The Promised War

A pretty good thriller, though the end does stumble a bit. An Israei special-ops soldier while on a dangerous mission is transported back in time to ancient Jericho, where he joins the Israelite invasion of Canaan. Or is it all a hoax? Hmm... You'll have to read it to find out.

Aeschylus' The Persians

This was the first of the ancient Greek plays reviewed by Professor Meineck in his lecture that I previosuly blogged about. It has the unique distinction of being the earliest surviving play we have from anywhere in the world. Aeschylus wrote this play about a real historical event: the Battle of Salamis, which he was a veteran of and during which the Persian army was soundly defeated. The play seems to me to have 3 themes which played off of each other: the folly of exceeding mortal limits, which the Persians did in attempting "to throw slavery's yoke firm on the Greeks"; the courage and resoluteness of the "Sons of Greece" to "fight for all [they] have!"; the tragedy of war as far as loss of human life, which in this battle meant that "Persia's flower is gone, cut down".

Although I am far from being anything near a classicist, I did find much to enjoy about this particular play. It could be that it was based on a real historical event and I enjoy history a lot, although how it was told in the play is nothing like what would be acceptable as "real history" by modern scholars. Parts of it were boring and dragged on, this is a very different and long-dead culture one must remember so some of the context is lost to me. This particular translation certainly helped as some of the prose seemed to be charged with emotion that brought the events to life in my mind. Here's an example, with a messenger sorrofully telling the news of the near-total loss of the Persian invasion fleet:

Then the Greek ships, seizing their chance,
swept in circling and struck and overturned
our hulls,
and saltwater vanished before our eyes -
shipwrecks filled it, and drifting corpses.

Shores and reefs filled up with our dead
and every able ship under Persia's command
broke order,
scrambling to escape.

We might have been tuna or netted fish,
for they kept on, spearing and gutting us
with splintered oars and bits of wreckage,
while moaning and screams drowned out
the sea noise till
Night's black face closed it all in.
(Lines 682-697)

I'm not usually one who enjoys poetry much, but the raw emotion conveyed in these words was palpable. It rather surprised me when I read this to have such a reaction. I felt like I could actually see the wrecked hulks of the Persian ships with the bodies of their dead floating in the sea, at least as if I was watching a movie about the battle instead of just reading a play. And it continued, for look at what happened to the island garrison the Persian had left near the site of the sea battle:

After some god had
handed the Greeks the glory in the seafight,
that same day they fenced their bodies in bronze armor
and leapt from their ships
and cordoned off
the island so completely that our men milled
helpless,
not knowing where to turn
while stones battered at them
and arrows twanging from the bowstrings
hit home killing them.
It ended
when the Greeks gave one great howl
and charged, chopping meat
till every living man was butchered.
(Lines 736-750)

Powerful stuff.

Look, I am by no means an expert at this but this is a play that even a novice such as myself was able to find meaning to. Yes, some of it bored me to no end and I have no desire to see the play performed live (the chorus still looks hokey even in this translation), but there is still something there to enjoy and take from this play. I know nothing about all the different translations of this play, but I can tell you that this particular one was excellent and however "authentic" it may or may not be it certainly made this ancient play accessible to an amateur like me. I cannot say the same about any other translation, so if you are looking to read this give this one a try. I highly recommend it.

Elisha's Bones

Not a bad archaeological thriller. Parts of it were slow and the plot dragged on a bit but overall the writing was good. It kind of reminds me of Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code".

Kevin Roose on "The Unlikely Disciple"

Great talk by Kevin Roose about his book The Unlikely Disciple:

Kevin Roose at Gel 2010 (author, The Unlikely Disciple) from Gel Conference on Vimeo.

The Unlikely Disciple

I got this one, along with a great big pile of other books, very cheaply thanks to the implosion of Borders. Their unfortunate demise was to my benefit I suppose you could say, because this is one of the best books I've ever read about a slice of contemporary culture. Besides the premise and subject matter, what makes this book all the more amazing to me is that the author Kevin Roose was only 19 at the time. He has an incredible talent from what I saw in this book and I hope to see more from him in the future.

The book's premise was very intriguing to me of a Northern secular liberal secretly infiltrating a prominent bastion of the American Religious Right: Liberty University and Thomas Road Baptist Church, the heart of the Evangelical empire of the late Jerry Falwell. Here was the man who for most of my life had been on a crusade of sorts against folks like myself, with such incredibly noxious rhetoric that I certainly had no problems agreeing with Barry Goldwater when he said that "every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass". Yet what Roose discovered once he was there, really surprised him:

[T]he Liberty students I've met are a lot more socially adjusted than I expected. They're not rabid, frothing fundamentalists who spend their days sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls and penning angry missives to the ACLU. Maybe I'm getting a skewed sample, but the ones I've met have been funny, articulate, and decidedly non-crazy.

I have to say that this is what made Roose's book so compelling to me. By this I do not mean that I was shocked to find out that the people he met didn't fit the stereotype he had imagined, I myself have had similar experiences with a number of Religious Right folks over the years, but the level of detail and description he gave was a good and much needed reminder of this to me. Sometimes we can get so wrapped up in politics and/or our own particular grudges that we tend to forget that most of those we disagree with aren't living personifications of evil but just as flawed and human as we are, trying to make sense of everything the best way they can. This doesn't mean that one should jettison their principles or whitewash their disagreements with others, not at all, only that we need to maintain perspective and not lose sight of the humanity of others. Lest anyone on the Right get cocky, this is something they need to do just as much given their demonization of gays and liberals (no, the terms are NOT synonymous) which has been as bad as what the Left has done against folks on the Right. Besides the story he had to tell, which by itself was fascinating to read, I guess this reminder was the best thing I took from Roose's book. Given the anniversary of 9/11 which recently passed, that is something I know that the late Fr. Mychal Judge would approve of as well.

