Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Adventure is worthwhile - Aesop

Lame duck congress to screw us one last time?

Today our lame duck 111th congress gets back in session. The one led by Pelosi, whom promised transparency, fiscal restraint and responsibility, and a new high in ethical standards. The same one that then promptly set new lows for corrupt practices and law breaking, resorted to demanding bills be passed so we citizens could finally find out what our law makers had straddled us with, engaged in record setting bribery, costing tax payers billions, to buy votes for the government takeover of healthcare, which they still swear will save us tax payers money when it is blatantly obvious the thing will bankrupt us and in the process of doing so reduce both availability and quality to lows that will leave us with something akin to the Cuban system so loved on the left, and in general pissed money away like it was growing on trees. The one where the democrat majority got the worst shellacking in a mid term election, breaking their record losses incurred during the Clinton years.

The main topics? If we should be allowed to keep more of “their” money, a temporary spending bill, more power to the FDA to overregulate food, a school lunch bill to waste more of the tax payer’s money with little result, the horrible START treaty, “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, and of course, another extension to the unemployment fund.

The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year, and the demcorats are still pissed they have not been able to screw the “rich”, which really means stick it to the small business owners trying to get rich, because as we all know, the really rich, which practically always seem to be demcorats, don’t pay taxes. They have accountants to get them out of that, or simply ignore the laws they write for us all. After all, as I already said, they believe it is the government’s money anyway, and we should be grateful they aren’t taking it back across the board! Who cares if this stuff would spur economic growth anyway? All the “enlightened” people know government is the real vehicle to spur economic growth. And if it is not, it should be. Can’t have the market pick the winners and losers, because it isn’t up on all that social justice, green earth, or whatever the feel good term of the day driving government’s decisions might be. Power to the government!

We also need a temporary spending bill because the 111th congress still has not put together the real one. That’s because they wisely assumed before the recent election happened that once the American people got a good look at how much money they had already pissed away, that there would have been repercussions. They still got a drubbing, but I bet you that if the American people had gotten a look at how bad it was, the drubbing would have been far worse. Instead, the strategy is to cover just enough time and then kick the though job to the next congress to deal with. Let those evil teabaggers deal with the real issues! How nice of them.

The FDA is supposed to be getting greater authority to order food recalls and inspect imported food. I am certain that since this yet again involves an expansion of government power and agencies, we citizens can expect that this will work as effectively as FEMA does when dealing with any catastrophes: it will make the little ones bigger, and the big ones worse. And that school nutrition plan thing is another big joke. Healthier school lunches might be a lofty goal, but I have a feeling we will be just wasting money providing food the kids will simply not eat anyway. I have a teen, and while he is a healthy eater and in great shape, I also know that if he doesn’t want to eat something, there isn’t a damned way the school is going to make him eat it.

I doubt they touch START. The thing is a disaster, and the Obama team really dropped the ball negotiating this crap. There are way too many holes and unresolved issues that make the treaty all but worthless paper.

How they deal with “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is going to be interesting. They could decide to score one for the team and in their typical fashion straddle us with something worse, or they might just kick this one to the next congress as well. My bet is that whatever we end up with will be worse than “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and create more problems while not doing much to deal with the issue at hand. After all, the objective of most of the people that have a problem with “Don’t ask, don’t tell” isn’t to really make the military more effective or to help gays in the military, but to do social engineering. That stuff never works out well.

The extension of unemployment benefits is needed to pay off all the poor shlobs left unemployed because of the Keynesian economic bullshit that the left has been relying on to “fix” the economic downturn for the past 2 or 3 years. The one caused by their ridiculous push to force lending institutions to give homeownership loans to obvious risky loan applicants of all kinds, in the name of social justice or whatnot, but which they solely blame Bush for. They consider this misuse of tax payer’s money a good & noble thing. I bet the unemployed people, well most of them I hope, would much rather get a real paying job than this handout, but why mar their stupid beliefs that they are doing something noble with reality?

I am also sure they will not touch the recommendations to cut Medicare and Social Security made by Obama’s “crack team” with a ten foot pole, preferring to pass that one to the next congress as well. You can then malign them for doing so, and hope the demonization campaign is able to reverse the mass migration away from the donkey party by the senior citizens shown in the last election cycle.

