Dishonesty and Theft In The Home Renovation Business

If you are like most people, the title of this essay probably leads you to think that I am going to talk about contractors ripping off homeowners. But I am not. What I want to discuss today is a much bigger problem: Homeowners ripping off contractors.

Both of my jobs are in the building industry. By day, I am a municipally-employed building inspector. In my rounds of doing mostly residential inspections, I see lots of remodeling jobs and talk to lots of contractors. My part-time job, which used to be my full-time job, is as a kitchen and bath designer. I have been in that business for about 15 years. Between these two jobs, I get to see a fairly wide view of the remodeling industry, and one of the most common themes that seems to arise is that of homeowners stealing from contractors. This is, I believe, why many contractors become angry and cynical over time and develop an "us versus them" attitude.

You may not believe me. After all, you see crooked contractors in the news now and then, but never crooked homeowners, right? The reasons for that are more logistical than statistical: One contractor who rips off a dozen customers is easier to research and makes a better story than a homeowner who rips off a dozen contractors. It is also a marketing matter: News outlets market to homeowners, not to businesses.

Enough dancing around the edges. Let me give you a some examples, which I have seen repeated over and over, of how homeowners rip off contractors.

One situation that is common in my design capacity is as follows: A homeowner calls our company and schedules a measure and assessment of their project. This is something we do for free (SEE NOTE 1). The boss usually does the measuring and initial on-site discussion, then brings that back to me or our full-time designer. We then draw out the space, read all the notes, ask the boss some questions, and design and price at least one option for the project. In that process, we generally end up doing some research to see what products best work for the project at hand (e.g., maybe they have an unusual space that requires an odd-sized fixture, or maybe they want a certain finish on the faucet that is difficult to find in a reasonably-priced line, etc.).

By the time the homeowner comes in to consult with us the first time (this consultation is free), we have probably already invested hundreds of dollars to create a custom design that is tailored to their needs and desires. In this meeting, we show them our ideas, listen to their responses, adjust on-the-spot if necessary, and give them a basic cost. Our initial estimate is never for a bare-bones design. We incorporate everything that we believe is needed for the project (we don't get involved in painting, though). Every little detail that we know, from years of doing this, is needed to accomplish the task is included.

Technically, our policy is to ask for some money if they want to proceed further. This policy prevents us from investing too much time and money into a project that may not happen. The deposit or design fee, or whatever you want to call it, gets incorporated into the cost of the project. We often will continue on, though, without a financial commitment from the client. This is because we don't want to scare people away if they are on the fence, and because we genuinely like working with people to create a successful project.

In some cases -- too many -- we will work out a great design, pick out many of the details (colors, textures, tile, cabinetry, counters, hardware, etc.), and be ready to sign a contract when we suddenly stop hearing from the potential client. Appointments may be missed, phone calls and/or e-mails may not be returned... The red flag is flying at this point. It may be that it turns out that they cannot do the project at this point due to unforeseen circumstances (job loss, medical expenses, sudden death in the family, etc). More likely, in my experience, it is because they have used you for all you can do for them and they are going to use your ideas and work and try to adapt it to a cheaper way of doing the project. This generally means buying the materials at discount stores (Home Depot, Lowe's, Direct Buy, etc.), and finding either a low-priced contractor (who probably works out of the back of a pickup truck with no license, insurance, etc) or a relative who has basic renovation skills (or even doing it themselves). Or they may take the design and list of materials and shop it around to other contractors. These contractors can offer lower prices for the job because they have not had to invest time and money in the whole design process.

The above scenario is much more common than you would expect, and has happened to me a few times recently (which is what prompted me to write this). Make no mistake about it: This is theft we are talking about. A design is the intellectual property of the designer (or designer's employer) unless/until it is purchased by the client. In a case like this, the company is spending money to create something for the client in good faith, and the client rewards that with dishonesty and thievery. I cannot stress enough that this is a common occurrence.

Another fairly common instance is when a homeowner makes changes during the project and refuses to pay for them at the end. In a perfect world, the job would stop at the mention of any change and a revised contract or change order be signed before proceeding, but there are a variety of reasons why that doesn't happen (it messes up scheduling, there may be miscommunication along the way, the contractor mistakenly trusts the homeowner, etc.).

Another similar situation that I see -- but has fortunately not happened to me personally -- is when a job is nearing completion and the homeowner kicks the contractor off the job and refuses to pay the remaining balance. The thinking of the thief in this case is that he/she can complete the job themselves for much less than the remaining balance. I have heard of two such instances in the last couple of weeks.

