Malaysian Air Flight 370 -- Say WHAT??

Ever since the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared last weekend, there is general confusion about what really happened.  Stories of this, that, and the other.  Stolen passports.  An Iranian asylum-seeker as one of the passengers with one of the stolen passports.  Plane fares paid by cash.  No radar contact for 90 minutes.  Cell phones that still ring and people on the QQ messenger still showing thier status online.  Families asking that the cells be located, and no one official wants to follow up on those requests.  No debris field.  No black box pings.  The plane veering off course by hundreds of miles.  No Mayday calls.  A copilot who in the past had allowed women "friends" into the cockpit while in flight.  No known terrorist groups sending messages out "We did it!  Look at us!"  Malaysian civil and military authorities not on the same page.

Governments all over the region from Thailand to Malaysia to Vietnam to China dispatching resources to investigate, finding nothing.  Now, today, Malaysia has asked India for help, and Vietnam is figuring to close further investigation for lack of information.

Sorry, it ain't working for me.

I've been listening to news reports and talk shows with pilots who are intimately familiar with the Boeing 777s, as well as being intimately familiar with routes flying in Southeast Asia.  The questions hosts and callers asked were the same as I'd be asking.  The answers were quite interesting.

First, the Triple 7 has multiple redundancies.  Fail-safes on top of fail-safes.  One system goes kaput, another keeps going.  But yet... Transponders, black boxes, radio contact, debris field... nothing.

What about the transponders?  Can they be turned off by the pilot or copilot?  Yes, there's a switch.  No problem at all to turn them off.  But, why would a pilot want to turn them off.  They wouldn't.  The transponders help maintain safe distances between aircraft as well as continue to allow air traffic controllers to monitor positions and see if anything's wrong.

Could the transponder be turned off without the consent of the pilot or copilot?  Not likely, unless the cockpit had been taken over and the flight crew was no longer in control.

If the plane had crashed into the Straits of Malacca, its last known location (now disputed by the Malaysian Air Force), the black boxes would have sent a signal indicating that salt water had gotten to them.  If it had crashed on land, the boxes would also emit a signal.  Not only that, try getting a cell phone just a little bit wet.  Stops working real quick, doesn't it?  How could they still be online?

One can reasonably rule out a mid-air explosion as well.  If a hole were to be made in the fuselage somewhere, it wouldn't necessarily cause an explosion.  The most likely occurrence would be an "explosive decompression," meaning all the air would be sucked out and unsecured objects (or people) might be sucked out into the atmosphere through the opening.  Oxygen masks would drop, and some member of the flight crew would undoubtedly sound a "Mayday" distress call while others of the crew attempted to maintain some kind of control over the craft.

Quite simply, no explosion, no debris field.  No oil or fuel slick.  Zip.  Zilch.  Nada.

This is just a hunch.  If the truth turns out to be something else, then, it's along the same lines of whatever else is being disseminated.

I'll come out and say it.  I'm thinking it's either a terrorist action or a false flag.  And the fact that no known or unknown terror group has claimed it...

Don't ask me who, what, or why.  I don't have a clue, but there are enough nutburgers running around the world to pull off a stunt like this. 

I'm guessing somehow whoever the bad actors were gained access to the cockpit and either replaced or coerced the flight crew to serve their purposes.  A fisherman had reported seeing a jumbo jet flying low over the Straits.  If that's the case, they could be invisible to radar, literally, "flying under it."  The transponder, the radio, shut off.  Some airstrip, somewhere, could accommodate its safe landing, and the plane has an over 9,000 mile range.  The black boxes would not have signaled any problem resulting from a crash.

Probably when the plane landed, all passengers on board were still alive and well.  What purpose do they serve?  Hostages?  Innocent by-standers?  Are they still alive and kicking?  I pray for their safety.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.  IF we ever find out the truth.  I don't trust the media to do that.

Is It High Time (Pun Intended) for Delaware to Legalize Pot?

Please note:  This is NOT a post about whether marijuana should be legalized.  That's a discussion we can have at another time.  For the record, I do fully support its legalization.  However, going from the assumption that it will happen in time, would it be a good idea for Delaware and its citizens?

===========================

One of the surprises of the 2012 election came in the form of successful voter initiatives in two states, Washington, and Colorado, which legalized both the possession and use of marijuana on a recreational basis.