At least Global Warming and the Dream Act are not on the table right now. Finally there is talk of looking at airport security and all the problems currently in the news. My guess is that if they do anything it will just make it all worse and produce zero improvements in security. All in all, I expect them to screw us over hard. That’s what they do best after all.

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/29/10 at 08:29 AM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by Ed Kline on 11/29/10 at 01:19 PM from United States

After all, the objective of most of the people that have a problem with “Don’t ask, don’t tell” isn’t to really make the military more effective or to help gays in the military, but to do social engineering.

What utter bullshit Alex.

Posted by on 11/29/10 at 01:29 PM from United States

I have a problem with don’t ask, don’t tell - the policy is crap.  It’s not about social engineering, it’s about an outdated policy that does no good at all.

You know who supports banning gays from military service?  Old farts that still think being homosexual is a “lifestyle choice” and that they are all literally going to “burn in hell”.  Nobody else generally gives a shit, which is why when the current crop of geriatrics is all in the dirt the issue will just as dead as they are.

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/29/10 at 03:29 PM from United States

What utter bullshit Alex.

Really? Then why the actions to repeal it and leave the UCMJ, which is much harder, in charge of this stuff? You would think that these geniuses would know better?

I have a problem with don’t ask, don’t tell - the policy is crap.  It’s not about social engineering, it’s about an outdated policy that does no good at all.

You are correct. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was a piss poor attempt at compromise. The social engineering I am referring to is the desire to repeal it without understanding what the consequences of not doing so without making changes to the UMCJ to address the changes, and pretending that all will be well.

You know who supports banning gays from military service?  Old farts that still think being homosexual is a “lifestyle choice” and that they are all literally going to “burn in hell”.

How about those people, like me, that think the military is already overstretched by ridiculous PC regulations that have seriously hampered its ability to fight effectively while costing the tax payers billions with very little in return for it? And for the record, unless you are having sex with children, I pretty much don’t care what you do or with whom you do it. What I do care about is how pussified the military is becoming because of this constant crap.

Pardon me for believing that our military should focus on breaking the enemy’s shit, and killing the bastards, that’s what war is all about, and that things like this – done poorly by people with political agendas - aren’t going to make it better at that task, or make it easier for the people put in harm’s way to do their work. Sorry to bust your bubble on that gay hating “old fart” thing.

Posted by on 11/29/10 at 03:34 PM from United States

What I do care about is how pussified the military is becoming because of this constant crap.

In what way? I see vets at work, some of them rather young, and the rank & file grunt/swabbie/jarhead/flyboy seems to be pretty much the same as they were 30 years ago.  Are you referring to how politicized the brass is getting over this crap?

Posted by on 11/29/10 at 03:37 PM from United States

Really? Then why the actions to repeal it and leave the UCMJ, which is much harder, in charge of this stuff? You would think that these geniuses would know better?

I bet your average non-vet hasn’t even heard of the UCMJ, much less considered revising the outdated morality sections that appeared to have been created in WW1.  I’d be willing to give the UCMJ a complete rewrite if it’s still essentially unchanged since I last read it.

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/29/10 at 03:40 PM from United States

In what way? I see vets at work, some of them rather young, and the rank & file grunt/swabbie/jarhead/flyboy seems to be pretty much the same as they were 30 years ago.

Ask them. I am sure if they feel comfortable they will tell you about all the PC bull.

Are you referring to how politicized the brass is getting over this crap?

Actually the brass is playing CYA, as is always the case, but doubly so in these modern times, because they know the politicians will force changes that in the end have not been well thought out. They will either have to live with a double standard where breaking the UMCJ rules by gays is ignored, to avoid the political repercussions and circus that is certain to accompany said event, in the process clearly pissing off the troops that will not miss the double standards, or become lax on enforcement for everyone. In the end morale and discipline will suffer.

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/29/10 at 03:47 PM from United States

I bet your average non-vet hasn’t even heard of the UCMJ, much less considered revising the outdated morality sections that appeared to have been created in WW1.

DING DING DING!

I’d be willing to give the UCMJ a complete rewrite if it’s still essentially unchanged since I last read it.

Should we not have done that before we went and tampered with the compromise that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” put in place, to prevent things from getting out of hand? Instead, what we have is a political crusade by ignorant shitheads that think they are being all cutting edge and showing their hip & cool bonafides (Look at me! I am cool with the ghey!), particularly because they hate the military (too often for “Don’t ask, don’t tell” of all things), that will harm the military, and in particular the very people they portend to be trying to help out.

