz says the problem lies with the U.S. Postal Service's regulations and is not something we need to create new federal legislation to correct.
Postal regulations require that tobacco products be mailed using Express postage -- so that a signature is required when delivered -- to help ensure that the package is not delivered into the hands of children. However, Express Mail service does not deliver to the combat theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving combat soldiers unable to receive such shipments.
A legislative aid who worked on the original PACT-act, said the solution was simple: amend the U.S. Postal Service requirements to allow such care packages to be shipped as International Priority Mail with a signature option. Such an arrangement would satisfy PACT's goals, and would cost families less to ship.
Another Senate legislative aid said that the Pentagon, which has been strongly discouraging smoking among its servicemen for decades, hadn't expressed any concern over the PACT-act whatsoever. "Buying cigarettes over there is cheaper anyway," the aid said.
"A simple, non-legislative solution is available, yet Hunter's proposal opens the door for unbridled tobacco trafficking," Lutz said. "It makes you wonder why Hunter would provide a means for terrorists to raise money on tobacco along with opium and other drugs. Has he switched sides? That's what I want to know."
Rep. Hunter, a reserve Marine captain, has so far received at least $6,000 from tobacco-related PACs for his 2010 election campaign.
The race in CA-10 for the seat vacated by Ellen Tauscher features three lawmakers with long resumes at the state level. And then there's Anthony Woods, a young man with no prior history in elected office, but festooned with what Benjy Sarlin of The Daily Beast called the best political resume ever. Woods is an African-American product of a single mother who found his way to West Point and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He is a two-time Iraq war platoon leader who returned all of his men home safely and received the Bronze Star. He is someone who, after returning home, was dismissed from the Army for challenging its Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. But politicians don't vote with their resumes. They must have the conviction to vote with their principles. I actually conducted the first interview with Woods back in April, and since then others havetaken notice. So I thought I'd return to Woods and ask him about some of the key issues facing the Congress in the coming months. A paraphrased transcript of the conversation, executed last Wednesday, is below.
The President is under fire from the LGBT community for slow-walking their issues and turning away from campaign promises. It's getting a little ugly, and the President risks a lot of goodwill for a community that worked hard to elect him, especially in the wake of several victories on marriage equality in the New England area and Iowa and the historic level of activism after the passage of Prop. 8.
Central to this debate is the issue of gays in the military and the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Obama keeps insisting that he wants to change the policy, and his nominee for Secretary of the Army, Republican John McHugh, reportedly supports this change as well, saying that he has "no interest as either a Member of Congress or as ... secretary of the Army to exclude by some categorization a group of people otherwise qualified to serve." A recent poll shows overwhelming support for allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military, even among conservatives.
But the President could end this policy today by putting a moratorium on implementing the policy of throwing out qualified Americans from serving in the Armed Forces. Two of those Americans, Iraq war vets Dan Choi and CA-10 candidate Anthony Woods, are teaming up, as Choi announces his endorsement of Woods.
"For 10 years, I have known Anthony Woods as a leader and an officer of the highest caliber," said Choi. "From defending our nation abroad, to fighting for our highest ideals here at home, Anthony Woods exemplifies the real world perspective that is needed to bring about real change in Washington, and I am proud to support his candidacy for Congress."
An Arab Linguist, Lieutenant in the New York Army National Guard, and West Point Classmate of Anthony Woods, Choi rose to national prominence earlier this year when he openly declared that he was gay on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show." The Army quickly launched discharge proceedings against Choi, who has vowed to fight his termination from the military under the "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy," and re-deploy with his unit.
Like Choi, Woods also served in Iraq, commanding 81 soldiers and earning both the Bronze Star and Army Commendation medal during two tours of duty. Woods was also discharged after challenging the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and would be the first openly gay African American ever elected to the United States Congress [...]
Choi will join Woods at two events in Northern California this month---the first on June 26th in Davis, and the second on June 29th in San Francisco.
Obviously, Woods is more than a single issue candidate. But the imagery of someone replacing Ellen Tauscher, who is currently carrying the bill in the House to repeal the DADT policy, who was kicked out of the military using that policy, is undeniable, and can increase pressure on the President and Congress to finally do the sensible thing and remove that layer of discrimination in our armed services.
We've been hearing rumors about this for some time, but Lisa Vordebrueggen went public, so now we can begin to tell this story. Anthony Woods, an African-American, openly gay Iraq War veteran with two tours of service who publicly came out to challenge the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, may enter the race to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10.