The Secret Trial of Robert E. Lee

Another good book finished. Interesting premise to the book and the author does a pretty good job of pulling it off, though it's a tad too "pro-Southern" for my tastes which if someone who's lived most of their life in the South like myself can see that, well...

Prisoner of the Vatican

I recently finished reading this fascinating history of the fall of the Papal States and the birth of modern Italy, along with the contentious early years between the papacy and the Italian monarchy. For many Catholics today used to pontificates like that of the late John Paul II, reading about Pius IX & Leo XIII scheming with foreign powers to undermine the 'godless' Italian state and working for the restoration of their own temporal power, is probably a bit shocking. I can see the need for a sovereign Vatican City but theocracy a la the Papal States holds absolutely no appeal to me. Still, while the papacy may not come across in the best light in this history neither do the early modern Italian leaders. Some of them were just as fanatical and just as objectionable as some of those in the papal party, only from the other side of the spectrem of course. Losing the Papal States was probably the best thing to happen to the Church in quite a long time. One thing for sure is that is helped bring us popes like John XXIII or JPII, who while flawed were both good men and probably never would have sat in St. Peter's Chair if the events of this book hadn't of happened. An interesting bit of history and a book I highly recommend.

The Envoy

I recently finished reading this book and the story it told was just amazing. I'd heard of Raoul Wallenberg before of course, but really only a few brief facts about him and never knew that the Nazi he tangled with in saving Jewish lives was none other than the notorious Adolf Eichmann. Wallenberg wasn't alone in his efforts to save Jews from annihilation in the death camps and the book gives some detail about these other good diplomats, but he is the main focus. All in all this is a very fascinating account of a time period that can still surprise one at the level of brutality and pure evil that was unleashed upon the world, yet also such incredible acts of compassion, faith, goodness and grace.

Amazon Store

So I've sold out.

Or have I?

Meh. Not really.

I've added the Amazon Store mainly to give my readers an idea of the books I enjoy reading and the TV shows/movies I like. I honestly don't expect to make a dime from it.

Of course if I do make some money from this store I won't be too troubled by it, but for now click on over to take a peek and check back when you can. I'll be adding more stuff little by little.

Lies My Teacher Told Me

My dear aunt, who teaches history and is a bit more liberal than I, gave me copy of this book by James Loewen back when it was released in the mid-1990s. I recall enjoying the book at the time mostly because of the plethora of trivia missing from my high school history textbook. Interestingly enough, I believe I found online the history textbook I used in class back then, which is one of the texts Loewen takes to task in this book. It's been many years since my time in history class during the late 1980s so I couldn't swear to this being the exact textbook, but the cover of this one certainly looks very, very familiar. I was curious to read this book again but having little time for actual reading, decided on the unabridged audiobook via iTunes.

For the most part, Loewen's book is still very enjoyable. Some of it seems dated to me now approximately 15 years later, but part of this could be because I was more interested in listening once again to trivia from our history that isn't generally known rather than listen to his criticisms of old history textbooks. Having been out of high school for an even longer period of time may be a factor in this as well. Ever since I can remember I've been an avid reader and have had a voracious appetite for all things involving history. I share his distaste of how poor high school textbooks are, or at least were when his book came out years ago. In school, my history textbook was the only one I ever recall reading from cover to cover and was usually left with an empty feeling afterwards as if there wasn't enough there. This is why I always supplemented my class textbook with whatever I could find in the library.

With regards to Loewen's book itself I'd have to say that the author is an accomplished story-teller and the narrator for the audiobook did a good job as well. It is quite apparent to me that Loewen is much more liberal than I am and I would say was heavily influenced by events during the 1960s. For the most part that is okay as I enjoy good history regardless of the subtle or not-so subtle bias. I have found that if one reads a variety of different perspectives than they will be able to learn far more than if they just rely upon whatever is most comfortable to their way of thinking. Yet there are times in the book where Loewen's bias breaks any pretense he may have had of being the objective historian and can be quite stark. I enjoy being challenged by authors and not coddled, yet I do not like having my intelligence insulted by an author trying to be too clever by half. Perhaps the most egregious example I found of this, where Loewen can rightly be charged with hypocrisy given his critiques of other historians, was the use of Senator John Kerry's infamous testimony before Congress in 1971 concerning atrocities by some U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. To rely upon such a source as Kerry and the discredited Winter Soldier Investigation is particularly galling since there are far more credible sources out there. This also brings his treatment of modern history into question in my mind, especially concerning Vietnam, since his politics seem to overpower his training as an historian. To put it in terms from his book, he seems to do a far better job with zamani rather than sasha. It is true that I do not come to this free from biases myself. I am the son of a Vietnam veteran and served years later myself in the U.S. Navy. I've had a deep and abiding respect for the military ever since I can remember which may affect how I view this, which my more conservative political views undoubtedly color as well. Yet even keeping in mind that none of us is completely free personal bias, I found Loewen's telling of the Vietnam Era to be highly suspect probably because it was so glaringly obvious. Overall though, despite its weaknesses, I still would recommend picking up a copy of this book for there's just too much in it that left me eager to explore other sources for more. I suppose as long as one remains mindful of the author's bias, as well as their own, this is probably the best one can say about any good book. Enjoy.