Although the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) originally made noises about vigorously enforcing federal marijuana laws in those two states, it appears that a change of heart has happened.  President Obama's recent statements on marijuana make any such enforcement unlikely at this point.

Colorado's legal shops opened up on January 1, 2014, and sales were quite brisk the first day, according to news reports.  Although the state doesn't have official totals yet, it's estimated that the first week had more than $5 million in sales.  See the blurb here.

Washington State's Initiative 502 legalized possession of a small amount and designated the State's Liquor Control Board to develop regulations and licensing for retail establishments by December 1, 2013.  Those establishments are not yet open.

The State of Delaware does not have the initiative process, which would allow citizens to offer legislation or Constitutional amendments such as these to Delaware voters for passage.   The only way change can happen in Delaware is, therefore, through the General Assembly.

Whether it's wishful thinking or closer to reality, marijuana legalization could be on the legislative docket in Dover this year.  Rumor has it that such a bill is being drafted, but to date, no such legislation has been filed.  It's still early in the session, so anything might happen.

I took the opportunity to read Colorado's Prop 64, which you can read here.  It's a rather comprehensive set of provisions that will assign regulation to the Department of Revenue, or its successor, which:

• Provide for Marijuana Testing Facilities to ensure safety and potency.
• Provide for Marijuana Cultivation Facilities, establishing application and license fees.
• Provide for Marijuana Retail Stores, establishing application and license fees.

Further provisions do the following:

1. Restrict age, like alcohol, to 21 years and above.  Sales and/or transfers to minors would still be prohibited.
2. Keep laws prohibiting driving under influence of marijuana.
3. Legalize industrial hemp, a cousin that has less than 0.3% THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and has many other uses, such as clothing, food, and rope.
4. Allow up to one ounce of marijuana for personal possession, and growing up to 6 plants for personal use, no more than three of which can be mature and flowering.
5. Remove penalties for possession of paraphernalia for smoking or otherwise ingesting.
6. Set a 15% excise tax, the first $40 Million each year to be used for school construction.
7. They do not require an employer to permit sale, use, transfer, or display of marijuana during working hours.
8. Permit employers, property owners, institutions, etc, to continue to regulate or restrict possession and use of marijuana on their property.

Kinda hits all the bases, doesn't it?   Safety, revenue, age restrictions, employer protections.

Does Delaware need extra revenue?  Sure.  Would this be one way to accomplish it?  Sure.  With Delaware's corporate headquarter status, could marijuana-based corporations not set up here, pay fees, and compete?  Why not?

A lot of states are looking at following Colorado's example, including our neighbor, Maryland. By moving forward to get the infrastructure begun, we can build on what they started and make it suitable for Delaware.

Do we have legislators who would introduce such a bill for us?  Can it be done this session? And, once such a bill would get introduced, do we have the manpower to lobby for its passage?

I don't have the answers for that, but, if someone does, please take it and run with it!  I'm certainly willing to help!

"The Market" - Can It REALLY Work?

You may hear the term "The Market" spoken in hushed, reverential tones by some of its ardent apostles.

Others may say, "The Market will take care of _________"  (fill in the blank) in a discussion on various issues of the day.

Others still may have no opinion about it.

But many opponents will charge "The Market doesn't work.  Look at _________ as an example!"  

*****

Before trying to settle any arguments, let's all agree on a simple definition, one we learned in Econ 101 way back when. 

In a perfect world, "The Market" derives its power from arms-length transactions, where:

    1)  A willing seller has something to offer to another party for sale  (a widget)

    2)  A willing buyer has a need for something that he does not have  (said widget)

    3)  Both buyer and seller can negotiate on a price to transfer ownership 

          a)  The seller does not have to sell the widget to a particular buyer

          b)  The buyer does not have to buy the widget from a particular seller

          c)  Both parties may come to an agreement and complete the transaction  OR

          d)  Either party may walk away and the transaction is not completed.

    4)  There are no outside parties to the transaction exercising any influence on the transaction.

Does that about sum it up?   Can we start from this point?  It's pretty much the definition of an unregulated market.

