Sergeant Films Women at West Point - Why Am I Not Surprised?

As is often the case with many problems, the Army is focusing on encouraging the reporting of sexual harassment and punishing the offenders (as it should). Not good enough, however! This problem is much more complicated and is endemic to the Army (military?) culture. A basic cultural change is imperative before this problem will go away.

Several years ago, a front page picture in the European version of the Stars and Stripes showed a major theater commander with his hands on the shoulders of a young, female PFC. The balance of the scene was filled with smiling senior NCOs.

As I remember the story, the young PFC was dining with the group of senior NCOs when the general walked by. She boldly made some comment about him sharing the mess tent with the troops. He approached her, put his hands on her shoulders and informed her that he had more time in mess tents than she had in the Army.

What's wrong with this picture? Why was a junior, female enlisted person sharing a table with senior, male NCOs? Why did she feel comfortable making a remark to or about the general? Why would the general "fatherly" put his hands on the young, female PFC? Why in the world would the Stars and Stripes newspaper publish such a picture at all, let alone on the front page? And finally, perhaps most important of all, why was there no public outcry - from anybody?

I can't answer these questions, but someone should. The press has been full in the past years of senior military and defense department officials taking sexual advantage of subordinates. In many cases, the relationships appear consensual, but for vastly different reasons. The fact is sexual harassment should be directly encoded into the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and carry severe punishment options. "Conduct unbecoming" and "acts prejudicial" are just catch-all phrases to avoid calling this problem what it really is: predatory sexual behavior.

How can we solve a problem if we're unwilling to even give it a name. After each incident, someone will retire (probably with full pension and revered military rank), and our leaders will shout "zero tolerance..." until the next incident which will restart the same, well-worn cycle. They just don't get it!

More on Gun Control

This issue continues to stir the national emotion, in an extremely disproportionate way. The loss of any human life is cause for sadness and concern, but we have to put the nearly 2.5 million deaths in America per year into proportion. Typically, around 11,000 Americans die each year from gun-related homicide, with another 19,000 dying from gun-related accident or suicide. By comparison, over 550,000 die from cancer, over 800,000 from cardiovascular disease and nearly 125,000 die accidentally. If we ban guns in a futile attempt to save the potentially 11,000 that will die each year from gunshots, do we ban hamburgers which are complicit in heart disease, obesity and E coli?

Certainly, we need improved gun control to prevent illegal transfers, juvenile access to weapons and to create records to trace ownership of guns used in violent crimes. More importantly, we need to deal with the underlying causes of gun-related violence: dysfunctional or non-existent families, unemployment, criminal behavior, mental illness, poverty - all issues which dramatically increase the probability that someone will die from a gunshot wound. Please read the comments at the following two links to get a deeper understanding of the problem and the "statistics" associated with it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

http://angrywhitedude.com/2012/12/understanding-the-numbers-on-gun-related-deaths/



Gun control is an important issue, worthy of Presidential interest and Congressional action. However, there might be more pressing, higher priority issues such as our sagging economy, national debt, lack of a funded budget and unemployment. Just resolving unemployment in this country will sharply reduce violent crime and gun-related deaths. Our politicians need to get on with governance that counts and let the windmill spin.

Religion and the Law

The supposed "hypocrisy" of the Catholic church in Colorado is ridiculous. What Catholics believe about the beginning of life is not relevant to a law suit. That's why it's called a "law" suit. Colorado state law must be applied in the deaths of a mother and her unborn fetuses. The law must decide if she were the victim of a wrongful death at the hands of the hospital. The tragedy of the deaths of her fetuses is also a legal issue and not a moral, religious or emotional one. The state law regarding the beginning of life should be changed, but doing so would legitimize "Pro-Life."

NEWTOWN – ANOTHER PREVENTABLE TRAGEDY?

Another tragedy and we still don’t get it! Immediately, we jump to discussions of ineffective gun laws. Mental health is an issue. Certainly, school security measures are critical so that staff and students know exactly what to do during an attack; and they practice it often. Over exposure of our children to violence is a valid and needed discussion. We even discuss how schools should be more capable of spotting potentially violent students (or staff).

In our emotional efforts to eliminate these violent tragedies involving innocents, we must resist the urge to focus on only a few of the multiple complex causes. We can try to eliminate all guns in the U.S. We can initiate a “witch hunt” to track down and institutionalize anyone with a mental problem or a predisposition to violence. We can campaign against violent video games, movies and music. All aspects of this issue need thoughtful attention and effective action. This is a complex problem and demands a complex solution; one beginning as close to the source or key cause as possible. This is a social, moral and psychological issue that requires solutions based on those disciplines. Political solutions, no matter how well intended, will have no effect and may even make matters worse.

That we don’t recognize a root cause of all of this painful violence is no surprise. We have become a nation of people who largely do not hold ourselves (or those close to us) responsible for our actions. There’s always an external culprit or reason for the bad things we do. To oversimplify: “I” didn’t drop the glass and break it, “it fell” or “you scared me.”

