MVP: Most Valuable Prisoner

Does it bother anyone that President Obama has chosen Michael Vick as his mascot for opening a national discussion on prisoner rehabilitation and reentry? It sure as hell bothers me. I know that Obama has spoken in the past of better social, educational, and vocational support for criminals who have served their sentences. He has encouraged businesses to hire ex-criminals as well, so his phone call to Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie to congratulate him on giving Vick a second chance is not counter to his previously stated beliefs. However, lauding Michael Vick as a model of redemption and rehabilitation is just a joke.

President Obama reportedly said that "it's never a level playing field for prisoners when they get out of jail." He, therefore, wanted to praise the Eagles for giving Vick the second chance that many ex-cons don't get. I wonder why so many former criminals don't get the same kind of second chance that Michael Vick got? Could it possibly be that they aren't skilled quarterbacks who could potentially rake in millions of dollars for a team and its owner? Could it be that they don't have the name recognition, be it good or bad, that Michael Vick has that will draw fans to his games? Could it be that people are much more likely to give someone a second (or even a third or fourth) chance when he or she has money than when the person is poor?

If President Obama really wanted to single out someone as an example of rehabilitation, could he not have chosen someone who perhaps went back to school or learned a trade and can now make a decent but honest living? Could he not have highlighted a typical employer who took a chance on hiring an ex-convict and found himself with a dependable and skilled new employee? Why did he have to fall into the celebrity and pro-sports figure worship trap that blinds so many people to the real lives of the real people all around them?

Michael Vick's crimes were despicable. He got another chance because he's famous. I hope for his sake, for the sake of everyone who now is holding him up as the shining example of prison rehabilitation, but especially for the sake of all the ex-cons who now will be judged by his behavior, that he lives up to the hype.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Don't Play Show Tunes in the Barracks Just Yet!

It's about frickin' time someone had the cajones to do the right thing! For those who may not be aware, this Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips issued an immediate injunction on the military's 17 year-old "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy banning gay service members from serving openly.  This ruling also ordered the government to stop all pending discharges and investigations under the DADT policy.

While I'm happy to wave goodbye to a ridiculous policy that was a lame compromise, open to abuse, and difficult and counterproductive to enforce, it should not have been a federal judge who overturned DADT.  DADT should have been repealed by Congress. Alas, November elections are on the way, and politicians don't want to rock the boat by voting for anything ethical, sensible, or intelligent right before an election! Although the House passed a bill, approved by President Obama,  that would have lifted the ban on openly gay service members,  it was blocked by Republicans in the Senate. Now, it's likely that the federal injunction will be appealed, putting the Obama administration in the position of having to defend a law it opposes. Why? Because, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates "explained," the military needs to move slowly on this issue in order to assess the impact of gays serving openly in the military, the attitudes of service members, and to complete preparation and training. 

Hunh??? Gay people are not alien beings or wild animals that require "preparation and training" to interact with, folks! These are people who are our friends, family, neighbors, teachers, and business owners, many of whom are already serving alongside straight service members right now! They just can't serve openly and can be thrown out if their sexual orientation is discovered. Someone with a secret to hide seems like much more of a security threat to me than an openly gay service person.  And the best way to change the attitudes of service personnel is to start from the top. When the president, the Congress, and the Secretary of Defense issue a clear order that they not just tolerate but welcome gays in the military and that discrimination and harrassment of gay personnel will not be tolerated, it will decrease.

In 1948, President Harry S. Truman integrated the military and made it illegal for anyone to make a racist remark.  Did this end racism against African Americans in the military? Of course not, but today, it is unthinkable that blacks and whites would not serve together. Were all the studies in place about how integration would affect the troops? Had everyone received "preparation and training?" Had service members attitudes towards integration been thoroughly assessed? I doubt it. At some point, the waffling needs to stop, and bad policy needs to go.

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara issued Department of Defense Directive 5120.36 in 1963, which stated, "Every military commander has the responsibility to oppose discriminatory practices affecting his men and their dependents and to foster equal opportunity for them." Seemed like a good policy in 1963. Still seems like a good policy today. How about it, Mr. Gates?