Early Morning, Looking at World

 Hi, here is another early morning for me.  This would be starting off another 9th grade school week, along with the accrued homework and test preparation.  Instead of sitting in my 1141 dining room with instant coffee,here comes day number three of US armed forces raining down missiles on areas the Blusterer-in-Chief deems to be enemy territory, that it, areas not under his personal control. I am tired of hitting up on channels that seem obsessed with this ongoing military adventure.  I'd like for things to start clearing up and people get back to their more normal existence, if the dramatists seeking absolute power can manage to cooperate.  We're now in March...it's Monday, the 2nd.  I can still study foreign languages and read my problematic fantasy book.  And maybe a trudge around the block is in order.  And maybe I'll try out some brief neighborhood driving of the white Camry.  Grateful for Anita and Jim's visit, and that they got back to Austin okay.  Speaking of the Texas capital city, I don't know what to think about how people in different places, near and far, who seem to have lost their minds and have yielded to their ownknee-jerk, violent tendencies. I am so, so tired of seeing ugly mug shots slapped across my TV-20 News screen. A little more pause for kindness, please...just quietly walking away can be an acceptable option, too.  I did some seven minutes of ipf so far today...

Saluting Veterans

On this Veteran's Day in 2024, I salute all those fellow Americans who have served in our armed forces, some paying the ultimate price during their tenures.  Before 1973, young men, even if not voluntarily recruited, would be drafted in a lottery system, compelled to serve.  And during wars such as World War II, Korea and Vietnam, many were wounded or died...all coming out of the experience irreversibly changed.  After the draft was replaced by a fully-volunteer force, those who enlisted went through periods of relative peace and some of wartime...the Persian Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan were the most intense periods and produced the most casualties since the Vietnam era...but there were also Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti.  And our armed forces are contributing strongly to the maintenance of worldwide stability today. When someone first enters the military, it may be a period of relative peace...but this can quickly change, so for all veterans who performed their duty during both times of peace and conflict, I appreciate your service and sacrifice.  Thank you!

Just Finished Reading All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque

Erich Maria Remarque's groundbreaking exposé novel All Quiet on the Western Front came out in 1929, originally written in German as Im Westen Nichts Neues.  A German, he served in World War I on that Western Front in France and suffered leg wounds during trench combat in 1917.  The book would be adapted to film in 1930...both versions are considered to be at the apex of their respective art forms.  I finally got around to reading the book and strongly agree that it is an immortal classic of great literature.  The first-person narrative is by the young German Paul Bäumer as he recounts his ongoing trench warfare experiences in France with memories of his earlier life in Germany.  He is tightly bonded with his fellow soldiers...some of them friends from his home town: Müller, Kropp, Leer, Tjaden...and "Kat" Katczinsky, the last a seasoned, older soldier with whom he forms the closest bond.  The story covers their gradual attrition over the course of months, the shortness of rations and necessary equipment, the often abusive treatment they get from higher-ups in the military, the scary visits to military hospitals with surgeons bent on experimentation, and the almost total disconnect from others when they go on leave to their respective homes.  More than anything this story is a stark reminder that war is decided by the powerful few and inflicted on the powerless masses...Bäumer sees the Russian POWs and a dying French soldier as closer to him than those in charge on his own side.  In short, this was seen as a dangerous, subversive piece of literature by both the emerging Nazis in the 1930s, as well as by many in the West who felt it spoke against the military too harshly: both book and film found themselves banned in different places.  I recently checked out this powerful movie from my library and saw it (see above picture). Not only was there a TV movie version made in 1979 starring Richard Thomas and Ernest Borgnine (available on YouTube), but I hear that Netflix is currently filming a new version right now.  You can read All Quiet on the Western Front on pdf by hitting this link.  Read it: even if you are pacifistic to begin with, the vividness of the narrative is so piercing that it will only reinforce your already-held beliefs.  And if you're one of those flag-waving pro-war "patriots", you're probably so stuck in your own narrative that nothing...not even this...will shake you out of your bubble...