In my humble opinion, a key to preventing many violent actions lies in the home and a functional, moral family unit.

Who could better detect potential violence, aberrant behavior, mental illness, depression, etc. than a parent or sibling? Unfortunately, just too many family members don’t care, are in denial or aren’t involved enough to detect the vital signs of tragedy in their own families. If there were guns in the home, simply properly securing them from unauthorized users would be a huge step forward.

Many parents have simply lost touch with the lives of their children. Too many children are set adrift to deal with their problems alone or within their (inexperienced and unqualified) peer groups. Parents have become non-participants in their children’s lives so are not positioned to detect behavioral trends that could lead to self-inflicted or external violence. Until we can rebuild the basic family unit, attempts to legislate violence out of our lives are bound to fail.

Certainly, firearms availability is an important issue. Vetting of potential gun purchasers must become more effective. The need for automatic and assault weapons in homes must be carefully examined. Gun owners clearly need more education about gun ownership and security. Even stricter penalties for allowing weapons to fall into the hands of unauthorized users need serious consideration.

Obama Re-Elected!

The U.S. Presidential elections are all but over and my candidate didn't win. The Republicans will have to wait another four years to try once more to apply their governmental philosophies. Where do we go from here?

Simple. We support our elected President and help him move our country forward in the many ways it must. President Obama made a great point in his victory speech by suggesting that the American people take control and get done what is necessary. We can no longer wait for our elected politicians to unselfishly represent us. Gridlock is real and won't be going away soon. There's much to do for our country and we citizens have to become the agents of change.

With all of the problems facing our great country, from both within and without, we can't afford to play party politics and scuttle the efforts of a hamstrung President. Without both the House and Senate, he just can't make things happen that need to happen. If we've ever needed non-partisan politics it's now. "Compromise" had got to become our political way of life, as we rebuild America and reassume our place at the head of the table of nations.

Seek out objective and non-political analysts in your cities and neighborhoods and listen to their sage advice. Learn as much as you can about your economy and how the U.S. fits into world issues. Then, contact your Congress and House representatives and tell them what you want. Remind them that if you don't get what you want and what the country needs, they won't be reelected (maybe even impeached). If you feel inclined, organize citizens who think as you do and make your political contacts as a group of concerned citizens and voters. Rest assured that if you do nothing, nothing will get done.

Our founding fathers wisely created a form of government that reserved the real power for the citizens. We've abdicated that power in favor of politicians we elect and then blame for inaction. Let's take our country back from the politicians and gridlock and get America moving once more. The power of consumerism is especially strong in our form of democracy and economy. Why give it away?

When Amateurs Govern

On September 11, 2012, the U.S. State Department needlessly lost a seasoned and effective statesman, Chris Stevens, and three of his diplomatic companions in a Benghazi, Libya terrorist attack. Since then, no substantive information has been released that would even remotely explain what happened and why. Ambassador Stevens didn't have to pay the ultimate price, especially through smoke inhalation. Some serious questions need answering:

Why wasn't the "safe room" safe, allowing it to be breached (?) and filled with smoke?

Where were the security personnel? The Marines? The local security force?

Where were the smoke hoods, N-95 masks, or even gas masks?

What was the evacuation plan, if any?

Ambassador Stevens appears to have been working out of a plain house, not worthy of being called an Embassy or Consulate. The safe room wasn't safe and the evacuation "plan" so shoddy that Stevens became separated from his companions. Where was his security detail? If someone were to die in this attack, it should be security personnel and not the top guy. Everyone should have been focused on protecting him and, apparently, no one was.

Expecting an Ambassador to operate in such primitive conditions in a former combat zone, teeming with known extremists, is unconscionable and the work of amateurs. What could the Secretary of State have been thinking? So far, we've not seen anything that remotely resembles even basic security procedures. Even Ambassador Stevens should have taken some precautions to protect his staff. How many other American diplomats are sitting in targets so "soft" they could be breached with BB guns and water balloons?

This carnage is appalling and the perpetrators need to be neutralized; and fast! The fact is they did their job and the American government failed to protect its own is a time of crisis through planning, training and protective security. This incident isn't just about losing a fine diplomat, it's about the image of the United States as weak, ineffective and governed by amateurs who can't anticipate and plan; who just react.

It's clearly time to appoint a Secretary of State who does more than attend meetings. Her boss must share in the shame of this tragedy as well. Perhaps it is time to replace our current government with a whole new set of amateurs. After all, they could do no worse.

ON GUN CONTROLS

Recent tragic multi-death shootings in America have served to showcase America’s love affair with guns and have elicited the emotional response to legislate stricter gun controls, if not to eliminate firearms ownership in America altogether (perhaps requiring a Constitutional Amendment).