Woods was born on Travis Air Force Base and attended high school in Fairfield, according to a spokesman. He is now considering moving back home and running for Congress.
Woods was traveling and unavailable for comment today but as soon as I have an opportunity to speak with him at length, I will file an updated post about him.
I was able to speak with someone knowledgeable about Woods and his decision-making process today, and he told me that he would figure out whether or not to run "in the coming weeks." With no timetable for Tauscher's confirmation, certainly Woods, who also staffed for New York Gov. David Paterson, has some time.
Everyone who I've talked to about this characterizes Woods as a deeply impressive individual. He fought in Anbar Province and elsewhere in Iraq for two tours before deciding to take a stand on their discriminatory policy with respect to gays and lesbians. Here's a bit from that Harvard Magazine article Vordebrueggen cited:
In early November, Woods learned he would be "eliminated" from the army on the grounds of "moral and professional dereliction" and required to repay $35,000-the amount of his scholarship to attend the Kennedy School.
A military career may seem a curious choice for a young man who is gay or even questioning his orientation. But for the son of a single mother, growing up in an Air Force town in northern California, acceptance to West Point was an honor-and an opportunity-beyond compare. Woods focused on the professional to the exclusion of the personal; with the country at war, that wasn't hard. But two years at Harvard gave him space to think-and to face his dismal prospects for upward mobility in an organization with an explicit homosexuality ban and a strong culture of marriage and children. Even if he had stayed closeted, he says, "It wasn't going to be possible for me to fit the mold, and I knew that because of that, there was going to be a glass ceiling."
Even after the invasive court-martial process-the military conducts interviews with friends and family to verify homosexuality, presumably to prevent fraud, for instance by soldiers who wish to avoid an additional tour in Iraq-Woods is reluctant to malign the officers who carried out his investigation. He says they are simply implementing a policy. Change might come from Congress, but Woods believes the Supreme Court is a more likely venue: "I think it's going to take a landmark court case, like Brown v. Board of Education."
That we would bar talented people who want to serve their country from that option makes absolutely no sense at all. But perhaps this is a blessing. Perhaps Woods can return to his hometown and find another way to serve - as part of a fresh group of lawmakers who have a new insight to these time-worn challenges we face and maybe some new strategies to tackle them. I hope to interview Woods very shortly should he decide to enter the race. Stay tuned.
They're not two of my favorite California Congresswoman. But their leadership on repealing don't ask don't tell comes to a head with a hearing today, chaired by Davis.
Democrats in Congress hope to ignite a drive to reverse the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy Wednesday with the first hearing on the subject since 1993, when President Clinton said gays could serve in uniform if they kept quiet about their sexual orientation.
Without this hearing, said former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili, "you will never repeal the law. It's a great idea." He is among more than 50 retired generals and admirals who have said it is time to rethink the policy [...]
Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee tried to have a hearing on the policy in April 2007, but opposition from conservatives in their party sank the idea.
Since then, "There's another year in the war," says Rep. Susan Davis, a California Democrat who chairs the military personnel subcommittee. "We want to start a conversation" that could put the issue on a front burner again.
Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California, the lead sponsor of a bill to repeal the policy, said she knows what military leaders would say if they testified.
"The military leadership will tell you that this is the law they've been given to operate under and that's what they do," she says, "which is a very different question of off-line and off-the-record, 'Personally, admiral, what do you think?' That's the only way they could answer ... differently."
The Pentagon may be ducking this hearing, but they can't hide from public opinion. Over 75 percent of Americans would like to see DADT repealed. The arguments about "unit cohesion" have been shown to be ridiculous, and the case of Arabic translators being fired for being gay have highlighted not only the absurdity of this policy, but the national security harm it's actually doing.
The most fitting part of all of this is that Larry Craig supports Don't Ask Don't Tell. Yeah, he would, wouldn't he? I'm sure he'd love to change the title to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Just Tap Three Times," but then...
UPDATE: Rep. Patrick Murphy (from my hometown) had a great hearing. He kicked a little butt today. Video on the flip:
(Regarding the summoning of the devil below, I'll get there at some point. But I'd prefer to talk about something important over an obscure argument about which Americans deserve to decide things over which other Americans.)
The battle between environmental groups and the US Navy over the use of sonar off the California coast appeared to come to an end last week, when a federal judge forbade sonar use within 12 miles of the shoreline. But for this ruling to hold, you would have to have a President who believes in an independent judiciary and the rule of law. Alas, we have a king.
The Navy announced today that two important steps have been taken under existing law and regulations to allow it to conduct effective, integrated training with sonar off the coast of southern California after a federal court earlier this month imposed untenable restrictions on such training.
In accordance with the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and at the recommendation of the Secretary of Commerce, the President concluded that continuing these vital exercises without the restrictions imposed by the district court is in the paramount interests of the United States. He signed an exemption from the requirements of the CZMA for the Navy's continued use of mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar in a series of exercises scheduled to take place off the coast of California through January 2009. The Navy already applies twenty-nine mitigation measures approved by federal environmental regulators when using active sonar, and these will remain in place.
In other words, the President thinks killing whales is a small price to pay for not having to tell the Navy move their boats a bit. Anyway, if the whales aren't willing to die for the cause of liberty, then they simply want the terrorists to win.
The Navy takes steps to limit damage to whales, granted. But that is pretty much besides the point. Between denying the waiver for California to regulate its own tailpipe emissions and this latest action, it's clear that this Administration doesn't find the normal structures of the law to apply to them. This next election is in large part about bringing this back into balance, about finding an executive who doesn't treat the Constitution like something on which you wipe your shoes.
Rush doesn't consider anyone who disagrees with him a real person, that's been obvious for a while. But I guess the fact that this comes so SOON after the whole MoveOn/BetrayUs thing strikes me as odd. You'd think that whole deification of the military thing would kick in and prevent him from smearing men and women in uniform so soon.
Jon Soltz of VoteVets has a righteous post. And Jerry McNerney really has his back up (this is from an email):
Where does Rush Limbaugh get the moral standing to pass judgment on our heroes who wore this nation's uniform and returned to exercise their First Amendment rights? Even for Rush, that's too far!
Will you join me in calling the following radio stations to demand they take Rush's show off the air?
KWSX in Stockton - (209) 551-1280
KSFO in San Francisco - (415) 954-7449
KFBK in Sacramento - (916) 929-5325
Hey, he's consistent, right? He voted to condemn the MoveOn ad.
I don't want Rush's show off the air. I think free speech means accepting the speech you don't like. And this idea that anyone who's ever served in the military is immune from the slightest criticism kind of makes me squirm. None of this is to defend Rush, who obviously thinks that anyone who doesn't serve the country in EXACTLY the way he sees fit is simply not genuine, and worthy of derision. There's a difference between MoveOn's substantive, fact-based argument, and Limbaugh's hatred of anyone who doesn't think like him. But you don't ban it, and you don't ignore it. You HIGHLIGHT it. And you make sure everyone knows about the vast emptiness within his soul.
UPDATE: Full context of Limbaugh's remarks on the flip.
As usual, it would be better to quote this Digby post verbatim, but let me just give you the relevant section from the article in question:
(Loretta) Sanchez, Orange County's only Democratic member of Congress, voted in 2002 against giving President Bush authorization to invade Iraq. More recently she voted to begin pulling troops out within 90 days.
Tuesday night Sanchez said she could not support the protesters (who want to cut funding for the war) because the $145 billion in Iraq war funding was in the same bill that would provide money to build the C-17 aircraft in California.
"I never voted for this war," she said. But "I'm not going to vote against $2.1 billion for C-17 production, which is in California. That is just not going to happen."
Sanchez has been consistently against the war, and she cannot be fully blamed for protecting her constituents. But she's constrained by the fact that a major military contractor in her district has a gun to her head. Particularly in California, but all over the country really, the massing of the war machine has a definite impact on policy. They put their factories in all these different districts, so that shuttering an obsolete weapons system will be met with enormous resistance. This ensures that you can never decrease military spending or even keep it the same. And eventually, all these systems have to be justified. Through war.
This is approximately why the nightly news has all of these ads for Lockheed Martin and Boeing on them. I can't buy a 757, but Boeing can keep that news network in line by threatening to drop their ads if they stray from the party line.
Here's Digby:
It's just another way that big money distorts our politics. Sanchez's statement makes it quite clear that the "power of the purse" is not about stopping anything. It's about funding all kinds of things that have been set up over many years to keep politicians like Sanchez in line. She really does have to answer to her constituents --- many of whom make their living off the military industrial complex dime. You can't blame her.
I don't even think public financing will stop this. You're talking about thousands of constituents' jobs. And California embodies this problem as much as any state in the union. It's something we really have to think about. How do we, after 60 years of massive military buildup, put this genie back in the bottle?
(This isn't limited to defense, by the way, John Dingell's attempt to upend CAFE standard legislation preferred by the Speaker comes from him protecting his constituents, just as resistance to gas taxes comes from legislators protecting theirs.)