So as I already pointed out, what we end with is that the military will either have to ignore the UMCJ for everyone, or make a special exception to avoid the negative publicity attached to going after gay people, and we all know neither scenario will do anything but harm. And the more I discuss this with the angry people intent on rolling over the military, the more obvious it becomes to me that they know it will cause harm and relish that. Hence the whole social engineering commentary.

Posted by on 11/29/10 at 05:20 PM from United States

There are four morality clauses in the UCMJ that I remember, all of which are enforced at a whim:

1) Fornication - unless you are married, you aren’t allowed to get any nookie.  Generally enforced when you start nailing the young single women that have parents living in on-base housing and you don’t have enough stripes to be “worthy”.

2) Adultery - enforced only when you start diddling the wife/husband of another GI (particularly if they outrank you)

3) Sodomy - don’t be getting adventurous out there, particularly when violating #1 or #2

4) Being gay - only if you get caught actually engaging in one of the above with someone of the same sex.  You can be absolutely flaming, but as long as you don’t get caught or confess, then everything is fine.

Posted by on 11/29/10 at 08:39 PM from United States

What I do care about is how pussified the military is becoming because of this constant crap.
Pardon me for believing that our military should focus on breaking the enemy’s shit, and killing the bastards, that’s what war is all about,

Do you really think we are having a problem with that right now?  Seriously?

Should we not have done that before we went and tampered with the compromise that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” put in place, to prevent things from getting out of hand? Instead, what we have is a political crusade by ignorant shitheads that think they are being all cutting edge and showing their hip & cool bonafides

OR people who know that oveturning DADT is the right thing to do.  If we need to re-write the UCMJ, lets do that.  But all of the stonewalling is ridiculous. The armed servicies could use the recruitment pop and the positive PR.  It won’t happen because it will look like a victory for Obama, so it’s doomed to fail.

Posted by on 11/29/10 at 09:02 PM from United States

Sorry Mike, have to diagree with you here, the people you speak of that “know” overturing dadt is the “right” thing todo, have no fucking clue. Most if not all of them have never been near the armed services. Some of the best leaders os men and women on the earth are in the armed forces.

Theres a reason they dont want DADT gotten rid of, it lets them have plausable deniability and they can actually KEEP the lesbians and gays that are IN the military currently, where they belong, actually in the military.

Before DADT, they were bound by the UCMJ to investigate anything that was even rumored to be inappropriate behavior. Now unless the person in question reports themself, they have a pass.

Its not perfect, but its a damn sight better than what was going on before or what I forsee as could happen if they repeal it.

Posted by on 11/29/10 at 09:21 PM from United States

Hi Balthazar!

the people you speak of that “know” overturing dadt is the “right” thing todo, have no fucking clue. Most if not all of them have never been near the armed services. Some of the best leaders os men and women on the earth are in the armed forces.

Thats nice, but if you are going to promise the citizens of your country “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I don’t see how you can then tell them “sorry You can’t fight for your country”.

“Theres a reason they dont want DADT gotten rid of, it lets them have plausable deniability and they can actually KEEP the lesbians and gays that are IN the military currently, where they belong, actually in the military.”

Plausabile Deniability? That sounds like a gutless political term.  If the issue is UCMJ, then re-write it, and opponents of DADT need to start talking about re-writing it to address gays, cause I have never heard of it before (once again) seeing it on this blog.

Other countries have gays, and they aren’t in danger of being overthrown.  I just don’t see the logic in it.  We intergrated Asians and African americans while their civil rights were being violated, I don’t see why we can’t do this.

Posted by on 11/29/10 at 09:31 PM from United States

Any changes to the UCMJ need to go thru a panel of military judges and lawyers, then it goes to a congressional subcomittee, has to be voted on by congress, then goes to the pres to sign it as an executive order to the DOD. They have been looking at changes but they take forever.

They are actually considering getting rid of the sodemy and adultry sections since early 2009. Repealing DADT before the changes take place is a horrible idea.

http://tinyurl.com/2eaxtza

Posted by on 11/30/10 at 12:19 AM from United States

Wow this post is soooo constipated. It’s full of shit to the point that when Alex smiles his teeth are brown.

Since this congress was elected corporate profits are now almost 3 times as great as they were when the Bush regime left it crapfest for everyone else to clean up YOU STUPID IDIOTIC FREAK OF NATURE. # fucking times greater you dumb fuck!!!!