CNN dedicated much effort to comparing guns per citizen in America to other countries. They even interviewed American gun enthusiasts, attempting to establish that all Americans are “gun crazy” and live in an “old West,” cowboy fantasy world of “shoot first, ask questions later.” Perhaps a few do…

With freedom, especially the kind Americans enjoy, comes increased opportunity for aberrant behavior. Crime flourishes when the counter forces are weak or tolerant. Crime can be heavily suppressed when civil liberties are suppressed (think Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia). Not many of us would vote for that!

The American Constitution allows, if not encourages, American citizens to protect their country and themselves by bearing firearms. It’s simply impossible for armed police and security agents to protect all citizenry from insane, aggravated or terrorist attacks. If only bad guys have guns, the security balance is unfavorable to the good guys.

To repeat an old cliche, “Guns don’t kill; people do.” If someone decides to kill, he or she will use whatever weapon is available: gun, knife, poison, rock, poison gas, radiation, explosives, etc. Certainly, if guns are readily available and accessible, they will be used more frequently because of their lethality, ease of use, accuracy and range. The question that screams for answering is “Why would someone want to kill another in the first place?”

People were murdered long before there were guns. Weapons evolved from sticks and stones to knives, spears, arrows, each more sophisticated and lethal than the last. Why did lethality develop so efficiently and rapidly? The easy answers are security, aggression, deterrence, etc. I submit that humans developed weapons to facilitate their need for dominance.

Let’s briefly explore “dominance.” Since dominance is a subset of ego, it’s no real surprise that most mass killers are male. Expanding the concept of “my father can lick your father” to extremes, we try to dominate others politically, socially and religiously. “Honor” races forward as an excuse for even killing one’s own children. Conflicts, like the Hatfield and McCoy feud (still smoldering?), pit honor and dominance above all else; even human life. Killing has become a shortcut to achieving dominance, replacing tolerance, negotiation and compromise. This transition has intensified as we increasingly lose our respect for animal, especially human, life. (It’s no accident that we’re hunting or displacing one animal specie after another into extinction.)

We can’t, and shouldn’t, legislate morals. Murder is illegal because it attacks the rules of order, the rights to life and the rights to security. Whether murder is sinful is not a case for the courts. Moral strength is important to the survival of any country, but it must come from the culture, the family and the religious sectors. I submit that all three of these sectors are complicit in the violence that rages in America (and other parts of the world).

If all of the world’s guns were eliminated, murder would still prosper; albeit more slowly. We have become a folk of resorting to violence, often mortal violence, as the first solution. We tend to kill ourselves and others for insignificant reasons or we exaggerate our circumstance so that killing becomes a “logical” solution (racism, jihadism). Imagine the paradox of killing someone so we can be rewarded by God in heaven.

Unless, there are major changes to how we think and how we raise our children, the carnage will continue. If we can learn to respect life and tolerate difference in our fellow humans, we will have begun the healing process. We can keep our guns under those circumstances, or not. It wouldn’t matter.

I am confident, however, that we can improve gun control, if only to prevent some killings resulting from passion, insanity, and radicalism and coupled with easily accessible and efficient killing weapons. The cost of effective and consistent control will be expensive and must be largely carried by gun owners themselves; hence, the taxes on gun sales and ownership.

Consider a few possible solutions:

·      Raise the minimum age to purchase and conceal-carry weapons (to 25?);

·      At buyer’s expense, perform a National Agency Check for all gun buyers  (this assumes that all national law enforcement agencies exchange information); any negative, including juvenile infractions, would trigger a prohibition to gun ownership;

·      Prohibit gun ownership for all who have violated any gun regulation;

·      Require all gun buyers to complete a short psychological survey to be reviewed by a professional not under the influence of the gun seller (FBI?);

·      Prohibit gun sales to anyone who is taking certain medications, especially to control psychotic or emotional issues; require a doctor’s attest to support a waiver;

·      Require strict gun registrations to be maintained by a central national agency (the FBI?). Create a nationwide database accessible to all law enforcement agencies.

·      Place a high federal tax on new and used gun sales (50% and 30% respectively?);

·      Place an annual federal flat tax on each registered gun (eg. $100);

·      Substantially increase penalties and fines for possessing an illegal weapon (citizens and sellers);

·      Make registered gun owners fully responsible for how their guns are used. They must report stolen guns prior to the commission of a crime;

·      Pace heavy penalties on gun owners who allow a gun to fall into the hands of a juvenile or person otherwise not authorized to own a gun;

·      Place enforcement and administration of gun controls on local police with FBI oversight;

·      Make ownership of any weapon capable of automatic fire illegal;

·      Limit the number of registered guns in a household to one handgun, one shotgun and one rifle per adult family member who is living at the residence (not for each adult family member);

·      Restrict hunting licenses to only those with registered weapons relative to the game to be hunted. Check registration before issuing the hunting license.

·      Require a proficiency firing range test per gun owned for all gun owners every five years;