Recommended Reading

I've finally finished reading Prayers for Bobby. This is the true story of Bobby Griffith a young gay man whose inability to reconcile his sexuality and the fundamentalist religious tradition in which he was raised, led him to take his own life.

A very sad and poignant tale. Sad for obvious reasons but also poignant in the story of his mother's redemption of sorts: the arduous and painful journy to overcome the rigid beliefs she held that helped drive Bobby to take his own life. This book is about her story as well as Bobby's. I can't do this book enough justice in describing it but I do highly recommend it.

Also check out the movie that was based upon this book and stars Sigourney Weaver.

Gay Sci-Fi?

Who knew that such a genre in literature even existed? I've always been a bit of a sci-fi nut (yeah, like that isn't obvious) but most of the books I've seen with a gay character weren't very good. Either the writing was poor or the plot sub-standard. Almost as bad, the gay characters are sluts or lack any depth other than their sexuality. However, thanks to Darker Projects I found a good sci-fi audio drama that not only has a gay character, but he's the hero of the story. Even better, his sexuality is incidental to the story and not the main focus. Check out The Falcon Banner, based on the novel of the same name by Christopher Patrick Lydon:

By the twenty-second century, mankind had stretched forth its hand to command the stars. Other races were discovered, and, as the human sphere of influence expanded, they were happy to live in peaceful coexistence, and humanity was on the verge of an evolutionary leap.

The Terran emperor was the first to ascend to the next step of human evolution. His advisors, who now styled themselves holy clerics, sought to force the other races to see the light of their religion. They began to subjugate the other races to the will of the empire. The Amsus, who saw the Empire as decadent, illogical and chaotic, waged war upon it. Admiral VonGrippen, the brightest military mind in centuries, betrayed the empire, and removed the entire home fleet, collapsing the jump gate after them, leaving Earth and the Empire to be squashed under the heel of Amsus oppression.

Now, three hundred years after the fall of the Terran Empire, humans find themselves the subject race, Stagnating on their own world unable to evolve either technologically or otherwise. It is into this oppressive world, that the most unlikely of men are thrust into the roles of heros.

If you enjoy this audio version of the story, you might want to get all the books in the series: The Falcon Banner, Sigil of the Wolf, The Lion's Pride, The Balance of Judgement, The Fifth Column and Queen of Ice (prequel).

Of course, unlike the audio version the books aren't free but their cost is reasonable. I bought all of them today and will enjoy reading this series. Check it out for yourselves...

Dick Cheney & Gays in the Military

One of the more interesting aspects of Randy Shilts' book Conduct Unbecoming that I have finally finished reading, are some of the people mentioned and their roles involving gays in the military. This is especialy true of Shilts' telling of the mostly hostile atmosphere during the 1970s & 80s. Some of the people wouldn't achieve much attention until years later, while others were already at the height of their fame and power. From Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat from Georgia who pressured a decorated Vietnam veteran that served on his staff to seek other employment because he was gay (pp.390-391), to then-Colonel Peter Pace who sought to have charges pressed against two Marines that had participated in an attack on patrons of a gay bar in Washington, DC (p.721). Nunn a few years later of course would infamously mount a fierce opposition to President Bill Clinton's plan to repeal the ban against gays in military, while General Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stirred up controversy with some seemingly anti-gay remarks during an interview. Perhaps most interesting of all, however, is the role of then-SecDef Dick Cheney, who currently serves as Vice President admired by some some and reviled by others. While Cheney could hardly be considered a champion for gay rights, neither was he "homophobic" or antagonistic towards homosexuals either. It's possible that his love for his lesbian daughter Mary Cheney may have been behind some of this. It is notable that he strongly defended his daughter when her sexual orientation became a political issue many years after he headed DoD and Vice President Cheney would publicly express support for same-sex unions. In the early 1990s, blatant hostility against homosexuals in uniform was rampant among top leaders in the Defense Department, which caused Cheney a number of difficulties during his tenure as SecDef. In 1990, he personally intervened to force the U.S. Navy to drop demands for repayment of tuition after expelling 3 gay Midshipmen from the Naval Academy, whose cases became cause célèbre for the gay rights movement (p.708). When disgruntled Navy officials attempted to quietly pressure another expelled gay Midshipman to repay his tuition, Cheney exploded in anger, fuming, "Goddamn it, I've told the military departments not to hit people up for back tuition!". He quickly dispatched an aide to reiterate his previous order to both the Chief of Naval Operations and the Chief of Naval Personnel and the matter was promptly dropped. The extent of the purges of gay military personnel during previous administrations and the continued focus of top brass on expelling homosexuals disgusted Cheney and he ordered such "witch-hunts" to immediately stop. Unfortunately though, this order didn't meet with a lot of success at the time. Perhaps the most telling episode of Cheney's tenure as SecDef and how he related to gay personnel both civilian and military is when his aide Pete Williams was outed by a gay magazine (pp.739-740):

In August [1991], The Advocate ran a story "outing" a very high-ranking civilian Pentagon official. The official, generally referred to in the press as a senior spokesman for the Defense Department, had worked at the right hand of Secretary Cheney for many years, and few believed that Cheney was uninformed of the man's orientation before the story appeared.

The mainstream press generally declined to identify the man, eschewing the newly popular gay practice of revealing the sexual orientation of people who would prefer to remain hidden. But aggressive promotion by the gay magazine ensured that there were several stories about a certain unnamed official. This led to an unprecedented event in the history of gays in the military: A Secretary of Defense admitted that homosexuals did servce in the armed forces.