Posted by on 11/30/10 at 12:41 AM from United States

That should be 3 fucking times greater you mega dumb fuck!

Posted by on 11/30/10 at 01:47 AM from United States

Does this sum-up the 111th congress?

Depotism made Easy

Posted by on 11/30/10 at 03:31 AM from Germany

Whether you are want DADT to remain in place or have it repealed. There’s only one question to ask yourself;

How is an openly gay soldier/marine (flaming for lack of a better term) going to do at Infantry school?  Or in combat units for that matter?

I just don’t see how marines humming the latest songs from “Glee” is going to go over well in the 1st Marines. Just a thought.

Posted by on 11/30/10 at 09:14 AM from United States

Does anyone actually know what muirgeo1 is ranting about? Hes making even less sense than usual.

Posted by on 11/30/10 at 09:20 AM from Germany

How is an openly gay soldier/marine (flaming for lack of a better term) going to do at Infantry school?  Or in combat units for that matter?

Most homosexuals aren’t flaming.  That particular type of behavior isn’t even liked by most other gay men, to the point that I’ve seen them dismissively call them “faggots” in public.

Besides, they’d wash out like anyone else at that point.

Posted by on 11/30/10 at 10:13 AM from United States

Balthazar:

I thought the moron had his threads mixed up, but I think he is just beating his deformed head as to the content of Alex’s post above, not the follow-up discussion/comments below.  I agree that his tardery is even more lame of late....  Dad must have found his weed stash in the basement fake ceiling?

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/30/10 at 10:27 AM from United States

Since this congress was elected corporate profits are now almost 3 times as great as they were when the Bush regime left it crapfest for everyone else to clean up

Muirgeo1, if this statistic happened to be true, and I do not for a second grant it to you because you have a habit of pulling grossly made up shit out of your ass, that’s because this congress gave those corporations they like - the ones that funnel big money to them - hundreds of billions to pay off bad debt their own ideologically driven regulation/legislation put on their books. The tax payers paid for that however. I guess that’s wealth transfer you can love.

BTW, I do not know how many more times you will need to be educated, but that crap fest you blame Bush for was caused by your party’s insistence that lending institutions give money to morons to buy a house, then shut up anyone that pointed out it was a bad idea by defaming them with accusations of being racists or poor people haters. Bush’s crime was not to stand up to crooks like Franks & Dodd and their media cronies and tell them to f-off.

YOU STUPID IDIOTIC FREAK OF NATURE. # fucking times greater you dumb fuck!!!!

Every time you do stuff like this I know I am on the right track, and I smile a big smile. Thanks muirgeo1!

I thought the moron had his threads mixed up, but I think he is just beating his deformed head as to the content of Alex’s post above, not the follow-up discussion/comments below.

He is trying, desperately, to draw away attention from the fact that the collectivists and statists passing themselves of as demcorats and setting the party’s agenda are top notch crooks, and hell bent on destroying the country, while enriching themselves and their buddies. Same as he does every time someone points out that the party of the little people and wealth redistribution only cares about the little people as far as they can use them to funnel other people’s wealth to the selected elite’s pockets.

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/30/10 at 10:37 AM from United States

Do you really think we are having a problem with that right now?  Seriously?

Yes, I seriously do. You are confounding the fact despite all the hurdles put in their way the people actually doing the fighting in our military are able to do a damned difficult job, because of expensive training and the technological advantage acquired whenever demcorats aren’t in charge and gutting it, with the fact that the military as a whole has seriously been sissified. Our military is able to do the hard job we ask of them despite the fact that it has been burdened with a plethora of ridiculous regulations and ridiculous ROEs that would put commanders of decades past into shock. That they have to be sold as a “peace” force or behave like saints so those envious of the men and women in uniform can not demonize them for every little thing they can politicize or some other such nonsense is galling.

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/30/10 at 11:05 AM from United States

Thats nice, but if you are going to promise the citizens of your country “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I don’t see how you can then tell them “sorry You can’t fight for your country”.

Do you know how idiotic this statement is Mike?