Weekly Short Story: A Suppliant in Space by Robert Sheckley

A suppliant is defined as someone who makes a humble plea to an authority or power.  Science fiction writer Robert Sheckley's 1973 short story A Suppliant in Space carries this meaning and provides a piercing satire on the state of our contemporary society with regard to doctrinally rigid social mores and militarism.  The inflexible dogmatism is from the world of Ferlang, in a nearby galaxy.  One of its inhabitants, named Detringer, has been convicted and banished to deep space for basically thumbing his nose at his society and acting out in a foolish manner.  He manages somehow to cross the void between his galaxy and ours...and lands on a planet about the same time that humanity's first interstellar expedition...replete with a military team in case they feel they have to destroy somebody...gets there.  And then the fun begins...

The dialogue between Detringer and Earth's bellicose Colonel Ketterman is classic, with the Ferlang exile twisting logic into contortions around the military man.  How it all ends...well, you'd better read it for yourself.  Instead I'd like to point out that the military and war have always been themes of not only our space program, but also of most of the movies we've seen about space exploration.  The race to the moon in the 1960s was an outgrowth of the grim competition in the Cold War between the East and the West for ballistic missile accuracy and range.  No doubt once permanent stations and settlements begin on the moon, Mars, and other worlds, the rumbles of war will never be very far away, sad to say.  Part of me is very enthusiastic about what seems to be America's renewed commitment to manned space travel and exploration...and part of me is anxious about the weapons of war spreading to space, not only creating the possibility of armed conflict there but also casting a threatening shadow over the only planet we currently have to live on, our precious Earth...

I found A Suppliant in Space in the anthology Donald A. Wollheim Presents the 1974 Annual World's Best SF (DAW Books).  It also features Detringer's talkative robot companion, who predates Star Wars' C-3PO by four years...as well as the socially-challenged scientist/civilian commander of the Earth crew. This story is probably in other collections as well...you'll probably get a kick out of it like I did...

On This Memorial Day

On this Memorial Day of 2016, I remember and honor the fallen soldiers in our nation's wars, past and present.  I am one of those folks who respect their sacrifice for the sake of the mission and their fellow combatants...whether or not I personally think that the military action in itself was called for.  After all, it is the democratically-elected, civilian President who serves as Commander-in-Chief...and who is ultimately responsible for whatever combat results from his orders.  The soldiers are highly trained to actively support the mission to the best of their abilities, and to be willing to lay their lives down for it and for the safety of their fellow soldiers.  Sometimes I feel that this important distinction has been muddled in the past...the Vietnam War and the Iraq invasion and occupation come to mind.  Some of the mostly well-intentioned people who slapped "Support Our Troops" decals on their vehicles a few years ago may not have been doing so with the sole intent of honoring our brave men and women in the line of duty.  I think, sadly so, that this motto had an additional meaning for them: whatever the President decides (at least one with their political outlook) has to be supported because the troops who carry out those policies are in the line of fire.  The problem with this is when a president...such as Democrat Lyndon Johnson with Vietnam or Republican George W. Bush with Iraq...sends his forces into an untenable situation abroad and exposes them to death and injury without a viable strategy for ultimate victory and eventual withdrawal.  It, in my opinion, is an act of support for those troops sent into harm's way for Americans to openly express opposition to decisions that put them there without the "end-game" having been properly thought out.  Instead, I respect a president who is careful about committing our precious and courageous young men and women to dangerous situations to the point where he or she works ceaselessly to achieve positive results without having to do so...

Let's honor those brave American heroes who died for our country...and work to keep that list from growing needlessly... 

Tomorrow Marks 70th Anniversary of Atomic Bomb Drop Over Hiroshima

Tomorrow, August 6, 2015, will mark the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima, Japan by the United States in its quest to quickly end World War II and avoid its remaining stated option of invading the island nation.  Such an invasion would doubtless have cost many, many more lives....not just of Americans, but also of the Japanese, both soldiers and civilians...and would have completely devastated that country.  Three months earlier, the Allies accepted the unconditional surrender of Germany after its leader, Adolf Hitler, had committed suicide and the country was already invaded and militarily conquered.  In early August of 1945, neither condition was applicable to Japan...its military rulers not only were still firmly entrenched in power with the nation essentially intact (although badly scarred from Allied bombing), but it still occupied the bulk of populated China and Indo-China (including Vietnam) at that time.  The Japanese did not practice surrender, instead fighting to the death even when their situation was hopeless and choosing suicide over surrendering in battle after battle on the Pacific Islands over which they fought the Americans.  With this scenario facing the United States, its leaders opted for the nuclear strike in hopes of convincing the Japanese militarists that their chances for remaining in power were fruitless.  But even after seeing the horrible effects of the atomic bomb on one of their cities, they still refused.  Three days later, Nagasaki was hit by the second, and hopefully last ever, atomic bomb dropped on a populated area.  Finally, they surrendered almost unconditionally: their emperor, who reportedly had pushed for the surrender in the end to save his people, was allowed to remain as such, at least in a titular, ceremonial role...