In fact, in numerous interviews Cheney acknowledged that gays had always served, often honorably, but he tried to draw the distinction between a civilian serving on his senior staff and a soldier serving in a military environment where issues of order, discipline, and morale came into play. Cheney's defense of the military policy was anemic, however, and he frequently referred to it as something he "inherited" from previous administrations. As for the notion that gays were security risks, Cheney called it "sort of an old chestnut". As Congressman Barney Frank told one interviewer: "If Cheney defended the United States the way he defended this policy, we would have been captured by now - by Cuba". Nevertheless, Cheney's comments marked the first time in nearly a decade that anyone in the defense establishment had advanced any argument for the policy beyond the usual 123 words. [DoD Directive 1332.14 (1982)]

What was most remarkable about the outing was what it said about shifting attitudes toward gays. The gay Defense Department spokesman kept his job. According to one senior Pentagon official, Cheney brought the matter up personally with President [George H. W.] Bush, who approved the man's retention. And there was the marvel of a Republican Secretary of Defense from the conservative wing of his party saying he did not care about the private lives of his closest aides.

All in all very fascinating reading.

(this is also posted over on Gay Patriot)

Lessons Learned About Gays By Top Military Brass

I believe something in Randy Shilts' Conduct Unbecoming is relevant and should be kept in mind when looking at the opposition by some to repealing DADT.

In 1979, Dan Stratford was a young cadet at the United States Air Force Academy. Throughout the 1970s & 80s the NIS, CID and other military investigative bodies conducted great purges of gays from all levels. This resulted in highly questionable investigative methods along with folks being snared who shouldn't have been. In this case, Stratford never told anyone he was gay (nor does Shilts indicate if he really was or not) and was never caught in any homosexual act. Yet his roommate suspected that Stratford was, and rifled through his personal stuff to find evidence to turn over to authorities. What he found was a letter from a gay friend which said nothing about Stratford's sexuality. However, he was still forced to resign for "associating with a known homosexual". What Shilts writes next I believe is important to note as this still effects matters today:

Perhaps the most enduring impact was not on the gay students, however, but on the entire student body, which learned lasting lessons from the ongoing gay purges at the service academies. Cadets learned that rifling through another student’s desk and reading their personal letters was justified if it resulted in the dismissal of a homosexual; that normal rules of justice did not apply; that homosexuals had no rights, only punishments; that no expense was too great to deter the enforcement of the ban on homosexuals; that merely “associating with a known homosexual” could be grounds for punishment; that it was in the natural order of things that homosexuals just disappeared. Even if some cadets did not believe this was right, and there were clearly some who did not, the events of the year showed that the system was set up in such a way as to be in accord with those who did and that it was best to hold one’s peace.

These were the lessons taught to a very important audience: The people in the Air Force Academy in 1979 would be a large share of the officers in midlevel Air Force management in another ten years, major making career decisions for others. Five years later, they would be lieutenant colonels and colonels in senior staff positions at the Pentagon, and, five years after that, the best of them would be earning their first generals’ stars. Then they would work their way up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because that was where Academy graduates ended up; they would be the very people who would run the military through the first decade of the twenty-first century.

UPDATE: At the Military.com forums where I posted this entry today, I received an objection from one advocate of DADT. His comments and my reply follow:

I wasn't there but if the roommate suspected he was 'gay' and was so uncomfortable with living in the same room that he went to the extreme of searching another man's possessions to find evidence that could be used to get rid of him, I suspect that he asked to be moved to another room and was told no. He then did what he did in desperation. This should tell you that some people are adversly effected by having to live in close quarters with a 'gay' person. This is why homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service. Why Dan Stratford didn't defend his honor in the fight of his life if he wasn't 'gay' is beyond me. Instead he cut a deal and got his diploma and an honorable discharge. The armed forces allows those things for the good of the service and it's image.

And yet if you've read the whole thing, beyond doing a Google search on Shilts' book, you'll note several things:

1. Stratford certainly wasn't the only one forced out for "associating with known homosexuals". These were witch hunts that were conducted then, especially against women.

2. Most people accused at that time of being gay, whether they really were or not, were railroaded into being discharged.

3. Nowhere did Shilts indicate what Stratford's sexuality was nor did the AF have anything indicating the man was gay.

4. Stratford's roommate was never punished for breaking what I'm willing to bet was a violation of at least the Air Force Academy honor code.

Since you've found Shilts' book online, look up the case of Barbara Underwood. She was one of many that the Navy attempted to railroad during the purges of the 70s & 80s on the flimsiest of evidence. Fortunately for her, she was one of the few who fought back and actually won (a 2-1 vote btw). Underwood was straight and engaged at the time of being accused, but that didn't stop the military from trying to kick her out as a lesbian. She brought in witnesses to prove that she wasn't gay, but interestingly enough the Navy didn't give a damn about what she did admit to:

During the course of the hearings, one petty officer had admitted to having sex with Barbara Underwood, a lower-ranking enlisted woman directly under him in the chain of command, and another officer had admitted to adultery. Under the UCMJ, both offenses were punishable with prison sentences, but neither sailor was ever charged or even investigated.