This may even be taken one step further, to the point when a contractor finishes the job and the homeonwer refuses to pay the balance. They do this because they know they can often get away with it. The time and court costs (and stress) involved for the contractor may well be too much to be worth the fight.

I am not talking about rare instances here. I see these crimes -- and that is what they are -- regularly.

Yes, there are crooked contractors. But the instances of homeowners ripping off contractors are more numerous than the other way around. These costs inevitably get passed along to other customers. In other words, these people steal from all of us.

How can this be remedied? I am not confident that it can be. If, for instance, I were to implement a strict policy of charging a design fee, the nature of the marketplace is such that a competitor would take advantage of that (I have seen it happen). If we were to stop a job every time a change was made, it would decrease efficiency on the job, costing time and money. If we were to adjust contracts to leave almost no money at the end, people would not sign such contracts (SEE NOTE 2). Believe me, these are things that are discussed regularly within the industry.

It may well be that the risks of being ripped off by homeowners is an inherent risk in the industry. As with so many things, the only real cure is to create a better society -- one composed of people who are more decent and honest. That's a tough thing to accomplish, but it is certainly worth a try. And it all starts with each one of us.

XXX

NOTE 1: Technically, nothing is free. All company actions incur costs: Salaries, phone bills, fuel costs, insurance, vehicle wear and tear, etc.. Any "free" services we provide are inevitably built into any sales that we make.

NOTE 2: I do try to keep the final payment as small as possible, but that is a fine dance to execute. Leave too little money at the end, and it looks to the general public like you are the one trying to work an angle.

Sarah Palin: The Humiliation Train Rolls On.

As if it wasn't enough of a national embarrassment that Sarah Palin was seriously considered for the office of Vice President of the United States, she keeps making us look dumber and dumber -- and less American -- every time she opens her mouth.

On February 7th, Sarah Palin spoke in Texas and noted how her state (Alaska) and Texas share some things, including wide open spaces, a pioneer attitude, and "cling[ing] to [their] guns and religion." When I heard that last phrase, I thought: "Wow, she just summed up the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."

Makes ya proud, don't it? Yup. A recent VP candidate is proud to share ideology with terrorists. I guess it beats "learnin' ta read" and then reading the US Constitution. If she ever does, she'll note that there are two mentions of religion in the Constitution: Both of them warnings (SEE NOTE 1). She would also find that science -- that bad thing that screws things up by introducing facts into her fairy tales and historical revisionism -- is something that Congress has a mandate to promote (Article I, Section 8).

I feel bad for the reasonable, patriotic people of Alaska and Texas, as they are repeatedly burdened with the humiliation of being associated with such anti-American attitudes and ridiculous political figures. I do hope they realize the added importance of voting in their states.

People like Sarah Palin, and those who support her (which is mind-boggling), are the reason I will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The flag represents the living country, and much of what is going on in American socio-politics does not deserve my allegiance. My allegiance is to the Constitution. I gladly took the oath to defend the Constitution as an enlisted member of the military and, if anything, feel ever-stronger about the importance and dignity of that oath.

I, unlike phonies like Palin, encourage you to read the Constitution. Instead of waving a flag and promoting anti-American agenda like some sort of twisted treasonous parrot, learn about our Constitution. Here's one way: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

I also encourage you to get and hand out free copies, especially on Constitution Day (I bet you don't know when that is, but the fact that the government does not promote it or celebrate it should make you think). Get more info here: http://www.constitutioncenter.org/ncc_progs_Constitution_Day.aspx

I believe the best way to stand up for what is right is to honestly seek and share facts, with reason and compassion. This is exactly the opposite of what Taliban-like ideologues like Palin do. It is an uphill battle -- people prefer a good story to facts -- but consider the alternative.

XXX

NOTE 1: I believe Article VI addresses religious tests for government office (which Americans violate at every election these days), and the First Amendment prohibits any establishment of religion by the federal government (I include the Bill of Rights when I refer to the Constitution because the Constitution would not have been ratified without it. And, no, the Bill of Rights is not the Ten Commandments -- I wonder how many Americans believe THAT!)

Life With Judy: The Never-Ending Menu

[Life with my sister has many unusual aspects. I have decided to share some of them, with the hope of perhaps giving an insight into (which I would hope would trigger compassion for) the lives of those with developmental disabilities.]