The development of the atomic bomb in the United States during World War II came after Albert Einstein, a Jewish emigre from Hitler's Germany and his anti-semitic policies, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt warning him that the Germans had already split the atom and were very possibly engaged in an effort of their own to develop such a weapon from this process.  The irony is that it was Japan that ultimately was hit, not Germany.  Another twist in all this was the gross underestimation of the devastating effects that the radiation from the bomb had on the population surviving the initial impact, especially that from the fallout that descended from the skies for days after the explosion.  Even after all this, the American military, when they dropped a demonstration A-bomb on the Bikini Atoll in the Pacific the following year, did not realize that the ships they had placed in proximity to the bomb would be hopelessly contaminated with radiation...the Naval authorities in charge of this explosion had wanted to put sailors back on them and guide them back into American ports to show that ships could withstand nuclear attacks. It was very sobering to see the level of contamination the bomb had produced.

In spite of all the rhetoric these days about how countries like Iran want to get the "bomb" in order to attack others...like Israel...it is obvious to me that self-defense from invasion is the primary goal.  Ukraine had the atomic bomb, left in their control when the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991...but they voluntarily gave it up...and now, they've had to suffer an invasion indirectly instigated by their neighbor, Russia.  Name me one country that, after developing nuclear warfare technology, has been invaded by another.  You can't, I bet.  Now look at a place like Iran, which was brutally invaded in 1980 by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  Then they watched as the U.S. and its allies invaded Iraq in 1991 following its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.  And then after 9/11, the invasion and long occupation on either side of Iran...Iraq on the west and Afghanistan on the east.  Speaking of the latter, of course the USSR was earlier engaged in a protracted, fruitless occupation and struggle in that country after invading it in 1980.  So if you're the Iranian leader and see all of this going on around you, wouldn't you, too, want to protect yourself and your people against invasion?  And that's the problem I see nowadays with nuclear proliferation.  We can rant and rave all we want about how evil the nuclear bomb is, but we are still creating conditions that motivate others to get it for themselves...

Saw The Imitation Game Recently

The Imitation Game, starring rising actor Benedict Cumberbatch as English mathematician Alan Turing, is a great historical/biographical drama focusing on a period during World War II when Germany had the upper hand over the Allies...in particular Great Britain...and the latter was desperately trying to crack the German Enigma code that the Third Reich universally used in its naval transmissions.  Turing, as he was portrayed, was a difficult, socially incompetent individual who was nevertheless one of the foremost mathematical minds of his time.  He was able, along with the help of the team assigned to him, to construct a prototype computer, called the Turing Machine, that was able to finally crack the code.  The struggles between great minds under great stress, with deadlines, the struggle to obtain needed resources, and conflicts with the base's military commander, to invent what seemed to be an impossible solution out of thin air made The Imitation Game a masterpiece of suspense...even when we know in advance the outcome of the project.

During the project, as the movie depicts it, Turing goes out and selects two people to add to his team.  One of them is Joan Clarke, whom others around her belittle because of her sex but whose brilliance Turing totally recognizes as they work out many of the assignment's problems together.  Their relationship becomes rather personal, although it is known between them that Turing was homosexual...which at the time was a crime in Britain.  Later it was implied that, years after the war when the police investigated a burglary at Turing's home and his homosexuality was revealed, leading to a choice between incarceration and chemical castration, the great mathematician and savior of the Allies during World War II committed suicide not long after undergoing the latter.  It was important that the film covered this, if only to show the brutal persecution that gays have suffered, even (or especially) in recent history.

Because of the top-secret nature of his code-breaking project, it wasn't until decades after Alan Turing's death that the scope of his accomplishments were revealed, both in terms of his contribution to the defeat of the Nazi empire and the foundation of the computer era.  What an major, indispensable figure in history he turned out to be!  I don't know whether or not the Oscar-nominated movie The Imitation Game is the best picture of last year, since I haven't seen all of the others, but I highly recommend it as it is well acted and directed and provides an eye-opening perspective on a crucial aspect of modern history that had been hidden from us for so long...

