Pink Military

CNN.com posted an article today on the military's don't ask don't tell policy. If this were any other organization in this country, discharging someone from their duties because of sexual orientation is a criminal offense. Furthermore, with women now in the army the "jealous lover" excuse is meaningless.

According to the article, the policy is costing the military big bucks. The subject in question is an Arabic language expert; obviously someone valuable to the current situation in the Middle East. It seems like many of those in critical and valuable positions are being discharged under the rule, a sure sign that what a soldier does in the bedroom (or barracks) shouldn't be factored into his or her ability to do the job.

Either way, the don't ask don't tell policy is hurting the military, which just keeps shooting itself in the foot.

A Lesson in Semantics from Mr. Snow

This from CBSnews.com:

"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "It never says, `We're not going to enact the law."

Ok, fine, but what does that mean? From what I gather, limiting executive power in any way seems to be unconstitutional under this administration. I would like to point out that Nixon claimed executive privlege on the Watergate tapes that eventually led to his resignation.

Little statements about constitutionality could mean anything, including "the executive branch is not subject to this ruling by virtue of executive privlege." That's a little statement about constitutionality that says in not quite so many words "We're not going to enact this law." So I suppose Tony Snow is telling the truth. Perhaps no signing statement says those words exactly, but from what I understand, that's usually what they imply.

To the Movies, That They Stop Taking My Dollars

I went to see the new installment of "Pirates of the Caribbean" and I was underwhelmed. As A. O. Scott wrote over at the The New York Times, '“Dead Man’s Chest” will still be, in my estimation, occasionally amusing, frequently tedious and entirely too long.' I wholeheartedly agree, Mr. Scott. I also paid eleven dollars to see it. I could have rented a movie and made dinner at home for that much. I didn't even spend the five dollars they wanted for popcorn (which I could have made for pennies, by the way).

I really enjoyed the first "Pirates" movie, and it makes me sad that Disney is taking my money for a filmthat was mediocre at best. The plot was complicated and slow, and the gags just went on forever. And might I add that the cage of bones gag was enough. We really didn't need the waterwheel. I think the most dismaying part of this whole experience was not the two and a half hours I wasted sitting in the theater. It was the eleven dollars fished out of my pocket!

As it happens, there have been many articles in the past week or so (such as the one I mentioned at the beginning of this post) that explore the idea of critical acclaim vs. popularity. Before sitting down (and paying eleven dollars) to see "Dead Man's Chest" I was convinced there was a discrepancy between critical acclaim and how much I would enjoy a movie. This experience has taught me that following the advice of someone better versed than I in the ins and outs of entertainment, I am better served by following their recommendation than paying the price ($11!!!) of disappointment.