A Navy Chaplain Defends His Gay Son

It may seem a bit ironic that I'm posting this, but I've confirmed many aspects of this story from other sources online. One thing Shilts has done well in his book Conduct Unbecoming, at least what I've read thus far, is relating the turbulent times of 1960s of 70s. Most people may know that these were times of great social change in the United States, some good and some bad depending upon one's perspective. One compelling story I've come across is that of Ensign Vernon E. Berg III at his discharge hearing in 1976. He was the first Naval officer who admitted to being gay and challenged being discharged because of it. His father was a career Navy chaplain, who for many reasons didn't believe his son was really gay. Ensign Berg had dated women in high school and while in the Academy, for example, which made it difficult for his father to accept that he was gay. Yet, when he reviewed the investigative reports at his son's discharge hearing he not only came to accept the fact his son was gay, but was ashamed at how poorly the Navy had treated him. Some proponents of DADT will undoubtedly dismiss this all as personal bias since this was his son on trial, but even so I find his testimony to be powerful and quite compelling - especially his telling of his experiences in Vietnam:

The climax of the eight-day hearing occurred the next morning when a sandy-haired Navy commander took the stand. His dress blue uniform only highlighted the striking resemblance the man bore to the defendant. On his chest, among all the other ribbons Commander Vernon Berg, Jr., had accumulated during the course of his career, was the Bronze Star he had won when he almost died ministering to marines during the Tet offensive… [Ensign] Berg’s Navy lawyer, Lieutenant John Montgomery, asked the chaplain about his experience with gay sailors.

“A person is a person,” Berg began. “I really have felt strained in this whole hearing about people saying homosexuals have different problems. They have the same problems as anyone else. A homosexual can perform badly or spectacularly well. Homosexuals that I have known in the military have done extremely well, getting to extremely high ranks after I first met them.”

“Are you saying that you know of homosexuals who are officers in the United States Navy today?” Montgomery asked.
“Certainly,” the chaplain answered.
“Do you know any of them of the rank of commander?”
“Certainly.”
“The rank of captain?” Montgomery asked.
“Certainly.”
“The rank of rear admiral?”
“Yes, sir,” Berg said. The room fell utterly silent while the chaplain continued. “Therefore, I would like to interject what I think it behooves all of us to look at what we do. We condemn blithely with prejudice and, you know, we must be careful whom we condemn.

When Montgomery asked about Berg’s experience as a chaplain to Marine units in Vietnam, the commander said that at least once a week one or another Marine would come to him and admit to being gay. He also acknowledged, somewhat painfully, what he would have done not too long before if a commander had sent him a gay soldier.

“This week has been a learning experience for me,” the elder Berg said, “and I’m sure it has been for all of us. I’m a product of Navy society also, and, sadly to say, years ago in 1960, ’61, ’62, I would have told him carte blanche, ‘If you are homosexual, you had better get out.’” [...]

“Getting back to the Marines,” [a board member] said to the commander. “You say you served with the Marines in Vietnam and it came to light that certain Marines were homosexuals and their buddies knew about them. From my experience, they were not accepted. They were sort of outcasts.”

“In the Marines, we’re talking about a Marine unit,” Berg answered. When one of those guys in that small unit finds their buddy is a homosexual, and if anybody else tells on him, watch out. They will protect him.”

“Why?” asked [the board member].

“Knowing Marines as I do,” Berg said, “why would a given unit of Marines, once they know a man, live with him, fight with him, watch friends die with him, what do they care about what he does in his bedroom? It becomes unimportant, like color, or like male or female. Gosh, who cares? Sometimes, even in combat, I have had all sorts of men come to me and say, ‘Gee, why can’t the real world be like this? Why can’t we all sit down and have communion together and drink wine together? Why can’t we all love each other as human beings and accept each other as we are?'"

Another board member interrupted Berg. “I’m having difficulty in trying to interpret homosexual behavior and tendencies,” he said. “What is normal homosexual behavior that makes it identifiable?”

“When I hold a dying Marine in my arms and cry because he is dying, and I stroke his face and kiss him on the head, am I a homosexual? Tears appeared in his eyes. He paused briefly while he brought his hands up to cover his face.

“Pardon me,” he said. “When I talk about Marines I get out of control, because I love them. Does that make me a homosexual?“ He looked at the board. “What is a homosexual?” he asked. “Where does emotion and love stop and perversity take up?”

Ensign Berg unfortunately lost his battle to remain in the Navy and was given an other than honorable discharge. These kind of discharges were regularly given to homosexual servicemembers at that time, which didn't change until a few years later. However, Berg challenged his discharge in court and while he didn't win reinstatement he was successful in having his discharge upgraded to honorable.

UPDATE: Welcome Washington Blade readers! If you haven't read Randy Shilts' book Conduct Unbecoming yet, I highly recommend it. Be aware though, that it isn't without some flaws.

Randy Shilts & Conduct Unbecoming

Wikipedia has some interesting material on the late Randy Shilts, author of the book Conduct Unbecoming that I've been posting about lately and am still reading. He apparently authored other books that I will have to look into. Unfortunately he passed away from an AIDS-related illness in 1994 right after the book I'm reading was first published. He seems to have been an interesting and stubborn fellow, unafraid to voice his opinions no matter whom he ticked off. I particularly liked this bit from an obituary on his life:

Although he was worshiped by many in gay circles for enlightening heterosexuals, Shilts was controversial among more radical members of the movement, some of whom labeled him a "gay Uncle Tom." In the mid-1980s, his stories suggesting that gay bathhouses in San Francisco were breeding grounds for AIDS made him a pariah, unable to walk through the city's Castro District without being jeered or spat upon.