Just Finished Reading Joseph Heller's Catch-22

You know you've written something significant when a defining principle expressed within it becomes enshrined as an integral part of the culture.  That is what happened with Joseph Heller's 1961 novel Catch-22, which I understand was embraced by the anti-war counterculture movement of the late 1960s....not to mention becoming a standard high school/college English class reading assignment (groan) for millions.  The title words "Catch-22" refer to a situation in which, no matter what one does, the result will be unsatisfactory...and it is the process itself that always leads to the undesired ending.  It is a kind of "double-bind" that isn't necessarily personal in nature but often is embedded within official social institutions...like the Army of the author's World War II experiences.

During World War II, Heller served as a bomber pilot, based on a Mediterranean island off the coast of Italy.  Likewise, his protagonist, John Yossarian, is such a pilot with many missions already under his belt.  He is ready to go home, being certain that if he keeps flying missions over the enemy then he will be shot down and killed.  And, for most of the Army pilots, he would already have had enough flights to qualify to go home.  But his own commander, Colonel Cathcart, is trying to become a general by "volunteering" his men to more and more flights, continually raising the flight limit.

Yossarian visits the base's physician and tells him that he (Yossarian) is insane and therefore to please confirm this fact so that he can be sent back home.  Dr. Daneeka responds by saying that, for anyone to be sent home, they must make the request for it...but the act of making such a request reveals that they are rational and not insane...and hence ineligible to be sent home.  Yossarian then points out to Dr. D one of his fellow pilots and asks him whether this individual is insane.  The good doctor responds by agreeing that he is crazy and eligible to go home...and he can request it.  But the moment he does so, then he is committing a rational act and therefore is sane and ineligible.  This is the book's main illustration of the principle of "Catch-22": an algorithm of interaction and logic that always leads to an unsatisfactory outcome, regardless what information is given initially.  Certainly I've seen this process repeated in many, many situations over the course of my life: it's not just an "Army" thing...

Catch-22 is loaded with these types of circular arguments among its many characters.  The ultimate effect is that everything is a farce, and it would be hilarious were it not for the fact that all were in the midst of a brutal war where people were being killed and injured.  This story ruthlessly satirizes the command structure of the military, but could be applied to just about any group in society that depends on a hierarchy of authorities.  It also exposes, with the character of mess hall officer Milo, who has become rich by developing an intricate trade system in the region (and even making enemy nations Germany and Italy "shareholders"), the two-faced nature of business...quite willing to work against the national interests if there is a profit to be made...and how they are continually given a "free pass" and not held accountable for their seemingly treasonous acts because they are engaged in the high and noble act of "free enterprise"...

I heartily recommend Catch-22 and, unlike an English teacher, won't be grading you on your reactions.  It isn't long at all, but it does contain very much concentrated, intense dialogue...intense in the sense that there is a lot of reasoning going on here...albeit often very faulty reasoning.  It is also very big on humor...my favorite character is the misunderstood Major Major Major Major (continually accused of looking too much like Henry Fonda), who pulls his own brand of  "Catch-22" on others by refusing to see anyone unless he is out...

Just Finished Reading Terry Goodkind's Naked Empire

As I continue along with my reading of fantasy writer Terry Goodkind's twelve-part series The Sword of Truth, I was gratified to discover that it only has eleven books (if you exclude an added prequel).  That doesn't necessarily mean that I dislike this series, but rather that perhaps the author will sooner get around to resolving matters instead of just inventing new lands and characters in order to further his philosophical beliefs.  There's nothing wrong with that, though: fiction can be a very effective way for someone to promote their own worldview, as long as they don't come out sounding as if they are lecturing the reader in the process.  Unfortunately, Goodkind has this flaw, and book #8, titled Naked Empire, has him continuing with his "teaching" without any attempt at subtlety.

