Gays & the Military... Again

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103784642&ft=1&f=1003

"Talk of the Nation, May 4, 2009 · Retired Adm. Jerome Johnson and three other retired officers, all founding members of the Flag and General Officers for the Military, recently wrote an op-ed. Their piece, about the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, appeared in the Washington Post.

President Obama has pledged to repeal Section 654 of U.S. Code title 10. Johnson believes doing so would do "grave harm" to the U.S.'s all-volunteer force."

I've gotta tell ya, that admiral pissed me off. The host tried to offer a bit of balance by, both, treating the admiral and his point of view with respect and by attempting to tactfully call his guest on the glaring holes in his reasoning. Admiral Johnson wasn't having it, though. Like a politician, he stuck to his talking points, no matter how hollow they rang in-comparison to the callers' and the host's counterpoints.

The admiral's point was that having gays in the military compromised readiness and recruitment efforts. Ultimately though, he couldn't be bothered to substantively respond to the callers' who said that their days in the military, even in combat situations, were free of any concern about whether they or their fellow soldiers were gay.

Admiral Johnson said that the American military's traditional mindset isn't ready for gays and that forcing the issue is counterproductive. The host asked how this situation differs from a time when the American military didn't want to integrate Black soldiers. All the general could say, in-response, was that the military did a great job of integrating Blacks into the military. He never said why it would not be worthwhile, in the long-term, to do the same with gays.

C'mon, man. It's 2009. It's past time that we addressed and resolved these artificial and arbitrary social constructs.

You can listen to the segment, for yourself, on this page: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103784642&ft=1&f=1003

Voting Rules

I'm concerned about Florida voting, this year.* There seem to have been some changes in the voting rules.

I heard that we have to have photo identification and proof of signature (and some other unconfirmed items). To use your driver's license, the address must match your voter registration address information. It must also have a sample of your signature. If not, as I understand it, you will be issued a provisional ballot which will only be counted if you return within two days with the appropriate information/identification.

What bothers me most about this is that 1) I doubt this information is getting to everyone, 2) those it reaches by word-of-mouth may get inaccurate information and, perhaps, be dissuaded from voting, and 3) it's too close to the election for the rules to change.

And, of course, I'm concerned that those the qualified voters this is most likely to affect will probably be minority members and Democrats, but I don't want ANYone to be disenfranchised. There's been enough of that... and enough of the PERCEPTION of that, already.

I'd like to find a way to help get the word out (of what to expect at the polls) to more people.





* - For those who don't know, I live in Florida.

The Piss Scam

Our recent trip to Orlando was a last-minute decision. Money's tight.

So, when we were considering lodging, we were lookin' at the low end of the spectrum. I figured, if, upon inspection, they turned out to be "roach motels," we could just move on to the next place.

While checking out the first place on the list, in Kissimmee, Florida - just outside of Orlando's city limits - what started out as a pretty good day took a severe nosedive.

Let's see if I can keep this one short.

I asked the Indian manager(s) for and received a key to check out a room. My girlfriend is the one with the higher standards, so I just sit back and let her decide if the bathroom, for instance, is up to snuff. While waiting, I used the restroom.

Shortly thereafter, one of the managers showed up at the door. I told her the bathtub was dirty, so we weren't impressed. She claimed it wasn't dirt, just their (sad & sorry) attempts at renovation.

While in there, she realized I'd used the restroom (#1, btw) and developed the beginnings of a 'tude. When we said we didn't want the place because of the tub, that attitude blossomed into a full-blown case of "the ass."

She started yelling (yes, yelling), saying that we owe her ten dollars for using the restroom. She claimed this was the law, so I just informed her that this was news to me. She said, "Well, for the future, you will know that is the law."

Fine. As far as I was concerned, she didn't expect and I had no plans to give ten dollars for taking a piss. I hung around just to get her to calm down - just because it was important to me that this woman knew that weren't running a pissing scam.

When we got back to the front desk, her peers joined in, lecturing us at high volume and at great length. I told them that, as a grown man, I don't need to be lectured to and I don't appreciate being yelled at - especially when I'm going well out of my way to respond diplomatically and civilly.

I asked to speak to the manager who was much more calm. She said the other woman wasn't yelling - that that's just how she speaks. I called bullshit on that because the other woman was fairly civil at the door of the hotel room. She got loud when she got pissed.

Anyway, to keep this long story from getting longer, let me just say that I offered to get the room, if only to assure them that this wasn't a pissin' scam.

She refused - at first saying there were no vacancies (a lie for obvious reasons), then saying they just don't want customers who cause trouble (which we apparently had revealed ourselves to be).

Earlier they claimed they'd call the cops on us for refusing to pay the ten bucks. By the time we were getting ready to leave, they were walking by my vehicle, taking down my license number, and saying, "You'll see what happens, now."

So, I kinda felt trapped. I felt like, if this supposed law was real and I left, the cops would be lookin' for piss n run con artist. If I stayed, I was on their property after having had my business refused.

I resolved the matter by calling the cops, myself. They showed up about an hour later, informing us of the following:

1) There's no law that says I owe them $10.
2) There IS a law that states that, once I've given them money, if they decide that they want me to leave, I'm obligated to leave... but they are not obligated to return that money. My only recourse would've been small claims court.
3) And finally, that we, as out-of-towners were unaware that we were in a crime-ridden area of town. The officer advised that we drive several miles away to secure a room.

He advised the manager who was left (the women I'd spoken to had driven away) that I didn't owe them a dime and he wished us a good day.


After all was said and done, we were a bit frazzled by this bit of drama and inconvenience, but I convinced my girlfriend (who'd been very concerned that I might be mistreated by the police) that we'd come out ahead, overall.

1) We learned that we would've been dealing with some pain-in-the-ass proprietors if we'd gotten that room - a fact we could've found out an even harder way. Actually, while waiting on the cops, we heard a guest ask one of the managers for to come up there and turn on her heater. "Low rent."

2) We learned that we were in a bad area of town - a fact that eluded us in the bright light of that fine North Florida day.


3) And finally, we learned a bit about the law, our rights, and the rights of hotels and motels. If we should ever find ourselves in a similar situation, that knowledge would come in very handy.


After that, we drove down the road, checked into a nice lil hotel, then went to my favorite restaurant on the PLANET and had what's probably the best meal we'd ever eaten in life. More on that last part, later.

All-in-all, it was a wonderful day - despite a few dark clouds.

Indignity of Persistence

My aunt was diagnosed with diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease some years, ago. At first she just seemed really sweet and kinda silly. Later, she became more easily confused by things, although she was still fairly aware. She had a regular caregiver who helped my uncle take care of her since things like bathing herself became too much for her.

By the time my grandmother's 80th birthday celebration came around a year and a half, ago, my aunt was still mobile, but unexpressive. Making eye-contact with her caused her to turn away.

In her eyes I thought I could see ... something like what you feel when you experience deja vue. Everything about your surroundings in that moment, seem very, very familiar, but you don't know how or why. Being confronted with one of those familiar faces, in an up-close and personal way, was uncomfortable, I guess.

The next time I saw her, about a year later, she was bed-ridden and unresponsive, needing others to take care of her every need. My uncle took months off from work, to take care of her and make arrangements for others to help.

From what I understand, my uncle was told that the care he could provide her was insufficient so he was forced to put her in a home... where they could take better care of her.

Within a year, she was dead. Some type of infection set in her body. From what we're being told, the city, state, county or whomever is saying that this infection shouldn't be been fatal - the facility should've caught it.

So, my uncle was forced to send his wife away for better care and signs indicate that she received the exact opposite.

I believe an autopsy has been ordered, so we'll see. Either way, the people who loved my aunt have to deal with the mixed-emotions of being sad that she's passed but maybe embarrassed by some sense that the indignity of her persistence has come to an end.

Happy Valentine's Day, Unc.

Postal Story, Stamps, & Service

I'm such a mark.

Quick story: A few weeks, ago, I went to the post office to ship some documents for a hearing. I paid for "next day" shipping, but they didn't arrive the next day. After calling the USPS 1-800 number to inquire and complain, I was told that I was due a refund for the delayed shipping. All I needed to do to get my refund, the rep said, was take my receipt to the post office. Well, I did that, stood in line (am I the only one who doesn't say "on line?") for 10-15 minutes, and then was told, by the clerk, that I'd need the carbon copy of the form I filled out for the shipment.

I was pissed. Fast-forward a few weeks and I found the missing form, went to the post office, and got my frickin' refund, thankyouvery much. They didn't even need the receipt the rep had told me to bring along.

Something to keep in-mind in case you ever opt for next-day shipping.

Anyway, while I was there, I saw an ad for this:

(click photo to enlarge)

Like I said, I'm such a mark. After seeing those stamps, they were as good as sold. Classic illustrations of characters I've been digging for decades.

I ended up spending half my refund on them, but oh well. They're purdy and I like'em.

Just don't ask me if I'll ever have it in me to put'em on a letter. :-\

Cop Quotas

Am I the only one who believes traffic police have some sort of monthly citation quota?

It seems that near the end of every single month, there are more cops on the roads or on the sides of the roads, handing out speeding tickets.

I've received three speeding citations in my life - one of which I successfully fought - and each was issued at the end of the month.

In fact, my first one was on the very last day of the month.

Of course, it's possible that I'm seeing convergence where there's only coincidence, but I doubt that.

What do you think - do the cops have a quota?

Environmental Racism

On an unrelated note, if you're not reading Liz's blog, here's a reason to start:

"The truth is, if blacks and Latinos get shot in Compton or Philly or DC, on a daily basis, we are not, for the most part, shocked and outraged. We are not calling for more gun control. We are not questioning why someone didn't notice a troubled kid earlier. Heck, I'll tell you what happens to troubled kids in low-income areas. They drop out or are pushed out of school by teachers that don't want to deal with them. And if that troubled kid gets shot, well, that's life in the hood, right? The unsaid message is that that kid brought it on themselves. You know, they were probably involved in drugs or gangs and that's the way it goes. If only they'd stayed in school...and worked harder than they did, right?"

Check out the most recent post to get the proper context.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In a recent post, entitled ' "To Serve and Protect"... and Profile ', I recounted a recent experience when I was on the receiving-end of racism from government officials - police officers, to be precise. I truly believe that I wouldn't have been pulled over had I been a gray-haired, old, white man, instead of a bald, younger, Black man. But, it's a long story, so I won't get into it, again, here.

Well, while catching up on my NPR podcasts, I came across the story of a Black woman who seems to have also been on the receiving-end of racism from government officials. The story began with the host explaining that her guest, Sheila Holt-Orsted, had suffered through ravaging effects of cancer, as it touched and claimed several members of her family.

I immediately began thinking about how doctors ask about a patient's family history while determining the patient's risk of cancer and other diseases. I imagined that "the cancer gene" was particularly powerful and prevalent in Ms. Holt-Orsted's family and how sad and scary that must be for her and her loved-ones.

As it turned out, the apparent prevailing factor in cancerous onslaught upon her family was actually the toxic dumping that took place about 56 feet* from her family's 100+ acre property. The guest believes that those toxins seeped into her family's well water - the same water they used for drinking, bathing, and cooking over 20 years or so.

According to the guest, her family continued to believe the water was safe because the government stepped in, tested the water, and told them it was safe, despite the fact that its toxicity level was five times the EPA limits. The guest and her lawyer went on to say that the white families in the area were told about the unsafe conditions as soon as the government found out about them - in some cases, in as little as 48 hours.

If I understood the story, certain laws make the EPA "unsuable." So, it seems Ms. Holt-Orsted can't sue the government, for what happened to her family, but she can sue what's left of the company that did the dumping. Unfortunately, it has been sold, divided, resold, etc. in the subsequent decades - not to mention having filed for bankruptcy.

Ms. Holt-Orsted realizes that no monetary award or settlement will bring her family back, but she's pursuing this action because she believes it is the right thing to do.

Sadly, she's been diagnosed with breast cancer.


The NPR "News and Notes" story can be found on their site: click here.






* - ...or maybe it was 56 yards, but either way... y'know?!