Getting A Grip

Rep Paul Broun's anti-"porn" Bill has caught some notice in ye olde blogosphere. We discussed it yesterday at MilBlogs (starting with Badger6's post from Iraq), and I think we've beat it damn near to death. (Or at least until it's rather limp and fading fast.) Still, watching the blog discussions, I'm struck that many well-intentioned folks are missing the real issues here.

1. This isn't about "our boys in Iraq" - they've never had porn available in the BX/PX over there. (It's too late to be outraged about that now - you missed the boat in 1990.) Here in the 21st century their porn supplies are limited to whatever meager amounts they can bring into country on the 1 TB external hard drives they plug into the personal laptop computers they also bring over, boosted by whatever "trading" they do with their comrades or obtain downtown. (All of which is a violation of General Order One, and I have no personal knowledge of any of our troops actually doing this and I'm sure the Army has employed several thousand inspectors to vigorously scan those personal computers not on the network for secret hidden password protected folders containing things that might make Congressman Broun blush with shame especially if it's gay porn with hot girl-on-girl action.) It's about bases in the good ol' USA - none of which are in Congressman Broun's district.

BUT

2. It's not about banning Playboy - it's about banning Maxim, FHM (which currently are available in the combat zones), and a host of other sources (the Victoria's Secret catalog, for instance) of pictures of smutty, perverted, disgusting filth such as "any part of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola with less than an opaque covering" - among other things defined by this bill as "nudity". R-rated movies (and some PG-13) would be right out. (Please read this post in which we examine the Bill instead of the media coverage of the Bill prior to arguing this point.) But bare in mind that if passed, "our boys" (and girls) won't be unable to obtain said items, they'd simply be forced to walk across the street and buy their copies of "Showgirls" with John Q Public at Best Buy - or order them online (even in Iraq).

BUT

3. Because taxpayer funds are not involved directly in the AAFES acquisition and distribution of this material, Broun's spokesman explained that the indirect use of taxpayer funds - in that taxpayers provide the salaries of the soldiers that might purchase said items - validates a congressional ban.

So, ignore the outrage over whether or not our brave GIs will be able to get at least one of their hands on this material - I suspect they'll manage. (And by the way, even though it has 16 cosponsors, I suspect this Bill is going to die in committee). Instead ask yourself if you're comfortable with the precedents set in items 2 and 3 above.

And ponder the comments from SFC SKI. Read carefully, he might be talking to you.

It’s good to know that those 16 backers have taken care of all the other problems the military faces and are now taking care of this issue.

Nothing builds up my morale like some know-nothing busybody congressman checking up on conditions at military bases and being able to see the lack of adequate and affordable housing, reduction in base services like affordable childcare, or the various pawn shops, strip bars, and “E-Z credit know money down payday loan” places lining both sides of the entry to a military post, and can see it’s nudie mags in the PX that is the big threat facing “our boys and girls” in uniform. Oh for the day when 18 is considered adulthood, and not some waypoint on the prolonged childhood the nannystaters want it to be.