In Naked Empire, protagonists Richard and Kahlan are still fighting the Imperial Order...which they've been doing since book #2, as a matter of (fictional) fact.  They discover a people called the Bandakar that had been isolated by magic from the rest of the world. Bandakar is composed of non-magical people who fancy themselves as being civilized (and therefore superior) and everyone else as barbarian (and inferior)...including Richard and Kahlan.  When the magical barrier comes down and the Imperial Order overruns them, one of Bandakar's former leaders enlists our heroes to help them defeat their conquerors by being the "barbarians" they refuse to be themselves.  In other words, get the uncivilized outsiders to kill off the enemy that they themselves are too "good" to stand up to. The philosophy of the Bandakar has them continually making excuses for the cruel, oppressive rule of the Imperial Order while refusing to lift a finger to resist them in any way...even chastising those of their own who act or even speak against their oppressors.  I can't help but think that this is a not-so-oblique analogy of Goodkind to the tendency that some in the West have had to go out of their way to apologize for and explain away the oppressive and militarily aggressive Soviet Union and its proxies...and, later, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda...while roundly criticizing any resistance to them from the U.S. and its allies (aka "blame America first"). I also believe that Goodkind is indirectly criticizing some of America's allies who benefit from their protection without making any appreciable sacrifices in terms of money and human lives...while many of their people condemn the actions of their protectors.  While I think that Goodkind has a good point to make here, I still think that in recent years we've been too eager to go off to war without first leveraging our military advantage to gain diplomatic solutions to conflicts (Iraq comes prominently to mind).  Also, turning our brave soldiers into "nation builders" under PROTRACTED OCCUPATIONS of hostile lands isn't protecting anyone...least of all our precious young men and women serving so selflessly.  Maybe Goodkind would agree with this last opinion of mine...especially when the leaders of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, whose very regimes have depended on our presence there, often speak out as if we were the enemy and our (and their) enemies were their friends. In this regard they sound a lot like Goodkind's Bandakars.

One thing that appeals to me in this Sword of Truth series, the soapbox philosophizing notwithstanding,  is the way I have come to know and like its main characters.  This skill at character development, as I see it, is Terry Goodkind's great strength and it keeps me reading on.  I have read that the concluding books 9, 10, and 11 represent a trilogy in themselves, which I find a bit perplexing...since each book in the series directly leads into the next anyway...    

Martial Atmosphere Increasing and Ominous

Quiet often when I'm watching TV a public service announcement will broadcast about a cause called "Wounded Warrior Project".  Its aim is compassionate and compelling, rallying support around the all-too-many veterans who have returned from combat duty physically and/or mentally traumatized from the experience.  Both volunteers and financial donations are solicited in these ads: I think this is a good cause.  Beyond this, though, is an ominous trend: the increasing martial mood in this nation.

People in uniform brandishing weapons are being increasing held up in our society as a superior class of citizen, to which all others are expected to at least perfunctorily show the signs of humble deference and appreciation.  But although the duties of soldiers, police, and the like have their undeniable value, each of the individuals who engage in these occupations go into them fully aware of the dangers and consequences of their choices, in the case of the military there not having been forced conscription since 1973.  After the Bush administration in 2003 launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, the push for exalting the military above anything else was pumped mercilessly through the press.  It soon came to be that anyone who was against this horrible, unnecessary war wasn't properly "supporting the troops".  In my view, it was the bungled continuing occupation of Iraq that the political leaders of the time (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney) in Washington were mismanaging that was a betrayal of support for the troops. The soldiers followed their instructions professionally and bravely, for the most part, and deserve the compassion and support of the rest of society upon their return to civilian society.  But that's just it: it is CIVILIAN society they are returning to, not a continuation of the military.  I also don't understand why, after it had already been made patently clear that we were bogged down in a hopeless quagmire in Iraq, young men and women willingly signed up for military service, knowing perfectly well that they could be the next reported killed or injured in combat.  Why should I necessarily defer to someone who made that kind of deliberate decision to seek out the danger?

In Gainesville, any time a police officer is killed on duty, the street where the death occurred is renamed after the fallen officer.  This on the surface sounds like a nice gesture and shouldn't be a problem, except that, as I said before, it puts uniformed, armed individuals on a higher pedestal above others.  Where I work, at a civilian organization, it has been a long-standing policy to give military veterans and even their spouses, regardless of whether there was any combat duty involved, substantial hiring advantages over non-veterans and their spouses.  I was passed over for a year in my hiring process because of this, and I found myself, after scoring a perfect "100" on the pre-employment examination that was supposed to set the hiring list order, suddenly relegated behind several others who leapfrogged ahead of me because of military connections.  I don't think a civil society that has constitutionally placed the military in a subservient role should be run like that.  Yet in the midst of gridlock on Capital Hill, one kind of issue inevitably gets clear sailing: anything that gives preferential treatment to those in uniform.