When "And the Band Played On" came out, he was attacked for charging that gay groups initially pretended that AIDS did not exist. More recently, he was faulted for opposing the "outing" of prominent, closeted gays, including two four-star generals he described anonymously in "Conduct Unbecoming."

Shilts was hurt by such barbs, but refused to alter his message or obscure the truth to win friends.

Frankly, I don't give a damn what some "radical members of the movement" may have thought of the man. I agree with him about bathhouses and not just because they are "breeding grounds for AIDS". As far as those kinds of places go, I suppose you could say that I definitely have a NIMBY attitude towards them.

Shilts' book Conduct Unbecoming has received a lot of praise, rightfully so in my view, but some of this writing has also received a bit of criticism for sloppy work. One example of this is Shilts' telling in the book of the life of the famous Dr. Tom Dooley:

Shilts's first mistake in Conduct Unbecoming is an overreliance on the work of Diana Shaw, whom he misidentifies as a "biographer." Shaw, a researcher for the film industry, published an article on Dooley in the Los Angeles Times Magazine in December 1991 which was riddled with factual errors. (For example, she dismissed Dooley's "Vientiane clinic project" as a "sham"; while it is true he never worked in Vientiane, his village clinics were no sham.)

Shilts describes Shaw's heroic pursuit of the secret Navy file on Dooley: "from the first time Diana Shaw attempted to retrieve Dooley's official Navy records, it was clear that the service had something to hide." Actually, the ONI report is readily available to scholars who will simply pay a visit to the Naval Operational Archives in Washington and request the documents. In relying upon a single journalist's questionable work and a couple of interviews, Shilts has made a remarkable number of errors in his brief but central discussion of the Tom Dooley case, from calling Cardinal Francis Spellman "John" to elaborately setting Dooley's funeral Mass at Saint Patrick's Cathedral. (It actually occurred a thousand miles away in Saint Louis.) [...]

Shilts's discussion is, in its way, as misleading and mistaken as the most garish Dooley tributes in The Sign or St. Anthony Messenger in 1958. Shilts's claim that "everything good and everything evil that he did can be traced back to the shame he carried over his homosexuality" reduces Dooley to the sum of his sexuality for polemical reasons and is no more justified than the ill-fated campaign for his canonization...

One can find such hagiographies of Dooley today on some über-conservative sites, such as this from Daily Catholic which vehemently denies that the man was gay:

The same with slanderous statements that he was homosexual. They base this on wild rumors of his sympathy for those who were gay, the fact he never married, and his successful recruiting of young men at Notre Dame to serve as doctors. Again, these are slanderous statements with no credibility, only more persecution to slur Catholics and the man, perpetuating the ridiculous myth that if one doesn't marry, they must be gay; sinisterly implying that priests as well were gay and there was a vast homosexual network within the Catholic clergy in America. It was merely more Catholic-bashing by many in the secular media who were unabashedly anti-Catholic, a trend that began with Nast in the 19th Century and continues to our present day. The truth is Dr. Dooley never married for he did not have the time. He was married to his vocation in life. Though not a priest, nevertheless he lived a celibate life and held his faith dear to him. Yes, he was sympathetic to gays, but he was sympathetic to everyone. Rank had no privileges with Dr. Dooley. Like Mother Teresa he saw in each person Jesus Christ and used his God-given talents of healing and reaching people in his mild, bedside manner to heal both body and soul.

Perhaps most interesting to me about how Conduct Unbecoming was received when it was published, was the reaction of the U.S. Navy after Shilts had sold the electronic rights to ApolloMedia:

The controversial subject matter dealing with gays in the United States military provoked the United States Navy to threaten a First Amendment lawsuit—the first time a court would be required to determine whether First Amendment protections afforded to traditional media applied to electronic publishing as well.

Days before the release of Conduct Unbecoming, the Navy attempted to bar the use of a 1972 recruiting poster featuring the first African American used in a recruiting campaign. Servicemember Ed Graves had been discharged from the Navy a few years later for being gay. ApolloMedia refused to pull the image.

Following high profile press attention ApolloMedia announced its intent to defy, the Navy obliged and withdrew their initial threats.

ApolloMedia, represented by Michael Traynor at Cooley Godward, effectively established the de facto acknowledgement that First Amendment protections must be extended to CD-ROM publishers.

Bloggers and publishers everywhere should be grateful for ApolloMedia's firm commitment to the First Amendment.

UPDATE: Perhaps I should take what Shilts writes in this book with a great deal of caution. His overall theme is correct, but there are serious charges that some of the details are fabricated. Besides the criticism above on Shilts' telling of Tom Dooley's story, there are similiar charges that he falsified one of the most compelling stories in this book: that of Gerald Rosanbalm & Donald Winn. These charges are coming from conservative websites from what I could find, but Stolen Valor isn't exactly a disreputable source in my eyes. Politics about the Vietnam War aside, that book helped expose some genuine phonies who made fantastic claims to military heroism only to be shown for the liars they are. These critiques are also citing military records and other sources that at least appear to be credible. Since I'm coming into this many years later, it's very difficult for me to know what the truth in all of this is. However, if there is any validity to these charges than I am greatly disappointed that Shilts sunk to such a level instead of being honest and forthright in his research. I despise it when authors lie about history, regardless of their reasons. I'm still finishing this book, but I must admit that I'll have to be skeptical of the details unless I can find some substantiation for them elsewhere.