Do such virtually unregulated markets exist, even today?  Yes, I'd submit that "The Market" is clearly evidenced in a very popular, very common form:  eBay (tm).  For those of you not familiar with eBay, the willing seller (#1 above) has the ability to set the price beforehand ("Buy it Now") or set a very low price that will be bid up by various willing buyers (#2).  These buyers may bid up to an amount of their choosing or "watch" the item as it goes along.  Watchers have the opportunity to step in and bid at any time.

I'm a "hard money" kind of guy.  I like the idea of gold and silver as measures of value, and, since gold is out of my reach, I can buy silver.

Doing a search on eBay (tm), I can find many sellers wanting to offer silver items for sale. Silver is offered in a number of ways:  bullion, government-issued coins, or "junk silver," just to name three.

Bullion is generally 99.9% pure (.999 fine) silver, can be in rounds (coin), bar, or other formats.  The rounds are usually 1 Troy ounce, about the size of an old silver dollar.  Weights vary, from as small as 1 gram up to 100 Troy ounces or more.

Government-issued coins, such as the US Silver Eagle, the Canada Maple Leaf, the Mexican Libertad, the Austrian Philharmonic and many others, are generally .999 fine or better, and usually, but not always weigh 1 Troy ounce.  Although there IS usually a denomination marked on them (the Silver Eagle is marked $1.00), the melt value is much higher.

"Junk silver" is the term used for US coins (and others) with silver content.  US dollars, halves, quarters and dimes prior to 1965 were 90% silver.  A Troy ounce of junk silver is usually about $1.20 or $1.30 face value in the silver.

OK, now that your eyes are glazed over, here goes!  Let's assume that the silver price is $20.50 per Troy ounce.

==================

Willing seller Joe Blow is offering a 1921 US Peace Dollar for $30.00 on eBay (tm).  He set the price upfront rather than chance the auction.  Joe's listing is going to end in the next 5 minutes. No one has bid on his coin, and no one is watching it. 

          As a willing buyer, I decided to pass on Joe's offering.  I didn't bother to watch it, I 

      don't care.  Why?  The 1921 silver dollar is fairly common, so the numismatic value,

      (that offered by a coin dealer) may be $22.00 or so, nowhere near the price he's asking.

      The melt value, then, what that item would be worth if melted down) is not even the spot

      price for silver, since the coin is less that 1 Troy ounce, and only 90% silver.

As a result, I and many other potential buyers decided to pass (#3d above), and Joe will still have his coin at the end of the listing.

===================

Willing seller Candy Barr would like to sell a 1 Troy ounce silver Philharmonic coin.  She decided to let it go for what the market would bear and priced her opening bid at $0.99.  Her listing will end in the next 5 minutes.  So far, there have been 7 bids on the coin, 3 people are watching it.  The current bid price is $22.95.

          I happen to like the Philharmonics, so I'm interested.  I'm willing to pay a little bit 

     extra because it's a minted coin, and, because of that, it's universally recognized as a 

     standard of value and worth a little more than just melt value.  I decide to put a max bid

     in of $25.80.

When the auction ends, I am the high bidder.  I pay for the coin through my account, and the transaction is completed.  Here, #3c above happened.  The seller agreed to let it go for an auction price.  The buyer (me) agreed to purchase it at a certain price.  The auction ended, we concluded the deal.

===================

Sometimes, you just gotta wonder what the offering seller was thinking (or smoking) before setting his "Buy it Now" price.  Here's a good example:

Willing seller Notta Klewe is offering two one gram pieces of .999 silver for sale.  She sets the "Buy it Now" price at $6.95, and will charge $0.99 for postage.  She has received NO bids and has had 0 watchers.  Why?

She's priced so far out of the market and doesn't realize it.  Here's why:  a Troy ounce is 31.2 grams.  She's offering 2 grams for sale.  She's basically asking a 1500% premium on her tiny quantity of silver.  Add to that, her offering can be mailed in an envelope with a simple first class stamp and not come anywhere near being overweight or oversized.  Nope, her offering didn't go anywhere, either.

====================

There is virtually no regulation on eBay (tm), except on certain items, e.g. guns and ammo, that cannot be sold.  All sellers agree to offer merchandise that is salable and genuine, all buyers agree to pay for the items they win.  There are consequences for non-compliance, and they are enforced, so the marketplace there is generally safe.

So, based on the definition we used at the beginning, the market worked and worked well.

