Happy New Year.
I don't think the news about Kim Nuesse's departure from Sandusky can be summarized any better than this, so here's an editorial repost from the SR's Sunday edition:
Most interesting was the statement that Pervis Brown made about how Nuesse's behavior was a good example for how he should conduct himself. Though Nuesse may find that complimentary, it's sad that her professionalism has been an anomaly that brought more confusion than emulation. How was it that this woman didn't immediately cave under the pressure of the entrenched police command, they wondered. They stood and stared with contempt, bad-mouthing her while they should have been following her example.
And now after two years of putting up with this cesspool, she's leaving - not because she doesn't like it here - but because she can't find work.
The DADT debate in the last thread really brought out some funny. Most notably, nobody seemed to understand that openly serving homosexuals among heterosexuals creates the same atmosphere as a co-ed group of heterosexuals. Asking front-line combat troops if they have a problem serving alongside homosexuals disingenuously frames the debate: This is not about homophobia. And it's not about competence (As that "Mr. Sandusky" kept saying.) This is about sexualizing a combat unit. They don't let women serve in combat units for a reason, so why would they allow openly gay men to serve with one another?
After challenging my claim that co-ed Navy ships can be the setting of some raunchy behavior between men and women (a ship I was serving on in 1998 had a prostitution ring which was broken up after command found out an E-6 was using the ship library's closet for dirty deeds) Mr. Sandusky served up this retort:
I stopped responding on that thread because the debate became too unreal. (Mr. Sandusky was part of an elite mature unit - an asexual unit that only focused on their jobs!) For one, this person is basically claiming that because an aircraft left his ship to perform a bombing mission, he was part of a "combat unit." This stretch might work on some readers, but not anyone who actually served in that setting. Living and working on an aircraft carrier does not make you a part of a combat unit. Sure, it's a cool experience - one that not many people get to do, but comparing it to serving in a combat unit is ridiculous. Combat units are in close proximity with the enemy. They trade fire with the enemy, while one would be in little danger, if any at all, living on a ship off the coast of wherever.
Let's tackle the ludicrous nature of Mr. Sandusky's main claim: No sex on aircraft carriers? Yeah, right.
All professional? No anti-gay sentiments shared among high-minded tolerant US Navy personnel?