The military already tells people that are too fat, have medical conditions, are handicapped, too old, too young, not smart enough, or that have mental issues, just to name a few, that they can not serve. And it will continue to do so precisely because of its nature. It even did this during the days of the draft. In fact, the first thing the military will tell you – any branch - is that they are not a democracy, that while they defend the rights of citizens you mention above, that these same rights do not exist for members of the military. Your ass belongs to the branch you joined. There goes your life. There is also no liberty other than what your commanders allow. Liberty would be anathema to discipline, moral, and effectiveness. When given an order you follow it, even if you don’t like it, unless you consider it might be an unlawful one (and if it was not your career is over). There is also no pursuit of happiness. You are there to serve.

The all volunteer military is not a representation of the nation, but an organization of people that have purposefully been put together for a very specific purpose: kill the enemy and break his shit. Everyone that goes in knows they give up the very constitutional rights they defend to serve.

So yeah, you’re off. The military already tells a whole bunch of other people they can’t serve.

Posted by on 11/30/10 at 02:12 PM from Germany

The military already tells people that are too fat, have medical conditions, are handicapped, too old, too young, not smart enough, or that have mental issues, just to name a few, that they can not serve.

(I’m talking here from my experiences in the British Military - and making assumptions that things are similar with the US. Feel free to mercilessly rip me to shreds if I’m wrong!)

These aren’t entry requirements - they are assessment criteria. The military assesses you on how well you will be able to do the job just like any other job interview. (Well not exactly like any other job interview, as anyone who has gone through selection will tell you!!) If you can do the job, then you can do the job.

So you can’t equate being too overweight to serve with being too gay to serve - it doesn’t work.

And contraray to Cashin’s and popular belief, not all gay men and women love Glee, and those that do don’t usually sing it during basic training. In fact - and this might blow your mind - there are lots of gay men who are very tough, very srtong, and are excellent fighters. I know! weird isn’t it?

Posted by AlexinCT on 11/30/10 at 03:12 PM from United States

So you can’t equate being too overweight to serve with being too gay to serve - it doesn’t work.

First off, that was not my point britishcress. I was pointing out to Mike whom was angered that the military was turning away people that wanted to serve, in a nation that values life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that the military already has set many entry level criteria that disqualify a ton of people, regardless of whether they are dying to serve or not, because they have one or more conditions, lack the necessary aptitude, lack the intelligence for the job, have too many screws loose, are disqualified due to drug use, or are determined to be unsuitable for the job in some way or another. Engaging in behavior that is considered disruptive to morale, leaves one open to blackmail, or goes against the UCMJ also serves to disqualify one. Being too gay to serve is not the criteria that is being used to disqualify gays, either.

And contraray to Cashin’s and popular belief, not all gay men and women love Glee, and those that do don’t usually sing it during basic training. In fact - and this might blow your mind - there are lots of gay men who are very tough, very srtong, and are excellent fighters. I know! weird isn’t it?

I am not at all surprised, and find nothing weird about what you said. I know real hard core though guys that are gay, just like I now real effeminate ones that are. I don’t even doubt that some gay people, just like some heterosexual people, would make excellent soldiers, serve with distinction, and are real asset to the military. I know a few of them. They usually are patriots first, soldiers second, and their sexual preference is kept to themselves, and practically always doesn’t factor. Most of the troops and practically all leadership do not care because the person in question is there to do the hard work, not to score political points or make any other statement than the fact they are proud of their country, their military, and that they want to serve.

It’s a myth that the military is always on the hunt for and looking to discharge anyone that’s gay. They have invested a ton of money training someone, and unless that person is simply unqualified or so disruptive that they can’t deal with it, throwing them out is financially crippling. Between DADT and the brass’ reluctance to deal with the trouble around discharging anyone for being gay, you are only going to face action if you purposefully engage in such blatant behavior as to become disruptive or out yourself. Odds are far likely that action is taken against a heterosexual with zipper control problems than someone that’s gay. It’s far more likely that someone being discharged is simply abusing the system. Just like all those women that get pregnant right when the military is getting ready to send them overseas. Or the shitheads that suddenly find a religious reason that prevents them from serving anymore, usually after having received a top notch education at the tax payer’s expense, because killing is bad.

I am not even sure why I am being attacked with the idiotic line that I am just opposed to the repeal of DADT because I am a closet homophobe, when I have repeatedly made the case that my problem is with the fact that the repeal of DADT is being pushed the hardest by idiots that hate the military in the first place and haven’t even got a clue that repealing DADT without first allowing the military to adjust the UCMJ is going to cause hell for everyone, and if anything, make it harder for gay people serving or trying to serve. I am also opposed to the change being done without a good understanding of the costs, especially the political costs (you can bet your ass that the PC police will blame the military for everything), and a system being put in place to mitigate that. The military serves a very specific purpose, and in order to minimize the risk we put those serving in, we should abstain from using it as a playground for whatever political or social battles we are fighting. Our troops deserve better.

