Saturday, November 23, 2013

Too Pretty for Combat?


By Gerard Emershaw


Colonel Lynne Arnhart complained in an internal U.S. Army e-mail that female soldiers pictured in military press releases are too pretty, and set off a maelstrom of controversy in the mainstream media and the blogosphere. Arnhart claimed:



In general, ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead…. There is a general tendency to select nice looking women when we select a photo to go with an article (where the article does not reference a specific person). It might behoove us to select more average looking women for our comms strategy. For example, the attached article shows a pretty woman, wearing make-up while on deployed duty. Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered hazardous duty).

Giving Colonel Arnhart the benefit of the doubt, one may have imagined that the Army had illustrated an article with a photo of a supermodel. However, the article, featuring a photo of CPL Kristine Tejada, was a photo of an actual soldier providing security while on duty in Iraq. Taken at face value, Colonel Arnhart’s statement is wrongheaded. It is an empirical question whether “ugly women” are perceived as more competent than “pretty women.” Studies have shown that when women wear makeup, they are perceived as being more competent. Studies have also shown that attractive people tend to be more intelligent. It is also strange that Colonel Arnhart is employing a double standard. Are ugly men perceived as more competent? Should the Army use photos of “average looking men” to illustrate official publications?


Official Army publications can be characterized as public relations materials. Perhaps they can even be characterized as propaganda. Television commercials and other advertising tend to employ attractive men and women. This is unsurprising. Why should the Army not do the same? The Army must be doing something right. Enlisted military routinely ranks among the worst jobs in the country, and 6,750 U.S. service members have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite this, all branches of the United States armed forces have been meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals.

Colonel Arnhart’s statement also highlights what the military actually thinks about Americans in general and potential recruits in general. Who is stupid enough to believe that a “pretty woman” in the military has gotten ahead merely because of her looks? Who is stupid enough to believe that serving in the armed forces is a glamorous job? Colonel Arnhart essentially believes that Americans are either misogynists or naïve fools, and it is not a stretch to believe that this attitude is common among the military brass.

The issue of women in the United States military goes far beyond academic feminism or political correctness. There is a danger that this particular story will lead people to view it all as a superficial matter. The truth is that this issue is anything but superficial.

Sexual harassment and sexual assault are alarmingly widespread in the armed forces. Between 2011 and 2012, there were 26,000 sexual assaults committed in the armed forces. This was up from 19,000 in 2010. The victims are predominantly women. Attitudes such as that exhibited by Colonel Arnhart reinforce the notion that female service members are nothing but objects characterized completely by physical appearance. Such attitudes only serve to further endanger women in the military.

In January, the U.S. military officially lifted its ban on women serving in combat roles. While the issue of whether women should serve in combat roles will continue to be hotly debated, the nature of modern warfare likely makes it inevitable. Modern warfare is becoming more technological. However, the real question is not whether women should serve in combat roles. In fact, they already do. Over 150 female service members have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the economy still in tatters and no true recovery in sight, it is likely that more women will enlist in the armed forces. With the way that neoconservatives in the Republican Party and neo-progressives in the Democratic Party warmonger and allow the armed forces to be used unconstitutionally by imperial presidents as cannon fodder to protect corporatist and foreign interests, far more women will be needlessly endangered. Far more service members will be cruelly sacrificed regardless of gender.

The fact that the Army is concerned at all with how attractive its female members are displays how warped its priorities are. The Army should be concerned with protecting the proud and brave women who serve this nation from sexual harassment and sexual assault. The Army should also be concerned with ensuring that women and men in the armed forces are only placed in danger in defense of the nation and not in the defense of corporate or foreign interests.    




Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Obamacare Surveillence

By Gerard Emershaw


The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has drawn fire for its patent unconstitutionality, its corporatist nature, its website, and its high cost. Another reason to fear and loathe Obamacare is that it provides yet another way for Big Brother to spy on Americans. ACA includes the Federal Data Services Hub (FDSH) which is a “comprehensive database of personal information being established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement the federally facilitated health insurance exchanges.” According to the General Accountability Office (GAO), the purpose of this database is to “provide electronic, near real-time access to federal data, as well as provide access to state and third party data sources needed to verify consumer-eligibility information.” This database will allow the ACA health insurance exchanges to determine the eligibility of Americans for subsidies and to determine mandate penalties by accessing data from the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Veterans Health Administration, the Department of Defense, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Peace Corps. It will include “comprehensive personal information such as income and financial data, family size, citizenship and immigration status, incarceration status, social security numbers, and private health information.” Centralizing so much private information will allow American spy agencies like the FBI and CIA to do one stop shopping for vital information on citizens.

Even if the FDSH is not simply a candy store of private information on which the FBI or CIA can feast, the FDSH is likely going to be patently illegal. The Privacy Act of 1974 makes it illegal for government agencies to share individuals’ private information except in very specific instances such as for statistical purposes by the Census Bureau or Bureau of Labor Statistics, law enforcement purposes, routine use by federal agencies, or for congressional investigations. In addition, the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) mandates that federal government agencies develop and implement appropriate security to protect such information. The FDSH is not expected to be able to comply with FISMA by the time the insurance exchanges are scheduled to open.

Even if the FDSH becomes compliant with the law, the potential for misuse of the private information contained in this giant database is great. Even if the federal government does not use this information for nefarious purposes, it cannot ensure that the private entities which will access the information will not misuse it. The insurance exchanges will employ “Navigators” who are “community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups, to which exchanges award grants to provide fair and impartial public education” and “refer consumers as appropriate for further assistance.” There is no way to ensure that these “Navigators” will not misuse the information. It was recently revealed that no criminal background check is required for “Navigators.” Even if they conduct themselves honestly, there is no way to ensure that identity thieves or some other third party with bad intentions will not steal the information from the “Navigators.” Americans simply should not have to be caught between the Scylla of government surveillance and the Charybdis of identity theft when it comes to their confidential records held by government agencies.