Discharging Homosexuals During Wartime

It's not exactly news that gays are retained despite regulations in the current conflicts. In reading Conduct Unbecoming by Randy Shilts, I found this passage concerning previous wars:

Between 1963 and 1966 the Navy discharged between 1,600 and 1,700 enlisted members a year for homosexuality. From 1966 to 1967, however, the number of gay discharges dropped from 1,708 to 1,094. In 1968, the Navy ejected 798 enlisted men for homosexuality. In 1969, at the peak of the Vietnam buildup, gay discharges dropped to 643. A year later, only 461 sailors were relieved of duty because they were gay. These dramatic reductions occurred during the period of the service's highest membership since World War II.

The flexible enforcement of the antihomosexual regulations was not without precedent. From their adoption in 1943, implementation of such rules has been almost entirely dependent on the manpower needs of the services at any particular time. In his research on gays in World War II, Allen Berube discovered that during the height of the final European offensive against Germany in 1945, Secretary of War Harry Stimson ordered a review of all gay discharges during the previous two years, with an eye toward reinducting gay men who had not committed any in-service homosexual acts. At the same time, orders went out to "salvage" homosexuals for the service whenever necessary... The Army's official history of psychiatry in World War II reports that in the Thirty-eigth Division, commanders often merely reassigned to different regiments those soldiers who made passes at other men. In these cases, the history records, "this was the last that was heard of the case"...

The Korean War also saw a dramatic plunge in gay-related discharges. In the fifteen years before Vietnam, for example, the Navy, the service that kept the only records on the issue, typically meted out 1,100 undesirable discharges a year to gay sailors. In 1950, at the height of the Korean War, that number was down to 483. The next year, it was 533. But in 1953, when the armistice was signed at Panmunjom, the Navy cracked down again with vigor, distributing 1,353 gay-related undesirable discharges in that year alone.

In conflict after conflict - from World War II to Desert Storm - the paradox has persisted: during World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and a generation after Vietnam, when the United States went to war again in 1991. The gay exclusion policies were enacted ostensibly to ensure good order and discipline in the military. At no time is order and discipline more essential than in combat. History also demonstrates that at no time are the regulations banning homosexuality more routinely sidestepped.

(this is also posted over on Gay Patriot)

DADT & The "Unit Cohesion" Fallacy: One Veteran's Story

I finally received the copy of Conduct Unbecoming: Gays & Lesbians In The U.S. Military by Randy Shilts I had ordered and began reading it today. I'm only about 10% finished, but so far this book is just amazing. Growing up an Army brat, I've always enjoyed "war stories" from military veterans. It's not the violence I find appealing but instead learning how these veterans faced such adversity and how these experiences forever changed their lives. This book certainly seems to fall into that genre thus far, with the added challenge of these veterans being gay in an environment unfriendly to their sexuality. I truly regret not knowing about this book in 1994 when it first published. Given how much I usually get out of the personal stories of veterans, this book could have helped save me about a decade of struggling with this issue myself. Pity.

While there are other stories I've read so far in this book that are more compelling in terms of gay veterans participating in combat, with undoubtedly more to come, the story of Perry Watkins has caught my interest the most. His story is also relevant in today's debate about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that bars gays from openly serving in the military. In 1967 Watkins was a young black man who had grown up in the virulently racist Old South. Amazingly enough, he was open and upfront to others about his homosexual orientation which at that time made him a hated minority within a hated minority. The official policy of the U.S. military back then of excluding homosexuals was similar to what it is today under DADT, in that "the presence of homosexuals would seriously impair discipline, good order, morals and the security of our armed forces". During the latter part of the Vietnam War, the military found itself in desperate need of more soldiers and then as seems to be happening in today's conflicts in many cases turned a blind eye to the presence of openly acknowledged homosexuals within the ranks. The main difference between gays openly serving then and those doing so today is that the former were mostly draftees in a largely draftee military, while the latter freely enlisted into an all-volunteer force. Yet even with this difference, the "unit cohesion" argument used by advocates of DADT today falls flat given the military's own undermining of it during wartime. Thus we get to the story of how Perry Watkins served in Vietnam despite being very open about his sexuality:

It was in Germany, in August 1967, that Perry [Watkins] was summoned to the U.S. Army Ninety-seventh hospital in Frankfurt and given his draft physical. In the course of filling out the forms, right after checking no to the questions about drugs or alcohol, Perry checked yes to the question about homosexual tendencies.

Watkins would later be asked to recall what happened next, and no one would ever step forward to challenge his recollections. The Army psychiatrist wanted to know precisely which sexual acts Watkins performed with men.

“Oral and anal sex,” Perry answered evenly.

“I can’t accept that answer,” the psychiatrist said.

“I like [oral sex] and [anal sex],” he said.

“Do you ever date women?” the psychiatrist asked.

Perry thought it was strange that when he talked about having sex with men the doctor wanted to know about precise acts but when he talked about sex with women he referred to it as “dating”. The psychiatrist, a lieutenant colonel, pressed further, trying to dissuade Watkins from his admission – to no avail.

Perry was sent to another psychiatrist, with no explanation on the accompanying paperwork as to why he was there. But Perry took a number-two pencil and wrote in big block letters in the space provided, “I’m here because I checked ‘homosexual tendencies’.”

“Why did you do that?” asked the second psychiatrist.

“Because it’s the truth.”

“Do you want to go in the Army?”

“I don’t object going in the Army,” Watkins said. He was not trying to get out of the draft; he was simply telling the truth.

“Do you want to go to Vietnam?” the psychiatrist asked.

“I wouldn’t object going to Vietnam.”

“Why did you check the box?”

“Because it was the truth.”