One of Judy's favorite things is food. Whenever she goes anywhere, when she returns home I get a recitation of everything she had to eat, and sometimes even the quantities. This is often repeated either later that day or the next day (just to be sure I got it).

For instance, Judy went to a church event recently. When she got home, I heard about the food: "I had pancakes. And sausages (she has some trouble with that word). And ham." She will often drag the words a little, too, as if saying them a little slower adds to the experience ("I had paancaakes. And saausages. And haaam.") She tends to go in chronological order, with the dessert menu (the pinnacle of the dining experience, in Judy's world) coming last. She will include the beverages (she loves coffee and wine), and how many glasses/cups she had of whatever.

Whenever anyone close to her (generally meaning, Mom, Diane or me) goes to some event, Judy almost always asks about the food: "Did you have refreshments?" "What did you have to eat?"

It's not enough to just talk about food, of course. She often brings home leftovers from church. At any given time, there may be bagels, muffins, cookies or a variety of other foods in our refrigerator that she has brought home. I often wonder if the "churchmembers" think we don't feed her.

When there is some special dinner, breakfast, or other food-related event at church, we always give her money for it. Yet she still often comes home and tells us that a churchmember paid for her food. In late 2009, I told her one time that the churchmembers don't need to pay for her food -- that's why we give her money. She threw a full-out tantrum, accusing me of not wanting the churchmembers to do nice things for her. Oy. I'm sure Diane somehow saved the day and explained the deal to Judy.

Of course, she doesn't give us our money back when she lets someone else pay for her food. One week, after she had a day or two earlier allowed someone else to pay for her food, she wanted to get some takeout food (probably Chinese food, that's living the high life in her mind). I suggested that she could pay for it with the money we gave her. She laughed at me and walked away.

We try to take Judy out to eat on a fairly regular basis (we will often try to get my mother -- who is 90 years old -- to go along, as Judy likes to see her and talk to her). A trip to the diner or to Red Lobster or just about any restaurant is an event for her. Since she has trouble seeing in low light, reads slowly, has some reading comprehension issues, and often cannot make a decision, we help her out with menu choices. We know pretty much what she likes (seafood is one of her favorites) and doesn't like (tomatoes, mushrooms, etc), so we try to narrow it down to a few choices and see which one she wants, then wade through the choices for salad, soup, vegetables, potato, etc. It is not always easy. My mother sometimes makes it worse: We'll find something on the menu and Judy will agree to it, then Mom might see something else and suggest it. That resets the whole process. Time to tell the waiter/waitress we need a few more minutes.

No meal is complete in Judy's world without dessert. She will often not eat her entire dinner at a restaurant, holding a little room for something sweet. Occassionally, when the server asks if anyone wants dessert, Judy will blurt out "Sundae." Sometimes, she just perks up and starts looking at me and Diane like a cat that just heard the sound of a can opener.

Although Diane and I try to give Judy as many experiences as we can, she still lacks the fullness of a "normal" life, and food fills some of that gap for her. So while I may mutter "kill me" under my breath when she starts to tell me the menu from her most recent outing, perhaps for the second or third time, I do understand that it plays a big role in her life.

XXX

PS: As I was writing the above, it reminded me of other aspects of Judy's life that I can write about: her relationship with our mother, her attitude about money, why she doesn't like to eat tomatoes, etc., etc.

"The Mind Is Like A Parachute"

I'm sure that most of you have heard the above aphorism. It is, in my experience, usually bandied about by folks who lack the skills or willpower to employ critical thinking and find this as a nice excuse to just believe whatever they want. It is the sort of attitude that makes people like Deepak Chopra and JZ Knight (SEE NOTE 1) very wealthy.

Despite the cop-out common usage of the mind/parachute metaphor, I think it is a good metaphor. It is, in its commonly used format, however, incomplete.

Consider the application of a parachute in guiding one safely to the ground. There are many uses for parachutes, but this is the most commonly-thought-of (SEE NOTE 2). Picture yourself in freefall, then pulling the ripcord to activate your chute. With any luck, your chute opens. But does it open all the way? You'd better hope not.

A fully open parachute is nothing more than an assemblage of textile flapping in the wind as you accelerate toward a very nasty result. The chute only works if it is held in a position that allows you to control the amount of air flowing through and around it. The mind works in much the same way.