Joe Blow was willing to sell an item, but he wanted a specific price for it.  No buyers were willing to meet the price he set, so no transaction occurred.

Candy Barr was willing to let her Philharmonic go at auction price.  I was willing to offer a fair price, and I outbid other people who had also offered to buy the piece.  The coin changed hands.

Notta Klewe met the same fate as her pal Joe Blow.  She was a more extreme case.

So, to wrap it all up.  CAN "The Market" work?  Certainly!  Is eBay (tm) the only place it does? By no means, but it's a sterling example.

The topic of "The Market" will undoubtedly resurface in another post... or two... I welcome your responses!

Is This the Modern Day "Cow-Tipping?"

Cow tipping

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

A cow lying on its side

Cow tipping or cow pushing is the purported activity of sneaking up on a sleeping, upright cow and pushing it over for one's entertainment. As cattle do not sleep standing, cow tipping is a myth.^[1]

=======================================================


It's no surprise in this economy that many states and localities, not to mention the federal government, have had to reach out for non-conventional sources for new revenues.  Simply stated, the people are pretty much tapped out and scream loudly about tax increases, as they should.

But, nowadays, these states and localities have helped cottage industries spring up, signing contracts and engaging the services of vendors who use cameras to enforce both speed and traffic light laws.  After all, depending on the jurisdiction, these tattle-tales produce tickets of usually around $40.00 for each violation.  There is a split in the revenue between the county and the vendor, and there are usually enough violations to make it "worth it" for the county.  Courts have held that the devices produce admissible evidence, and almost nobody will take off work to fight such a ticket in these tight times.

 "Red light cameras" have become so ubiquitous, it's easier to notice an intersection that doesn't have one than to see one that does. 

Speed enforcement has become another source of revenue.  Not that anyone would go faster than the posted speed, mind you, but there appears to be a market for these cameras, and they apparently do work.  (They work for the half mile or so from before the camera to just out of its reach past the device.)  

Together, this machinery frees up the police for "real crimes" and "real traffic offenses" and yet still brings a stream of revenue to the jurisdictions that use them. The cameras snap photos of those traveling 12 mph over the posted speed, the red light cameras snap photos of people still in the intersection after the light has turned red.  The speed cameras, 5 more of which Baltimore County plans to add to its arsenal in the next few weeks, are supposedly to be used in two areas:  1)  school zones and 2)  construction zones.  (Watch for cow tipping...)

State law allows for a school zone camera "within one half mile" of a school.  What that means is that the cameras, when placed, don't even have to be within spitting distance or even visual range of such a building.  Of course, no one wants to see a child run over in the process of going to school.  They make horrible hood ornaments.

So, in that case, you would think that school zones would only be enforced during daylight school hours, right?  Oh, no.  Wrong!!  Many roll 24/7, just in case Junior decides he wants to be the first on his block to get to his home room... at 4:30 AM.

Baltimore County has recently experienced problems with some of this equipment, and I'm sure it goes on in other jurisdictions as well.  On several occasions, some miscreant has shown... ummm... let's call it "displeasure" with unattended stationary equipment.  In at least two occasions, the devices have exploded into flame, and others have suffered paint on the lenses and so forth.

Disclaimer:  No matter what I happen to think of such equipment, I do not support vandalizing another's property in that or any other manner.  (Not that I might not get a wry amusement out of it, just sayin...)  And, to be perfectly clear, I am not guilty of any such incidents.  I'm just observant.

Construction zones are the other area where the cameras are used.  In case you haven't seen them, most give you a hint that they're there.  You can't miss a lit sign showing "Your Speed."  (Can you?)  If your speed is > posted + 12 mph (in MD--your state's mileage may vary), the camera flashes as you go by, and sooner or later--usually sooner--you get your car's photo in the mail, along with a notice that you need to send in a check along with the remittance stub.  They, too, usually run 24/7, whether there's an active work zone or not.

At some point, so the story goes, someone got a similar notice in the mail.  He sent a photocopy of a $20 bill.  They sent a photo of handcuffs.  Won't vouch for the truth of it, but if someone wants to go to Snopes...