The psychiatrist then wrote on Perry’s form: “This 19 year old inductee has had homosexual tendencies in the past…Patient can go into military service – qualified for induction.” And May 1968 saw Perry Watkins, an acknowledged gay man, into the United States Army…

A few months later, in advanced training at Fort Dix to become a clerk/typist, Perry was talking about the local gay hangouts with another gay draftee. Perry suggested they go barhopping the next weekend.

“I won’t be here next week,” the recruit said.

When Perry asked why, the young man said, “Because I’m gay.”

He had not engaged in any sexual acts in the Army, he said. He had just told his commanding officer that he was gay and they started the paperwork to kick him out.

Perry marched into his commander’s office and explained that he was homosexual and that wanted to be discharged. For a month, Perry did not hear anything. Then he was told that he could not be discharged for being gay, because he could not really prove he was gay. In order to do that, he would have to be caught in a sexual act.

Perry contemplated this odd treatment. There was one difference between the draftee being bumped and himself, Perry observed. The other man was white.

It's almost amusing how the essentials of his story could be repeated many times over by gay soldiers openly serving today. If you haven't read this book I highly recommend that you get a copy.

(this is also posted over on Gay Patriot)

First U.S. Soldier Discharged For Homosexuality

It's amazing what one can find via Google sometimes. I was curious who the first recorded gay soldier was that faced disciplinary action in the military and found this interesting excerpt from Conduct Unbecoming: Gays & Lesbians in the U.S. Military by Randy Shilts:

On March 11, 1778, just sixteen days after [Baron Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin von] Steuben arrived at Valley Forge, drums and fifes assembled on the Grand Parade in the brisk morning air to conclude the punishment ordered by a general court-martial and approved by General Washington himself. On that morning Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin became the first known soldier to be dismissed from the U.S. military for homosexuality.

Enslin had arrived in the United States on September 30, 1774, aboard the ship Union, which had sailed from Rotterdam to Philadelphia. He was in his late twenties or early thirties. He arrived alone, according to the ship’s records, suggesting that he was single. Three years later he enlisted in the Continental Army; within a few months he was serving as an officer in Colonel William Malcom’s regiment.

Though little is known of Enslin’s earlier life, the exact penmanship he used on his company’s muster sheets and his command of the English language indicate that he was an educated man of some financial means. The Continental Army preferred its officers to be educated and able to provide their own supplies.

Under the bunking arrangements at Valley Forge, enlisted men lived in communal barracks while officers resided in small cabins with officers of similar rank. It was in Enslin’s cabin that Ensign Anthony Maxwell apparently discovered the lieutenant with Private John Monhart. Maxwell reported this to his commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Burr. Enslin responded that Maxwell was lying in an attempt to impugn his character.

On February 27, 1778, the company commander being in New York, Burr presided first at a court-martial of Ensign Maxwell, charged with “propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lt. Enslin”. In his orderly book, Burr later wrote, “The court after mature deliberation upon the evidence produced could not find that Ensign Maxwell had published any report prejudicial to the character of Lt. Enslin further than the strict line of his duty required and do therefore acquit him of the charge”.

Eleven days later, on March 10, Burr presided over Enslin’s court-martial, in which the lieutenant was found guilty of sodomy and perjury, the latter presumably stemming from his charges against Maxwell. According to General Washington’s general order of March 14, was “…to be dismiss’d with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of the Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; the Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that purpose”.

Drumming a soldier out of the Army was a dramatic event in those times. According to custom, an officer’s sword was broken in half over the head of the disgraced soldier, while drummers played a very slow tattoo. So did Lieutenant Enslin leave the Continental Army on that cold morning in March, trudging away alone on the deeply rutted and muddy road out of Valley Forge, not far from where Major General von Steuben was shouting orders in broken English.

Some observers have suggested that Enslin’s sentence is evidence that Washington held a lenient view of homosexuality, since such transgressions could have been punishable by imprisonment or even death in the conventions of the day. (Thomas Jefferson demonstrated his liberalism by proposing a year earlier that sodomy be punished by castration instead of death in the new penal code that would replace Virginia’s Colonial charter.) This, however, remains speculation.

So the infamous Aaron Burr presided over Lt. Enslin's trial, eh? How ironic that Enslin would be "drummed out" when such widely-known homosexuals as Baron von Steuben proved himself as indispensable to the success of the American Revolution as the great General Washington himself. I suppose that lower-level officers were not considered to be as essential to the military to overlook their sexual preferences. It's not clear though whether Enslin really was gay, or like some heterosexual males in prisons, merely engaged in homosexual behavior due to the lack of access to a female partner. Nothing is known about what happened to Enslin after he left the Continental Army in disgrace, Shilts speculates that he returned to his native Germany. As former enlisted myself, I notice that nothing is said about what happened to Pvt. Monhart. Was he kicked out? Imprisoned? Killed? There does not appear to be anything in the records about this. While some allowances for the times need to be made for Enslin's perjury and perhaps the fraternization with Monhart, even so because of the latter especially Enslin does not make much of a symbol in my view for efforts to repeal DADT today. There are very good reasons why fraternization is punishable under the UCMJ and though I strongly favor repealing DADT (along with Article 125 which effects everybody), allowing fraternization regardless of sexual orientation would indeed negatively impact unit cohesion. Officers and enlisted have no business nor right to have intimate relationships with each other and when they are caught deserve the punishments they face. All in all though, Enslin's story is interesting and I'm glad to have found out about this book. This looks like one I'm going to have to buy from Amazon and read fully.

(this is also posted over on Gay Patriot)