If you open your mind completely so that you have no control over it or the flow of information into and around it, it is not of much use in protecting you. You need some form of shroud lines to hold in in a controllable, useful state. Let's call these shroud lines "critical thinking" and "compassion" -- that is, the ability to use fact and reason to discern what information is best suited to help you live a happy, productive life that is not harmful to others.

Cut those strings and your parachute will indeed be more open, but that's not really a good thing for you and anything else that might get in the way as you plummet toward the ground.

So, yes, your mind is indeed like a parachute. And you should treat it with similar respect and care.

XXX

NOTE 1: In the case of JZ Knight's (trademarked) Ramtha "teachings," one's mind not only needs to be open, it needs to scraped clean of all gray and white matter, bleached, and replaced with nothing more than your credit card information.

NOTE 2: When I was stationed at Fort Bragg, the aircraft I worked on were often parked next to those of the Army's parachute team, The Golden Knights, and I knew some of the mechanics/crewmen on those aircraft, so the parachute metaphor reminds me a bit of my younger days.

"Unauthorized" Biographies

Motley Crue bassist Nikki Sixx recently posted the following on his web site. It brings up an interesting topic:

"Years ago an unauthorized biography called 'An Education in Rebellion' was written about me without my approval or support. It was never endorsed. In fact, I disapproved and considered legal action because I felt fans were getting ripped off by being sold a book without my involvement.

"I feel fans have bought it under the assumption that I approved of it because the writers have collected interviews from people that make it seem relevant. These people who were interviewed have told me afterwards that they had no idea that their conversations were being used for an unauthorized book.

"I want to say that I do not, now or ever, approve of people riding the coattails of other people's hard work and personal lives — this is criminal, in my opinion. This is no different than what the paparazzi does or the gossipy crap that perches like vultures on our newsstands with magazines like the National Enquirer.

"The writer and publisher are now 're-releasing' the book with updated information based on my success with MÖTLEY CRÜE, SIXX: A.M., 'The Heroin Diaries' and other ventures I'm involved in. It's scummy at best, to be honest. My attorneys have already sent them legal letters directing them to stop, but they know the loopholes and how to get around them.

"Believe it or not, the law allows anyone to write a book about anyone else without getting proper permission, which is really crazy, because my fans think this was endorsed or approved by me, and it's not.

"This is sad. These people are now partnering up with a company to sell ownership rights to the book's master rights, even though they are my life rights — again, bordering on scum.

"As a fan of music, I do not buy anything unauthorized, because I know, unless the artist signs off on it, it's hearsay, gossip, and made up to pad the pockets of the writers, publishers, etc.

"Their website gives people the false impression that these 'auctions' have the fans buying some portion of revenues that go to artists or songwriters. In my case, at least, nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing comes to me or my family. It's hurtful.

"It's this kind of thing that makes me even more excited to do the 'Sixx Sense' radio show.

"I look forward to shining a spotlight on issues like this one — issues that go unnoticed and issues that may otherwise slip through the cracks.

"In the end, I worry about the fans being ripped off. I cannot (nor can any of my friends in the public eye) stop these bottom feeders.

"If you want to know about MÖTLEY CRÜE, get 'The Dirt'. If you want to know about band members, get their individual books, but don't support this type of behavior on this or any artists....

"They say they're excited to share this with fans and that may be so, but if it's not about the money... then donate it to charity."

Sixx doesn't think that people should make money from writing about others, even calling suggesting that it "is criminal, in [his] opinion." That pretty much wipes out the field of biographies, as well as a great deal of news reporting.

Thank of any "unauthorized" biography you may have read. Should that book have been illegal?

When a writer reports on, say, the background of a political candidate, should that be illegal, unless it is approved by the subject?

My own nonfiction writing would be affected by such a law. In my first book, I wrote quite a bit about the lives of lighthouse keepers, their families, and associated figures. Some of these subjects were/are still alive. Should I have been prohibited about writing about these people without some sort of written permission and payment to them?

Let's keep in mind that most of us have some skeletons in our closets that are part of our history, and part of who we are, that we would not really like to see out in the public. Given the opportunity, many people would only approve or support a revisionist version of their own history. Is that the right thing to do? We need to be aware of the difference between non-fiction and PR.

You'll notice that Sixx did not make any specific claims regarding the truthfulness of the book in question. There are laws against libel, but he does not mention any such instances. I, personally, would not use information from someone who did not know their statements would be used in a book. article, etc., but what did the interviewees in question think they were being interviewed for?

