"Look over here! Look over here! Look at the widdle Gay Cootie brouhaha! Oopsie! Zinged that health care right past you, didn't I?"Given the role that independent voters played in the Scott Brown upset, it'll be disappointing to see the GOP fall for this obvious distraction, clearly intended as a wedge issue to split the libertarian wing of the party from the God squad.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Now we find out if they've learned their lesson:
With the S.S. Economy listing forty degrees to port and the holds awash in red ink, let's see if the GOP and their talk radio mouthpieces get all wrapped around the axle making sure that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell deck chairs are in a neat little row.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Probably not.
"Nothing up my sleeve; nothing up my other sleeve." Bullwinkle
Given the role that independent voters played in the Scott Brown upset, it'll be disappointing to see the GOP fall for this obvious distraction, clearly intended as a wedge issue to split the libertarian wing of the party from the God squad.
"Look over here! Look over here! Look at the widdle Gay Cootie brouhaha! Oopsie! Zinged that health care right past you, didn't I?"
Quite a few prominent R's and military leaders have publicly voiced support for eliminating the DADT policy in favor of allowing gays in the military. So while it may rile the talk radio numbnuts, it's unlikely to derail the R's momentum in Congress.
The stickier issue... sorry, no pun intended...
The harder issue... wait, no...
The more difficult issue will be establishing and enforcing policies that protect the new openly gay soldiers from discrimination without getting servicemen tossed in the brig or courtmartialed for the gay equivalent of "it rhymes with Delores!" comments.
Well, one thing the progressives have always been good at is divide and conquer (or at least, divide and tax the hell out of 'em).
Sneaky (or is it snakey?) bastards did it with ASHA as a recent example, attempting to portray themselves as "responsible hunters" and such. Same thing with the open carry vs concealed carry. Instead of saying, we're all on the same side here, let's just carry; they fight each other, and the progressives inch closer towards their goal.
That, and they never stop. Every election cycle, every year, every session, they are testing the waters and putting forth some sort of tax increase, gun ban or some other outrageous legislation aimed squarely at reducing freedoms.
I think that what finally woke me up was that when the "R" party finally had control, and had it squarely, they did nothing to counter it. Nada, zip. No new legislation aimed at tearing down the garbage laws that hindered freedom, or they offered tax cuts that really weren't cuts, and increased government (both in scope and spending).
Truth is, the two big parties are nothing more than two sides of the same dirty nickel, and worth about that much.
I've really started to like the look of GOOOH. http://goooh.com/home.aspx
It may not happen this year (probably won't) but it sure looks like a better solution than waiting on either party to start sending better candidates, or for a third party to finally gain some ground the "traditional way."
Should add this to your Bread and Circuses heading, since it's the same old song and dance that we've become accustomed to for ages now.
Had exactly that thought when I heard SOTU.
Since it's the one campaign promise that he can execute by writing a couple of sentences, I wondered what he was saving it for.
"The more difficult issue will be establishing and enforcing policies that protect the new openly gay soldiers from discrimination"
How about policies ensuring that if their shipmates complain about harassment, people actually listen. Gays in the military may be treated poorly by some if the policy changes. But if I were still in, and some guy was oggling me in the berthing and showers every day, I'd want to know that I have some kind of recourse.
Todd, I disagree. The most difficult issue will be devising and implementing controls to ensure that the personal decency of recruits--who must strip and shower in front of each other and their instructors--is protected, both for homosexuals and heterosexuals. There's a difference between the mild embarassment (humiliation) of undressing and the sexual objectification of feeling like you're on display, and that line is not fine at all. In fact, it exists in the private world, too; between men's and women's locker rooms, showers, toilet facilities, etc.
"Go ahead, Mr. (or Ms.) Drill Instructor, prove to me that you're not homosexual. Then you can watch me shower." The generals don't seem to be thinking this through. It will be the military's fault when some troop feels violated, whether his/her feelings are reasonable or not. DADT is the military's fig leaf.
If they don't make some drastic overhauls to training logistics before repealing DADT then I suspect the DoD is in for a bumpy ride, either from legal challenges or from a shocking drop in recruiting and retention. This is a legitimate concern. There will be other problems as well--interpersonal conflicts that negatively impact mission capability. These concerns may not be legitimate, but they are very real.
How in Shiva's name have other militaries survived this mighty challenge?
Looks like Shrimp is on the right track. Any true patriot will agree that when government represents the people, good things happen. When it doesn't, well, we're living it aren't we? I recommend everyone check out <a href="http://www.goooh.com</a>GOOOH</a>. The two parties have the same agenda, just different ways of executing it. Globalism has infested both parties, and saddled the american taxpayer for financing useless globalist UN "meetings" where they hatch scams like oil for food. The government that governs closest, governs best. The best thing about GOOOH is no one can really disagree unless they have no faith in republican government. GOOOH is simply dedicated to promoting the candidate that represents their district best, there's no political agenda or platform. It's also a party system that shuts out special interest groups and lobbyists, who seem to worry more about their own profit than the strength of the republic.
The only issue with having the gays in the military is that the removal of "don't ask, don't tell" has to come through the Congress. In all fairness, I don't see this becoming a huge issue for two reasons.
