It should go without saying but here's the standard disclaimer. The views expressed by me are mine alone and don't reflect those of anyone else around, including who i work for, who i hang out with, who i talk to, and those people i haven't met or don't know. Even though they may contradict with policy and ideas and may be unpopular, its just an opinion, we all have them, they're what shape the world around us, and you wouldn't like it very much if you didn't get to say what you thought once in a while. Be Kind Rewind, and Save the Whales.

Alrighty, now that it's clear that this is all in good fun and about what I personally (not professionally) think regarding an issue, i'm tackling the article entitled

"Memo to Pentagon: Can We Talk About "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or Not?" 

by Aaron Belkin Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Palm Center at UCSB

Here are my thoughts:
  If someone can get the job done, i want them on my team. I don't care if it makes you feel weird personally. I trust that they'd be as or more professional in the work environment as current members. The article points out that there are many GLBT active members and though i've known a few, i've never had any problems working around them. The thing is, like any "good" working environment, we don't talk about sex that often. They put the fear of MEO (Military Equal Opportunities) into us like some sort of HR witch hunt would occur if a "that's what she said" joke is ever heard. Let's talk specifically about the incident in the article.

  The actions of the Academy present the "negative publicity" and cast them in a light of close mindedness. The fact she's being threatened politically by all of this angers me, and adds one more tick to the 5 and dive column. For those that don't know, upon graduation, cadets are obligated to serve an additional 5 years in the Air Force. Short of hearing what cadets that went through the seminar thought about the event itself and not the content, i can't honestly say what the big deal was. Seems to me they just wanted to have an open forum where one group could present their ideas and arguments, and now since it wasn't all about Johns and Jesus she's in trouble.

  It's an "Academy", where the point is to be able to see all sides of an argument and make the best decision based off of what you're presented, even if its difficult, even if its weird to you, even if you think its a bad idea personally. Now i know that opens the portal to the extremist logic arguers out there, "well why not invite murderer's, rapists, wiccans, corporate mascots, etc...", truth is we've had all of those come talk to us, except the wiccans, but you spend your time running through the forests avoiding them and their organic ways during combat survival training, so i'm going to count that as good. That doesn't mean we agree with what they stand for, doesn't mean we immediately instill their ideas into who we are, it just exposes us to the world that IS. The world outside of the Terrazzo, where sheltering and pushing a close minded "DoD Policy only" way of thinking produces personnel not equipped to handle anything beyond what they've experienced and been taught. Some of the best training I received at the Academy was from not being there, from actively seeking different things to learn and experience, and to an extent the Academy facilitated that. So it really bugs me that this is an issue they have a real problem with.

My first reaction was saracastic, "Silly Col, you can't talk openly about anti-super-christian values in the Air Force. Especially not at the evangelical capital of the US". I suppose just like i'm not supposed to criticize the decisions made by those who aren't even really in my command. But as an alumni, it seems kind of odd that i should be precluded from having an opinion on how the Academy moves forward and what sort of things cadets are exposed to. Otherwise why have an Association of Graduates?