We don't live in science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein's universe where the military and those who are members thereof are set apart to enjoy perks and rights that the rest don't.  Or do we?

A Strange Presidential Election Statistic

From early 1973 up to the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, the United States experienced a period of "relative" peace.  In this period, although there were actions and crises abroad (the Mayaguez incident in Cambodia (1975), Iranian hostage rescue attempt (1980), Lebanese peacekeeping mission (1983), Grenada invasion (1983), bombing of Libya (1986), Panama invasion (1989), and covert operations in many places including Nicaragua and Afghanistan), we were not involved in a heavily staffed, full blown military effort that was tantamount to war.  This climate against major military involvement overseas was relevant to me in that, although I initially had to preregister for the draft in the early 1970's, suddenly the draft completely ended, including registration, for the entire time that I would have had to be in it.  Even now, with no draft, it is now a requirement for those deemed qualified to preregister (just in case a draft needs to quickly be reinstated).  But with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and President Bush's determination to drive them out with primarily American military might, we have experienced a resurgence of the military, with anything of a martial nature being seen as a positive political force.  Veterans are now accorded a higher place in our society, although much still needs to be done to tend to the needs of those returning from combat duty with injuries and illness.  It is considered to be good political capital to identify oneself with the military in a supportive way.  Certainly this is the case with my own congressman, (very) conservative Republican Cliff Stearns, who decries big federal government...except in military and veteran matters.  I'm not necessarily against the military receiving a big budget (albeit with effective oversight), and I am all for giving veterans their due in civilian life.  And especially after 9/11, all of us are in debt to our fine soldiers who put their lives on the line abroad to protect us.  God bless them.

So, in the presidential elections since 1990, you might just think that candidates with records of military combat service abroad would prevail over those who either got deferments, safe assignments at home, or completely avoided military service.  And you would just think wrong.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush, a World War II hero soldier, lost his reelection bid to Bill Clinton, Vietnam War deferment recipient.  Clinton in turn defeated Robert Dole, another decorated (and severely injured) WW2 veteran, in 1996.  2000 saw Al Gore, his service in Vietnam notwithstanding, lose to George W. Bush, who avoided Vietnam combat with his cushy National Guard service during the period.  Dubya then won reelection against Vietnam War combat veteran John Kerry in 2004.  So 2008 rolls around and what happens?  I guess you know the pattern by now: Vietnam War hero and long-term POW John McCain lost to Barack Obama, who opted (like me) to avoid the military in his youth and wasn't confronted with a war during that period.

1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008.  The hero/soldier/veteran loses out.  And political parties were irrelevant to this outcome. So now here we are in 2012.  I guess "they" got the lesson by now, since we have as candidates non-military Obama running for reelection against Mitt Romney, who...you guessed it... avoided military duty with deferments.  So the chain WILL be broken this year, but not with a combat veteran getting into the oval office...

Don't Ask Don't Tell Ended

It's funny how a policy can be enacted with the higher motive of allowing a group to escape persecution and yet, because of the prejudice of other people, be used ironically to further persecute members of that group. Such was the case with the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy that President Clinton signed off on in the 1990's. Initially designed to allow gays to engage in military service without the military authorities automatically singling them out for disciplinary action, instead the military used the new rule to intrude even more heavily into its members' sexual lives, with many drummed out of the service or forced to keep their sexual orientation underground. Now that rule has been rescinded. Good riddance. I wonder what devices the homophobes in our military will use now to bully gay people serving in its ranks. After all, a rule change may be good but it doesn't signify a general attitude change.

I have discovered, through my often tortuous walk through life, that if you are out of the mainstream in any way, sooner or later some aggressive, intrusive element in society will call you out and try to persecute you for it. Even if your "deviation from the norm" is simply an intrinsic part of your own basic makeup, with little or no effect on others, no matter how trivial it may seem. And even more so if you appear to be all alone, which is really the prime driving force in all cowardly bullying and highhanded criticisms, not the actual "deviation" itself. Gays since 1969 have discovered that there is strength in unity, organization, and numbers, so for them I am glad that this abused rule for military service has ended. Still, I think persecution will continue: as mentioned earlier, you can't change people's hearts with just the stroke of a pen...