1. Democrats running in predominately black districts will find it a loser to campaign for it. Prop 8 in California passed with overwhelming support due in part by Obama voters. This issue will be tabled and forgotten about, and will be chalked up to another broken promise by Barry the Kenyan.
2. Republicans merely have to remain silent about it until it comes up. In reality, most Republicans will probably not block it because they know it will do alot more damage to Democrats than themselves. 1 solid defection from the GOP(Snowe, Collins) would allow this to go through. I hope this does come up. The GOP could block it, have it go through, and then reap the rewards of damage to the Dem's! Beautiful!
Every person who desires to serve their country should be given that opportunity. Activists however, of any persuasion, have no place in the military. Find a way to exclude them, their agendas and diversions, and I can't see how any fair-minded, freedom-loving person could disagree.
But wait...I wonder how gays will view one of their front-burner issues being reduced to a few sentences in the SOTU essay of the bright-eyed, pure-minded dearleader as just that; a diversion to further a purely political, and amazing crass and cold, agenda.
This one has backfire (heh) written all over it.
Al Terego
"How in Shiva's name have other militaries survived this mighty challenge?"
By appeasing/surrendering at every turn and waiting for America to bail them out? ;) I'm a student of history (anything less than a century old is current events) so I can only point to the most obvious example in ancient Sparta--one which no one believes we should emulate.
I served under Klin-ton. I opposed DADT then and would repeal it in the other direction, for my own reasons of which y'all are already aware. That aside, there's a gigantic logistical hurdle to what the president and the generals are proposing, and I've not seen anyone seriously address it. It's not insignificant.
Americans, for all the "progress" we've made, are not anywhere near as cavalier with our sexuality as other countries.
None of that would preclude the military's obligation to accomodate sexuality in the training environment, however. I can't think of any way around it, either (and I've been trying--it's kind of my field).
Given my chats with regular officers of some of these "modern" armies you speak of, simply repealing the gay ban isn't a great idea.
Now, if they would use teh concepts of "no public displays of affection in uniform" (or at least teh major PDAs), "conduct unbecoming", harrassment, and fraternization, and applied them IDENTICALLY across gender and sexual orientation lines, I think the military can salute, say, "Yes, Sir!" and execute if ordered to allow openly gay troops to serve. Don't like watching behavior "X" when done by a male soldier and his boyfriend? Don't allow the same behavior by soldier "Y" and his girlfriend.
If you served, you served WITH good troops who were gay. If you served long enough, you probably knew who many of them were. And if they were good enough and discrete enough, you probably would have covered for them as much as honor permitted is queried.
I'm specifically thinking of one SFC in teh S1 section, who would have had to beat off "character witnesses" about being a ladies man if CID had investigated. In a unit of (mostly redneck) straight drill sergeants. In the late 1980's.
Becuase Marty was one of US, and he'd do anything honor would permit him to do to cover OUR asses (or our soldiers) if we found ourselves in a jam. The fact that Marty's off-post "roommate" (and occaisional guest at family events) was pretty obvious was irrelevant.
Even the fundamentalist guy studying to become a Baptist preacher, who was SURE Marty was going to Hell if he didn't "reform his sexuality" would have covered for him. Gene prayed for Marty regularly, but figured only God had a right to punish him for his "sin", since it hurt no one else.
". . . who would have had to beat off "character witnesses" . . ." with a stick
With those words ommitted, it sounds fairly homoerotic in it's own right. Which was not what I meant to say. [grin]
Actually, there are a number of enlisted in the Navy that aren't even trying to be in the closet anymore, and no one cares. There were a couple of guys that were out in the reactor department on one of the aircraft carriers that came though my shipyard. The guys in their division didn't care. So they presumably did a good job of not making anyone feel like they were being treated like a piece of meat. I certainly didn't care, because even if they were pigs, I didn't have to share living space with them.
I always laughing a little when one of them would talk about his "girlfriend" in NYC. Everyone in the room knew what he meant. But you never knew who would walk into the control room.
I don't have an issue with gays in the military at all. But, having been in the Navy not long after the Tailhook fiasco, I would be worried about the pendulum going too far in the other direction again.
1. Thank you veterans for your service.
2. Geodkyt has it. To whom we are attracted ought to be no issue, because work should not be the place where we act on attraction.
There is many a straight sailor or soldier with a burning, unrequited crush on a fellow service member of the opposite sex, and we don't get excited about that fact. Want whom you want, we don't care.
The services already have rules and policies and customs when there is action on heterosexual attraction. Use the same ones for homosexual doings.
Soldiering isn't 9-5 for IBM, but the same rule ought to apply.
3. As to "it has to go through Congress", 10 USC654 says in pertinent part "(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense..."
So all TheOne has to do is command the Secretary of Defense to delete all discharge procedures under this section, and to alter all Service regulations by removing the first four letters from the word "homosexual" wherever it appears.
Easy. If he really wants to.
And there's always the loophole.
I swear by 19 Rue Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the next captcha is TRYST. Perfect for some more Julia, talking about me this time.
Staghounds,
The words "shall be seperated" don't leave a lot of room for wiggling.
"Shall seperate" is about as discretionary as "shall issue".
But, hey, the Dems have unquestioned control of both houses and the WH -- they can end the nasty homophobic discrimination that we all know the Republicans are guilty of, right?
That is, if they actually GAVE a damn for gays other than as a captive splinter group vote.
Post a Comment