Sixx says that "the law allows anyone to write a book about anyone else without getting proper permission, which is really crazy." Really? Freedom of information is crazy? Try to imagine a world where nothing was written without the approval of the subject. This would create a body of historical work that would basically make for a big press release to the future; a Disneyfied version of the real world. The word "Soviet" comes to mind.

This reminds me a bit of the Sedition Act of 1798, which is generally considered a black eye on the Adams presidency and would probably not have held up as constitutional had it been challenged in court before expiring in 1801. Part of it made the following illegal:

"...if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States..."

When we read between the lines of Sixx's blog, I think we see him frustrated by the lack of control and cash that an "unauthorized" biography affords him. Celebrity has its down sides, and this is one of them. When you become a public figure of any degree, your marketability can sometimes hurt your feelings. I have had half-truths -- and even some outright lies -- leveled against me in the newspaper and on the radio, but that's the way it goes.

I don't think that anyone, including Nikki Sixx, would suggest what he proposed once they had thought it through.

XXX

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE: I should point out that I am somewhat of a Motley Crue fan. I have seen them in concert a few times and consider them to be a good rock band (not in the technical or innovation sense, but in the fun, rebellious rock 'n' roll sound and attitude sense). Had the blog in question been written by, say, Mariah Carey, I probably would not have been so nice.

More Misinformation From Deepak Chopra

I recently wrote about my introduction to the work of Deepak Chopra. Not too long after that, I had the displeasure of hearing him on the radio. He confirmed my opinion of him very well. For this, he at least deserves some credit for being consistent (being consistently wrong and full of shit is still consistency).

Let's look at some of the lowlights from his radio appearance, based on the notes I took as he spoke...

He spoke about the correlation between meditation and changes in the body, including the brain. This is a valid and documented association. But he used this to promote his faux-scientific (and money-making) view of a mind separate from the brain influencing biology. Let's use a computer analogy here: Is installed software separate from the computer? If you load new software on your computer, does it affect the processes in the computer? Of course it does! Does this require some form of New Age magic? No! The correlation between the workings of the mind/brain and the biological functions of the body, if anything, help to disprove his crap, not prove it. Change the mind, change the body. Change the body, change the mind. Why does this happen? Ummm, maybe because the mind is biologically-based? But that does not put money in his pocket, so he makes a right at Alberquerque, when the truth is to the left (SEE NOTE).

Chopra admitted in the interview that he shunned physiology as a medical student for emotional reasons (he was grossed out by dead bodies), but then spun it as being some sort of grand epiphany that the medical field was wrong for thinking that it could learn about life from studying dead things. Again, a skilled rhetorical tactic. Can one learn about fire by studying the fuels from which fire arises? Umm... yes. You can build a perfect turbine engine without having to have worked with a running one. You don't need to invoke some sort of mystical fire-soul thing, but you sure do need to understand the mechanics of it all.

At one point, he referred to Buddhism to supposedly back up his make-believe world views, specifically mentioning the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh. This was a tactic of his that I have noted before: Completely flip the truth upside down. Both the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh have made it quite clear that science knows more than Buddhism about the fabric of reality, and both have written that when science and Buddhism conflict, Buddhism must change to reflect the facts. This is, of course, completely the opposite of the position of faux-science peddlers like Chopra.

My head almost exploded when he said "Angioplasty does not prolong life a single percent." Yes that is a direct quote. This is so brazenly in the face of fact that I am not sure what to say. I have a brother who had angioplasty almost twenty years ago and he is still alive and kicking. Another brother of mine had two stents put in five-plus years ago. My own angioplasty was done in November 2007. I went from rapidly-progressing angina to a complete absence of angina in the course of a 45-minute-or-so procedure and was back to work and playing music live in less than a week. When I went to my doctor for my follow-up visit, he looked at the images of my heart before the procedure, with the left anterior descending artery more than 90% blocked, and told me that 35 years ago, when he entered the medical field, that was a death sentence. Why would Deepak Chopra tell such a horrible lie? Because real medicine is science-based (i.e., fact-based) and he is a peddler of snake oil (anti-science). Reality is the enemy of his financial success, so he must do all he can to deny it.

He was spewing so much crap that I could not keep up with my note-taking. I did note at one point that he was a "full-out, damn the torpedoes Bullshit artist."