Here, though, is where the "tipping" comes in... the speed cameras in the construction zones.  In these zones, the cameras are mounted to the front of a vehicle, usually a van. The vendor's operator needs to sit in the van and monitor the equipment for failure or whatever.  Well, the question comes up about what to do when you "gotta go."  I've noticed that the ones on the Baltimore Beltway (I-695) and I-795 north and west of Baltimore, have been provided with portable toilets, the outhouses, "spot-a-pots," or whatever you want to call them.

You got it!  On several occasions, I've seen them overturned and lying on their sides.  (See disclaimer above.)  Yeah, somebody's got to upright them, and, yeah, it's a minor inconvenience.  Yeah, even it makes a point of non-violent umm... protest.

But you gotta admit, it is somewhat funny...

They're Changing Maryland's Motto

As many of you know, the Maryland General Assembly will go into a special session starting Monday, May 14, 2012.  This will be the second special session called during Martin O' ("I never saw a tax I wouldn't hike") Malley's nearly six years as Governor.  

In the last special session, in 2007, the General Assembly hiked the sales tax from five cents to six cents.  The following year, sales tax collections had decreased by $76 million.  [Figures from the Comptroller of the Treasury's website.]

What they failed to consider was that people on the Eastern Shore would go to Delaware, where there's no sales tax.  People shopping for clothes who live near Pennsylvania can go north to shop and save 6%.  And the sales tax is still 5% in Virginia, even after their belt-tightening during the recession.

They raised the tax on "millionaires" as a temporary measure.  Many "millionaires" fled the state.  So did many regular people who were tired of it all.

State spending has continued to increase every year, causing the governor to become lacrimose about not having revenues to cover them.  Spending "cuts" the governor has touted are actually decreases in the increases in spending that he and his cronies wanted.  Even this year, the spending is $750 Million over 2011's budget.

The Democrats in the legislature look hither, thither, and yon for new tax victims, so, in 2007's special session, they passed a "Computer Services" tax, primarily because there was no lobby to fight them.  The following year, computer services business professionals showed them the error of their ways, and they had to delay, and then, repeal the measure.

Compare the Census numbers from 2000 and 2010.  There's not a lot of population growth in Maryland.  Why?  Taxation and regulation.  Many from the Eastern Shore are moving across the line to Delaware.  The exodus from the Baltimore Metro area to Pennsylvania continues.  They are just not getting it.

Comptroller Peter Franchot, who, as a Delegate was a big-government spending guy, has been an excellent steward of State funds, and has acted in a fiscally conservative manner.  He has been a voice out in the wilderness, however.  He warned them NOT to raise taxes in 2007, and called for a two year tax moratorium before the General Assembly in 2012.

They're not listening, and more people are moving out.

One of the secret proposals coming up in this special session will be to officially change the State's motto.  Nobody will admit it, and you can't find the bill filed just yet, but it's coming.  The current motto, "Fatti Maschii, Parole Femina" will change to "Bend Over, We'll Drive."

Will the last person leaving the state please turn out the lights?  Thanks!

A Sales Tax ON TOP OF a gasoline tax??? Seriously, Marty???

Marty O'Malley never ceases to amaze me.

Not only is he the biggest wastrel this state has seen since the late William Donald Schaefer, he makes Schaefer look like a piker, and that is pretty hard to do.

Gasoline taxes, which sit at 23 cents/gallon currently (last raised by the said Schaefer in the 1990s), are somewhere in the middle of the list of state gasoline taxes. Several neighboring states have raised theirs since the Bush/Obama recession started.  Their normal purpose is to provide funds for new roads, repair of existing roads, and even helping mass transit.

Except, of course, in Maryland.  For more than the last decade (including the only Republican governor the state has had in 40 years), administrations have routinely raided the "Transportation Trust Fund" to fill holes in the state's budget, moving them into the General Fund, and going for current expenses.  Like the Social Security "Trust Fund," there are plenty of IOUs in both the Transportation Trust Fund and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation Trust Fund that will never be reimbursed.  Not that other states haven't borrowed from theirs, but O'Malley has turned it into an art form.

When Marty and his cronies first came into office in 2007, they quickly went on a hiring and spending spree, even depleting the Rainy Day Fund to its lowest level permitted by law.  It boggled the mind.  He (read WE) paid for huge salary increases for some of his political appointees in high positions,  hired a large staff to cater to the Governor's needs, and made sure his buddies got well paid off with state contracts and jobs.  One of those includes a cushy job for his father-in-law, the former state Attorney General--a position Joe Curran still holds, and he even retained a chef on staff in the Governor's Mansion 24/7, just in case he gets a little hungry.  Tough life, ain't it?  RHIP, I guess.

When it was obvious that we were heading into a major recession, he browbeat the General Assembly to raise the sales tax from 5% to 6% along with other tax and fee increases (which he hammered the former governor for doing in the 2006 campaign), this despite the strong opposition from his Comptroller, Peter Franchot. 

Comptroller Franchot argued that you don't raise taxes while we're starting to go into a recession.  I have a great deal of respect for him because, as a Delegate, he was one of the more liberal members of the House.  However, as Comptroller, he has been a fiscal hawk--he gets it.  Franchot warned that the revenue estimates from the sales tax increase were not realistic.  One year after the sales tax went into effect, Maryland's sales tax revenues dropped by $76 Million.

Maybe good old Marty has never heard of oh, I dunno, DELAWARE ("Home of Tax-Free Shopping") or Pennsylvania and New Jersey, who don't tax sales of clothing and shoes.

There's almost nowhere in this state that is further away from any other state border than 40 miles, a real quick trip when you want to shop for a number of items.  People simply shopped in another state.  Who'd'a thunk it?  Comptroller Franchot did, but his was the voice in the desert.

When Obama came into office and lavishly spread the "stimulus funds,"  Marty latched onto them like a drunk at last call.  Did this mean we used the funds to plan for the future?  No, of course not.  Time to increase spending, even though we're deep into a recession!  When that federal teat dried up, even though he knew it would beforehand, he showed major surprise and began furloughing State workers, making them take scheduled days off as an unpaid long weekend.

After several years, Governor O'Malley finally realizes that there are major traffic problems in the State (can we say DC Beltway Inner Loop from the American Legion Bridge to US 1 in afternoon rush?), but there are no funds to be found in the Transportation Trust Fund to cover them.  Rather than transfer funds back into the Trust Fund, he whines that you can't get a $100 Million bridge for just $10 Million, and something must be done.

So, he and his budget wunderkinds get the bright idea that the gas tax needs to be raised 15 cents per gallon over the next 3 years.  When that went over like a lead balloon, they changed the proposal to removing the sales tax exemption on gasoline and impose the full 6% sales tax on the entire purchase.  What an improvement!!

I'm certainly hoping this is a false flag--a proposal made that's so outlandish that something more reasonable will be enacted.

Although I'm not in favor of doing anything right now with the gas tax, what with the high cost right now, I wouldn't want to see any proposal pass unless it is tied to a Constitutional amendment putting the Transportation Trust Fund and Chesapeake Bay Trust Funds in an Al Gore-style lockbox.  We could vote on it this coming fall, and measures have already been introduced into the Assembly to do just that.

The real answer, though, is to cut spending and bring the budget back under control.  Comptroller Peter Franchot gets it.  Marty O' never will.

I'm Going with Obama on This One!!!

As all two or three of my regular readers know, I am not one to heap praise on actions proposed by Barack Obama.  However, sit down for this one:  I strongly support one of his recent proposals!

He recently came out with a cost-savings measure in the federal bureaucracy that I can get behind and rally the populace from the rooftops.  (That means it's doomed to failure, but at least he proposed it.  I'll give him props for that...)

Somehow, in a discussion about how there were so many offices involved in international trade, and how foreign companies had to run the gauntlet of all of them, spanning several Cabinet departments, he actually said he wanted to combine the offices that did basically the same thing and streamline the process.  Yes, he really used the words "combine" and "government agencies" in the same sentence -- and with a positive point of view!

I nearly pulled a Fred Sanford and called for Elizabeth, but, then I got a grip.  I needed to examine if my ears were clear enough to understand that I had NOT mis-heard, and that I was not dreaming.  I need to search to see exactly when he said it, and I'll work on doing more research to be able to discuss it more fully.  And I heard it again on the following newscast.  Hmmm...

As I said, I can enthusiastically support him on this (if it ever comes to pass).  That doesn't mean he'll get my vote in November -- he won't -- but, at least a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I'll give him a round of applause for the idea.

Just sayin...

The End of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

As of the Senate vote today, it's all over but the shouting.  

Sort of.