I find it a lot more telling that so many of you avoid debating these serious issues and points, and continue to pretend my objection to the repeal of DADT under these conditions has to be based on some deep down homophobic reason.

Posted by on 11/30/10 at 05:07 PM from Germany

Well since I disagree with full blown repeal obviously a raging homophobic. OBVIOUSLY.

And contraray to Cashin’s and popular belief, not all gay men and women love Glee, and those that do don’t usually sing it during basic training. In fact - and this might blow your mind - there are lots of gay men who are very tough, very srtong, and are excellent fighters. I know! weird isn’t it?

It’s as if they’re not being open with their sexuality, sort of like what’s going on now huh? I’m not arguing that gay men are “less capable” or any other inane idea. I’m just pointing out that openly gay men in the military, SPECIFICALLY in Combat Arms groups and the marines. That maybe this might not go over very well in those groups.

First off, that was not my point britishcress......

Fair enough. My point was that the other criteria are (IMHO) justifiable. As for the morale/blackmail rule - that isn’t the rule. The rule is about being gay. The morale/blackmail rule does exist (in the UK at least) but is to do with security clearance (which often does kick in at entry level grade.)But could be for any number of reasons, not just being gay.  As for the point about blackmail - well if DADT wasn’t in place, then being gay wouldn’t have to be a secret to be blackmailled about, would it?

Before I go on:

I am not even sure why I am being attacked with the idiotic line that I am just opposed to the repeal of DADT because I am a closet homophobe,

It wasn’t my intention to suggest this, Alex. Apologies if this is what you got from my post, but it wasn’t what I was going for. I’m not Murgy. You can tell by the lack of a caps lock.

It’s a myth that the military is always on the hunt for and looking to discharge anyone that’s gay.

This wasn’t something that I was claiming. In fact, it seems that having to enforce DADT is something that is a real headache for the military, as they are obliged to follow the ruling, even if it means losing an effective soldier that they have invested in.

Between DADT and the brass’ reluctance to deal with the trouble around discharging anyone for being gay, you are only going to face action if you purposefully engage in such blatant behavior as to become disruptive or out yourself.

Unfortunately, that isn’t often the case - where news of someone’s sexual orientation leaks out, and top brass are forced to act. Alexander Nicholson tells of how he was warned by many people that facts were beginning to come out about his sexual orientation, but in the end, the leadership were forced to obey their own guidelines, despite losing what they admitted was a very valuable member of the military.

Odds are far likely that action is taken against a heterosexual with zipper control problems than someone that’s gay. It’s far more likely that someone being discharged is simply abusing the system

Could you expand on this? I haven’t heard this argument before. What do you mean ‘abusing the system’? People pretending to be gay in order to avoid conflict? Surely if being gay was allowed, this problem (if it exists) would go away?

But it seems to me that both these points actually support the repeal of DADT don’t they? You say that the military don’t actually want to discharge people just for being gay, and those that are discharged are using ‘being gay’ as an excuse not to fight. Repeal DADT and both problems are solved aren’t they?

the fact that the repeal of DADT is being pushed the hardest by idiots that hate the military

Again - somethig to back this up would be nice. I have heard lots of DADT repeal advocates who I wouldn’t personally describe as ‘hating the military’. Not least Gates.

...haven’t even got a clue that repealing DADT without first allowing the military to adjust the UCMJ is going to cause hell for everyone, and if anything, make it harder for gay people serving or trying to serve.

The pentagon is already across that - reccommending a modification to the sodomy law.  - it looks to me as if the right channels are being followed.

especially the political costs (you can bet your ass that the PC police will blame the military for everything),

Again, I’m not sure what you mean by this point.... could you expand?

The military serves a very specific purpose, and in order to minimize the risk we put those serving in, we should abstain from using it as a playground for whatever political or social battles we are fighting.

I see your point here - even if I don’t neccassarily agree with it.

My overall point is that DADT doesn’t work for anyone. If having gays in the military is demonstrably bad, then lets not have gays in the military. If it isn’t bad, then lets allow them to serve. Make a decision. Forcing soldier to live their lives undercover can’t be a good policy, neither can be discharging soldiers that were deemed vital just a few days before someone noticed they has a male partner.

