Ugly Gun Sunday

Now, I would pay to see how the 'smith managed to forge up the blade to barrel. Perhaps Firehand would know. But even in a blackpowder pistol era, I'd still think one would be better off just going with a regular pistol in one hand and a Bowie knife in the other.

"BubbleDeath"

Found at Ace's, this is probably the perfect storm of bad singing, bad make-up, bad dancing, and bad storytelling.

Happy Birthday Ron

Back then, as a teenager, I thought there wasn't much difference between politicians. I've been regretting we haven't had anyone close to his beliefs and skills ever since he left office. Then again, we did have a far-left, ineffectual, appeaser in office immediately preceding him........

DADT

Ragin’ Dave had some thoughts on the recent statements about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It seems that most people, being of good nature and a live-and-let-live disposition, are willing to have openly homosexual service members. Below is my response, and thoughts, on the topic. But first, some clarifications. First, I have no religious dogs in this fight. I’m an atheist. Not the militant, anti-religion kind, but the “I really don’t give a damn what you believe unless it involves killing/pedophilia/non-consensual sex, in which case a rope and telephone poll are called for” atheist. In short, don’t try to put me in a re-education camp or kill me for the greater glory of Allah, and I won’t use you for marksmanship practice. Live and let live.

(And a short side-note: leftist, political atheists are some of the most humorless, grim, pain in the ass individuals I have ever met. Not everything is about religion, or imposing your particular belief structures on the lumpen-proles. You people (and I mean that in the full sense of the derogatory "you people") need to go drink some beer, eat some grilled red meat, try to get laid, and enjoy life. Because overall, you're a real bummer to be around)

Secondly, I have worked with, served with, and have as family, people who are gay. Call for killing them, or “fixing” them, and I’ll be on the other side from you. With a lead pipe or rifle, if it comes to that. Simply being different, without harming others, is no reason to be persecuted.
That said, here’s my thoughts (with some modifications) as posted at his site.

I'm aware of a number of service members who are gay, past and present service, in my battalion. The reaction to them has been mixed. Some have been exemplary soldiers. Some have been massive headaches due to their uber-dedication to PC principles (EO positions seem to attract pull more than proportional numbers of candidates). The main problem is this: sex (the schtupping kind) is a major force disruption on deployments and in duty environments. That's why I'm a Neanderthal; I'm still opposed to females in any field environment outside nursing, and that MOS only grudgingly. I've witnessed far too many affairs, fights, and unit cohesion issues to ever accept the equal rights/equal opportunity argument. The military is supposed to break things. Period. Sexual tension interferes with that. Sexual tension combined with revulsion, loathing, and misunderstandings won't improve things. What the military should be doing, can only be done properly by a small part of the population. Generally, the part that is willing to hurt, kill, demolish, and inflict pain, while receiving the same in return. It's not representative of society as a whole. And if truly becomes such, it will no longer be effective for its purpose. The military is part of the citizenry; the part that agrees to do what much of the rest of it isn't willing or able to do.

Homosexuality has probably always been present in humanity; certainly it is well documented since classical times. As with other behaviors, it is not always acceptable. The military environment is not the appropriate place for it in our culture.

Before the pillorying commences, let me note this. I believe there is room in our society as a whole for homosexuality. We have plenty of room for all of us to attend to our own preferences that don’t actually harm others. To paraphrase Mr. Garrison from the South Park episode “The Death Camp of Tolerance”: tolerance doesn’t mean you have to like it, just that you’re willing to put up with it. I’m willing to extend the courtesy to others, in return for tolerance for some of my beliefs that aren’t those of the majority. Just recognize, there are some areas where some beliefs or behaviors simply cause more problems than are unacceptable. I don’t attend bible camps or church groups to advance atheism, because those groups have a purpose beyond my personal convictions; my beliefs simply have no place there, and disrupt their intended purpose. “Out” service members would have the same effect in the military. Will we separate gay service members from hetero soldiers of the same gender? Isn't that why we separate the sexes currently? I can speak from experience that it can be a very serious matter to have a member of the opposite sex in one's quarter's as is; what happens when same-sex but different orientation accusations of sexual harassment begin to occur because of living arrangements or authority positions occur? How will we resolve one lawsuit because someone gay is harassed or discriminated against because they aren't put in the barracks with the other males, while another hetero male alleges harassment because he must be in barracks with someone sexually interested in him?

There has to be a line somewhere, and in this case it should be determined by what is most effective for the organizational mission.

That said, let the hatefest commence.

Ego Reduction

Some of the lessons being learned from Haiti involve more than technical aspects of medicine.

"Back in Boston, I'm a hot shot. The nurses have to respect me," Feliz says. "Here, I'm just a worker bee. I cleaned the OR floor after surgery. I carried dead bodies down the street. I was in traffic carrying dead bodies. That makes you human. I came here a very fancy doctor, and I'm leaving here as a humble man."

Three things make a great doctor. And only one of them is inherent talent. The others are dedicated, talented staff, and first-rate equipment provided by a society that values its members. Too often the last two are forgotten in the self-congratulation directed towards the first.

Bayonets Again

(photo from the Sispsey Street Irregulars site)

There were some interesting posts over at Sipsey Street on the topic. Most interesting of all, the LTG personally responded to MVB's post on the subject. I thought it was an interesting and gracious response, but I still believe there is a place for the modern version of the pike, especially in urban fighting.

One particular portion of the General's response I would like to respond to: the question of how it must not be that important, as there has been no further training on the subject after Basic Training. I would submit that this is an error in emphasis, rather than an accurate evaluation of the importance of the training. I can tell you from experience that in my nearly twenty years in the Guard, we have had no further bayonet training; but we have had virtually no serious marksmanship training either, unless one includes remedial training the day of annual qualification. Which to receive, one must fail to qualify at least twice that day. Hand to hand skills training? Once, for a select few. Extended sensitivity training sessions? Mandatory attendance, every year, for several hours at a time.

There's time, and a need, for maintaining combat skills, especially for the non-infantry types like me. I enjoy field work, and weapons craft; there's a hell of a lot of soldiers who don't, and they'll be in a world of hurt when they need those skills.

Ugly Gun Sunday

If you own something like this, I'm betting you also own a car that looks like this: