the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

of course, what with the senate's bone-headed dadt vote and...another reason

A couple of things have me thinking about the military again today, besides the fact that I'm in the military and all....

First, as I'm sure you've heard, the Senate flatly refused to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell yesterday.

I've begun to wonder if America's isolationism isn't just as much to blame for its ignorance and bigotry as are the Puritanical beliefs which underlie our social expectations. Seriously. I mean, it's pretty clear that our vehement anti-gay stance is rooted in our belief that our loving God condemned homosexuals, in the Old Testament, t0 be stoned to death and hasn't really unsaid any of that in the New Testament, right? Leviticus 18:22 is pretty clear: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (Or "an abomination," which is an even more unmistakable condemnation.)

These people are, of course, quote-mining. The anonymous author of Leviticus also says it's also an abomination to have sex with a woman who is on her period (same chapter, verse 19), a rule I'm pretty sure Christian men simply don't know about or choose to ignore. I know of no American who honestly believes it's a sin to eat shellfish, either, but it's pretty clear that God Hates Shrimp. Of course, those Christians who have decided God still hates fags but has made peace with lobster and men who cannot resist a woman on the rag will produce arguments to clarify God's feelings on these matters, based on something literary critics know as the Intentional Fallacy (i.e., presuming to know the author's intent and thus judging meaning based upon that presumption).

But, despite the precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, we--the US--still trundle along as though it's perfectly acceptable to hold others to our religious beliefs. Make no mistake. That's exactly what the furor over DADT's possible repeal is about, and it's exactly what the anti-gay-marriage activism is about.

I know, I know.... People have made assertions regarding how it will destroy our esprit de corps to allow homosexuals to serve openly, and about how it will damage our national security, etc. But they're full of it.* If you think you have an actually valid argument for why gays should not be allowed to serve openly, I'm keen to hear it. Then (be advised), I will crush it so hard that you will feel its pain. But go ahead. Please.

* By "it," of course, I mean "huge, steaming, stinking, runny piles of shit."

But I've come to believe that our crippling fear of letting gays serve openly* also derives from overwhelming but not complete isolationism from real culture. I mean, compare us to European countries, who are not only aware of what others think and why, but they routinely interact with those others--imagine!

* Apparently, hypocrisy is a sin except when Christians require it. It must be awesome to know God's mind like that....

So I'm once again disappointed by MY government. That's reason number 1 that I'm thinking about the military when I should be reading Frederick Douglass.

Reason #2 I'm thinking about the military:

I'm working with my assignment team right now. When I called them at the end of last week, they told me I wasn't even on the Vulnerable Mover's List for spring 2011, when I will be going somewhere else, as yet undetermined. At my request, they sent me a list of assignments I will be seriously considered for.

Let me explain that briefly. There's a reason the military doesn't just send you where you ask for, above and beyond these obvious ones:

1. Everyone would end up in Germany, Hawaii, and Colorado Springs. We'd have to close down our bases in Korea, Diego Garcia, everywhere in the Middle East, North Dakota, and Thule. We'd subsequently be limited to waging war in climes that boast good beer and hot chicks.*

* Colorado Springs qualifies on the first because we have some good microbreweries and on the second because duh...I live here.

2. The sheer passive-aggressive pleasure of sending your enemies to the true military shitholes on the globe.

The official military reasons for them sending you to climes unknown include, but are not limited to:

1. Needs of the Air Force (Army, Navy....)

2. There is NOOOO number 2.

Ok all right. I'll explain number 1 a bit more.

1a. What is your "career vector"? The military wants to make you as competitive as possible for promotion. To that end, they will send you to do the next job/responsibility on your "vector," ensuring you have the range of experience necessary to improve as a leader and to broaden your understanding of how the military functions in general.

1b. What's your rank? Pretty self-explanatory, you'd think, but just in case it isn't, you must be placed in a position commisserate with your rank and experience. In practice, this means the Air Force isn't going to send me back to California to play golf 20 hours a week like when I was a second lieutenant.

1c. What slots are available globally? Yes, the Air Force has people of my rank and specialty (what was it again? I forget) almost everywhere. However, I'm automatically limited to assignments which will come available in Spring 2011.

1d. What is my remote/deployment status? If I haven't deployed in a while--as a "volunteer" or otherwise--they'll send me somewhere. At the same time, you can think of "remote" assignments as the peacetime equivalent of deployments, as most people don't want to do them. To complicate matters, many "deployments" are not undesirable at all; I've known a few people who were "deployed" to Florida, ferinstance.

So. Here is my list, as per my "functional" (a member of my assignment team, all of whom share my Air Force specialty):

HQ AMC Staff - Scott (Illinois)
USSTRATCOM - Offutt (Nebraska)
AFOTEC - Kirtland (New Mexico)/Eglin (Florida)
AFTAC - Patrick (Florida)
PACOM - Yong San (Korea)
DISA - Arlington (Virginia)/Stuttgart (Germany)/Yokota (Japan)
SOUTHCOM - Miami (Florida)
AFELM Eur - Turkey
Air Staff - Pentagon (ewwww)

Here are the extras which influenced my decision:

1. Two of these assignments will take me off of the red hot for a 365-day TDY to Afghanistan! list, as they are remotes: Turkey and Korea.

2. One of these assignments includes a reasonably low cost of living, which will be very handy as I will continue making payments on my home here in the Springs: Turkey.

3. Germany is awesome, and it contains two of my favorite people: Alvarez and Rummel.

4. Kirtland would be cool, too. I've never lived in New Mexico, but I like it. Plus, it's reasonably close to two more of my favorite people: Liz and Dave.

5. If I cannot get an assignment here (so I won't have to move--I admit this was a pipe dream from the beginning), I'd rather be assigned somewhere exotic. I've long wanted to visit all of the foreign countries on the list, so here is my opportunity to go.

My final wish list is as follows:

1. Turkey

2. Germany

3. Japan

4. Korea

5. Kirtland

6. whatever (known as "needs of the AF")

Korea would have been higher on the list, if only because it would give me a good chance of not having to return to the exotic locales which are also dangerous (Afghanistan and...well, that's pretty much it), except I've heard stories of the ongoing annoying training exercises you have to endure with the Army, them all being there at the butt end of North Korea and all. Plus, it's just incredibly expensive to live there.

I'll get an informal notification of where I've been slotted for sometime. Don't know when. Couple of months, maybe.

Meanwhile, if you were given these choices, which would you pick and why?

d