This second exposure to Deepak Chopra left me with the same impression as the first: This man is not as stupid or ignorant as his statements would seem to indicate. He knows what he has to do to sell his products. Everything out of his mouth or pen or keyboard is a commercial carefully crafted to sell those products. What is somewhat ironic to me is that I see his target demographic as being many of the same people who are anti-capitalism/corporation/business. These same people who mistrust corporate advertising totally buy into Deepak Chopra's corporate advertising. Make no mistake about this: He IS Big Business.

XXX

NOTE: Yes, a Bugs Bunnyism. Bugs, unlike Chopra, earned an honest living and had worthy lessons to teach.

Homosexuality In The US Military

The idea that any able-bodied US citizen with a clean civil and criminal record should be denied the opportunity to serve their nation is reprehensible. In fact, if the idea of an American citizen being denied civil rights by the government (or anyone) doesn't make you feel this way, you need to contemplate your sense of patriotism. The opposition to homosexuals in the military is nothing more than a fear-based reaction to the real world. It's time to, if I may use this colloquialism, "man up" and deal with it.

I have yet to hear a comprehensible reason for not allowing homosexuals to serve openly. I have only heard or read bullshit. A comment thread on the subject on Military.com is pretty typical of the Neanderthal-sees-fire-for-the-first-time reactionary mindset that it boils down to. The two main "reasons" seem to be 1. "I don't want a fag looking at me in the shower," and 2. Homosexuals are an abomination to God.

While neither of these are any real form of reasoning, I guess I should address them:

1. a. Fags have probably already looked at you in the shower (maybe you just weren't hot enough to warrant a reaction?), b. Open showers are not as common in the military as they would have you think, c. Stop being a sissy.

2. Maybe if you agree to keep your childish/fearful/hateful religion to yourself, homosexuals will be more willing to keep their homosexuality to themselves.

In short, if these sissy-mary bible-thumpers want to serve in a military where their Middle Eastern god's detestation of homosexuals is part of policy, I think the Taliban has some openings. Take your divided loyalties and go; we don't need you dragging America into the Dark Ages.

Some of these idiots try the "troop morale" angle. Well, what's worse for troop morale than sending thousands of Americans to their deaths (or mangling) and orphaning American children in senseless occupations of backward countries? Where's the uprising there?

How about the fact that women do not have to meet the same standards as men to have the same military occupations? I KNOW multiple standards are bad for morale (in fact, it cost me my flight status, and the accompanying additional monthly pay, at Fort Bragg). Where are the phone calls to radio shows, press releases from members of Congress, and various other forms of protest about what this does to morale?

I served in the pre-DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell) military and don't recall homosexuality ever being a concern to anyone I ever served with in those eight years, three months and two days. I am sure I must have served with homosexuals. So? If they meet the same physical and mental standards as any other (in my case) soldier, then leave them alone.

There are strict sexual harassment regulations in the UCMJ (SEE NOTES 1 and 2). These can just as easily apply to homosexuals as to heterosexuals (SEE NOTE 3). If some homosexual looks at you in the shower and winks at you and you get scared, you file a sexual harassment complaint (after you stop sobbing, pry yourself out of the fetal position, and mop up the puddle of urine). THAT'S WHAT THE DAMNED RULES ARE FOR!

Yes, when DADT is stricken down, bogus sexual harassment complaints will be filed at first. So it needs to be made clear that false accusations will be punished quickly and severely (making false accusations about a fellow military member is pretty close to treason, if you ask me). This won't be an easy transition -- growing up is tough -- but with some honesty and courage (and maybe even a little compassion from all), the process can be made as painless as possible.

Military readiness is not something I take lightly (one of many reasons I oppose undeclared wars and unnecessary occupations of foreign nations). Really, if someone can give me a good reason -- a reason that is not based solely on fear -- why a group of otherwise-qualified citizens should be barred from serving their nation, I am listening.

XXX

NOTE 1: The UCMJ is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the basis for military law in the US. You may read as much as you can stand here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

NOTE 2: A non-military woman called in to WNYC's Brian Lehrer radio show to complain that the military should be more worried about sexual harassment against female military members. I became so incensed at this distorted depiction of the military that I called in to the show. Unfortunately, they ran out of time before I could get on the air to correct this. The civilian world is much more lenient than the military when it comes to sexual harassment. I regularly hear things in the workplace and in public that would end a military career.

NOTE 3: I'd bet that if you were to compile statistics, you'd find the "anti-fag" contingent to be over-represented as subjects in sexual harassment investigations. They merely fear someone doing to them what they do to others. I think this is called "projection."