The US Senate voted today to repeal the military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) that was first passed in 1993 as an upgrade to the former military policy on gay and lesbian personnel.  Before that, it was possible to just whisper that Joe X. was a "homo" and the military could start on the procedures to drum him out. 

Or not.

Back in the late 70's, I had a roommate who was gay.  He was in the military and a flaming queen.  He was also the chief steno to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the concomitant security clearances, and for which he had just been re-certified.  He died a few years later, and the military had to know he was gay, yet, because he was such a good steno, nothing was ever done about it.

Even during the Vietnam War, many men who were trying to avoid the conflict told their draft boards that they "had homosexual thoughts" or were "actively homosexual" and yet the military said, "So what?  We still need you -- you're on your way to 'Nam.  Have a nice trip." 

When I was draft-eligible, in 1973, the war had wound down, and there was not much likelihood that I would face conscription, even though my draft lottery number was 70, and the first 95 were re-classified as 1-A (ready to go).  College deferments were no longer available, and, if the military had needed us, we would have been drafted if our number was called.

Amazingly, when Vietnam was over and the US wasn't involved in active military operations, "we don't care" turned into "now, you got our attention."  And, this was one of the factors that led to the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign pledge of allowing open gays and lesbians to serve honorably. 

In actual fact, all throughout history, gay men have fought and died along with their heterosexual comrades.  Many countries have allowed open gays to serve in their military forces for years. 

Needless to say, when Bill Clinton tried to change the policy in 1993, the "fit hit the shan," and the Congress got involved.  The compromise that came about was DADT.  Someone gay or lesbian could serve, but not be open about it.  Essentially, the brass was told "Don't Ask," and the gay personnel were advised, "Don't Tell."  The military would no longer go on a witch hunt and try to find out one's sexual orientation, but, if it became an issue, then, the military would, in its discretion, begin the separation proceedings.

Seems that nobody was happy with the results.  Most Republicans, by and large, didn't want any change, liberal Democrats wanted a complete reversal of policy,  and the affected gays and lesbians still had to be in the closet to stay in the service.  Thus, the long battle to repeal DADT.

Things got so stupid that, back during the second Gulf War, there was a shortage of Arabic speakers, so the military offered training to people in Arabic, so that they could help translate television and radio broadcasts, newspapers, and documents seized.  That should have greatly helped the war effort.

But, nooooooo....

Some thirty-seven of them were gay or lesbian!  So, rather than use the talents of these translators, the military refused to use them.  So, we had a shortage of translators, we trained people to be translators, and then we kicked three dozen or more to the curb because of their sexual orientation.  Alllllrighty, then.

And just how did that work out for us?  Intelligence, shmintelligence.

President Obama won election promising the repeal of DADT, yet, when challenged in the courts, his Administration pleaded for a stay of the court's ruling.  Yes, the logic went, the Congress was the one that passed the original legislation, the Congress should be the one to repeal it. 

What a concept!  It went to the courts because the Congress had not acted.

I have spoken to, and know of, a number of former service personnel, most of whom were not even involved in the field of battle, but were separated because of  DADT.  They tell me they'd jump at the chance to get back in because they loved the military.  Some even had more than a dozen years in and wanted to stay until retirement. 

So, what happens now...?

Now that the repeal of DADT has passed, there are some questions that still need to be resolved.  The legislation gives the Secretary of Defense the power to "certify" that the military is ready for repeal, but it's not effective until 60 days after that. 

In the meantime:

• The DOD will have to come up with procedures, training, and regulations regarding how the new law will be implemented.  It's assumed this will take months, and will be phased in.
• The Secretary of Defense will certify that the military is ready for the changes to be effective.
• Sixty days thereafter, buh-byee DADT.

So, now a few more questions arise, among which are:

• What happens with investigations currently in the separation pipeline?  If the policy is going to be repealed eventually, is there any reason to continue those investigations, especially in light of our budgetary crisis?
• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), with whom I rarely agree, did ask President Obama today to order the military to cease and desist any further investigations from here on out, since the repeal is coming.
• What will be done with re-admitting service members who wish to continue their military service after the repeal?  Seniority, benefits, whatever else come into play.  I'm assuming that will be handled in the DOD review of regulations, training, and so forth.

So, is it "all over but the shouting"?   Is the policy now dead? 

Until we get more details on implementation, the answer remains:  sort of.