policy with pop

Kings, No Queens: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Thanks to Hulu.com I have found a new show to watch – Kings. I’ve only seen the first episode of the NBC drama so far, but its strong storytelling makes it a compelling watch.

Set in a fictional world, Kings follows the inner turmoil of the absolute monarchy in the country of Gilboa. The first episode starts with the country at war. Modest farm-boy turned soldier David Shepherd emerges as a national hero after rescuing captured soldiers, including Prince Jack Benjamin, from enemy lines. 

As David is celebrated as Gilboa’s golden boy by both the country and King Silas, Jack is jealous and feels resentment towards his father. The playboy prince confronts Silas, wanting to know why his father does not give him the respect he deserves as a soldier and as his son. Startling revelations are revealed in their heated conversation. Watch:

This scene immediately made me think about the national debate on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, in which gay military personnel are discharged if their sexual orientation is revealed.

Originally enacted during the 1990’s, President Clinton hoped to find a compromised solution that would allow the LGBT community to serve in the military. Before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military did not allow any gay people to join the military. Once enacted, the law allows gay people to serve if they hide their orientation. If not, they’re kicked out.

Proponents of the policy argue that openly accepting gay military members hurts military morale and cohesion. Some argue that many recruits have conservative beliefs and would not feel comfortable being around openly gay people. They argue that this tension would hinder military performance. So just like Silas, they essentially argue that LGBT servicemen should “wrestle it to the ground.”

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is criticized by opponents as a policy that is degrading, unfair and hurts military power. They argue the notion that heterosexuals can’t serve with openly homosexual soldiers insults the professionalism of our straight men and women in uniform. Other countries allow for LGBT people to serve openly without a decrease in cohesiveness or morale. Moreover, opponents say that the policy is degrading as it forces gay people to hide who they are. And, finally, they argue that discharging needed military men and women, especially in time of war, is dangerous. Arabic translators are in high demand in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars; however, more than 50 Arabic translators have been discharged because of “Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask” since the policy’s inception.

A number of people have called for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” including President Clinton’s wife (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) and a number of military higher-ups. President Obama has also stated he would like to see the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” His actions on this issue, however, have been… well… minimal at best. And congressional leaders, at least in the Senate, seem hesitant to put this issue up to a vote.

As politicians struggle with the future of this policy, what do you think? Should we take a King Silas approach and ask our gay men and women to hide who they are? Or would that mentality underestimate the professionalism of our straight servicemen and be an insult to the LGBT community? And what do you think is the best strategic military option?

Vivica A. Fox's Psychic Friends... Seriously!?!

Ummm…

How did Vivica A. Fox go from blockbusters, like Independence Day, Soul Food and Kill Bill: Vol. 1, to spokeswoman for The Psychic Friends Network infomercial? Oh, how the mighty has fallen. Or has she?

Fox released a statement, declaring: “Vivica A. Fox is no friend of The Psychic Friends Network.” She alleges that the network is “using her unauthorized likeness, footage, voice and photographs as an endorsement of their service.” As a result, Fox wants it to stop.

I’m confused. It would be understandable if she’s outraged had the network only used her image in photo ads without her permission. But, Fox is in the commercial with dialog no less. It seems like she consented… sounds like Fox is now ashamed... Could you blame her?

But, really, should she be ashamed? Is it bad to be associated with psychics? Why? Could psychics be legitimate (as a form of religion or science perhaps)? Or do only crazy people need and heed the advice of psychics?

You’d be surprised who uses psychics. In 2002 the British Ministry of Defense spent approximately $35,000 on testing potential usage of psychics. That pales in comparison to the $20 million United States government agencies (Department of Defense, CIA, and NSA) spent over two decades trying to harness psychic powers to find hostages, terrorists and criminal activity.

So what do you think about using psychics? Waste of time and (tax-payer) money? Or innovative tool?

Should the use of psychics be considered a quasi-religion, semi-science or complete nonsense?

And what happened to Vivica A. Fox’s career? Shouldn’t her psychic friends warned her and helped her make better career choices!?!

9/11 Conspiracy & YouTube Videos

As you know, I love learning new and different views (that’s why I’m always asking for your opinion). Well, a few days ago, I found myself in a discussion that I’ve never really had or considered: A conspiracy theory about who was really responsible for the 9/11 attacks…

Even though I’ve known that some people believe that the United States government, not Al-Qaeda, is the real culprit behind the World Trade Center buildings’ collapse, I had never really looked into the possibility. Plus, it was never really covered seriously or in depth by the traditional news media.

My friends, who are highly-educated, decided to show me circumstantial evidence (via YouTube of course) that seemed to support the claim. We watched a video of BBC News reporting that authorities informed it that Building 7 collapsed. Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, did in fact fall on 9/11, but 20 minutes after the BBC made its announcement. In fact, Building 7 is visibly standing when the anchor reports the news. Here’s the video:

It does seem suspicious. Conspiracy theorists are convinced that this reporting accident proves that the government planned to take down the World Trade Center buildings and simply got the timing of disseminating the information wrong.

The official government reason that Building 7 collapse is:

Fire.

Conspiracy theorists are calling the government explanation out. Citing engineers, physicists and other experts, they say that fire cannot melt steel. Furthermore, if you search YouTube, numerous videos question the manner in which Building 7 (as well as the Twin Towers) fell. They say it collapsed or imploded like a planned, controlled demolition with explosives. Here’s another video:

Honestly, I’m not sure what to make of all of it. But, I can say I am more open to learning more.

So you tell me: Can we trust the government? And if the government is capable of this, what does it mean for the American people? And why hasn't the conspiracy theory been covered seriously by the traditional news media in America? Is it all just “crazy talk” promulgated by the internet?

The Dark Knight: Vigilante Hero or Future Villain?

The Dark Night. One word: Wow. I saw it on opening night, and the movie was amazingly entertaining and thought-provoking – great material for PolicyWithPop.com. In fact, after it ended, I immediately told one of my friends that I had at least four blog post ideas to write about. Yeah, the unknown girl sitting next to me thought I was way cool…

Anyway, in one of the beginning scenes Bruce Wayne, Rachel Dawes, Harvey Dent and Bruce’s date discuss how Batman works outside the law in Gotham. Harvey, who seems to have a man-crush on Batman, defends his vigilante ways in part because Batman has been successful in reducing crime. He compares Batman’s actions to how the Roman Empire, which had a democracy, changed to authoritarian rule to handle threats to the nation and its people. Rachel points out that the ruler was Caesar, inferring how absolute power corrupts absolutely. Harvey concedes, “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

The Dark Knight shows the complexities Batman has as a vigilante. But despite the intricate moral dilemmas Batman faces, we – the audience – know that he is one of the good guys.

But how would you feel if there was a real masked crime-fighter in your city without knowing that person’s character, like we do with Batman? Would he or she be welcomed by the public? And how would/should the media and law enforcement treat and portray vigilantes?

Do you think vigilantism is acceptable when the government cannot protect its people? Or does vigilantism ultimately create more chaos, danger and potentially more villains?