By the way:

I find it a lot more telling that so many of you avoid debating these serious issues and points, and continue to pretend my objection to the repeal of DADT under these conditions has to be based on some deep down homophobic reason.

I can’t see anywhere that anyone has accused you of being homophobic. I’m not sure why you would say that anyone has.

Posted by on 11/30/10 at 06:04 PM from Germany

Well since I disagree with full blown repeal obviously a raging homophobic. OBVIOUSLY.

No one has called anyone else homophobic.

It’s as if they’re not being open with their sexuality, sort of like what’s going on now huh?

This is my point. There are gay people who actually don’t like to sing showtunes. They aren’t pretending not to like showtunes, or suppressing some innate urge to prance around in a feather boa to Judy garland records. They are good, disciplined soldiers who happen to be in love with someone of the same sex.

It’s this equating of ‘homosexual’ = ‘flaming queen’ that is wrong. Your problem is with effeminate men - many of which are heterosexual. I should know. I’m British :-)

Posted by on 11/30/10 at 07:18 PM from Germany

As for the point about blackmail - well if DADT wasn’t in place, then being gay wouldn’t have to be a secret to be blackmailed about, would it?

30 years ago the whole blackmail issue was taken quite seriously, and not just because of getting tossed from the military.  Closeted gays were frequently married and would have an extensive social network - being outed via distribution of incriminating photographs would destroy people’s life, and it was seen as a method for getting classified information. 

Today, that scenario doesn’t carry as much weight - being gay doesn’t matter nearly as much in modern society.

Posted by AlexinCT on 12/01/10 at 08:02 AM from United States

It wasn’t my intention to suggest this, Alex. Apologies if this is what you got from my post, but it wasn’t what I was going for. I’m not Murgy. You can tell by the lack of a caps lock.

I would never insult anyone by putting them in the same category as muirgeo1, and definitely not you britishcress. My comment wasn’t directed at you specifically, but at everyone that immediately assumed my problem with the current movement to repeal DADT was because I hate gays or think they shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military.

In fact, it seems that having to enforce DADT is something that is a real headache for the military, as they are obliged to follow the ruling, even if it means losing an effective soldier that they have invested in.

You should see how far the brass is willing to go to ignore anything tied to DADT, then compare it to how quick they react, at least these days, to UCMJ violations related to conduct unbecoming or as the military prefers to put it “lack of zipper control”.

Unfortunately, that isn’t often the case - where news of someone’s sexual orientation leaks out, and top brass are forced to act. Alexander Nicholson tells of how he was warned by many people that facts were beginning to come out about his sexual orientation, but in the end, the leadership were forced to obey their own guidelines, despite losing what they admitted was a very valuable member of the military.

The number of people outed and then acted against is far lower than the ones that out themselves and then cry foul. And, think of how bad it will get when DADT is pulled by either congress or the courts, before the military has had a chance to adjust the UCMJ and their people, to deal with what follows. As I pointed out, they will either have to start ignoring everything to avoid the appearance of impropriety and selective rule enforcement, or gay people in the military will be in for far worse than any of the worse nightmare DADT scenarios.

Could you expand on this? I haven’t heard this argument before. What do you mean ‘abusing the system’? People pretending to be gay in order to avoid conflict? Surely if being gay was allowed, this problem (if it exists) would go away?

But it seems to me that both these points actually support the repeal of DADT don’t they? You say that the military don’t actually want to discharge people just for being gay, and those that are discharged are using ‘being gay’ as an excuse not to fight. Repeal DADT and both problems are solved aren’t they?

Abusing the system is precisely that: you get the tax payer to pay for some expensive education and training, then you use something that forces the military to discharge you so you don’t have to fulfill your contractual obligations. And yes, if being gay was allowed then this wouldn’t be an excuse they could use. But I should doubly stress that the repeal of DADT will NOT solve this, because then the UCMJ takes over, and that’s far harsher on someone being discharged (you go from having an honorable discharge to a dishonorable discharge for one) for being gay.

The pentagon is already across that - reccommending a modification to the sodomy law.  - it looks to me as if the right channels are being followed.

My response is that you should go back and read Balthazar’s post @ 11/29/10 at 08:31 PM. Don’t feel like repeating it.

Suffice it to say that it looks like the repeal of DADT will happen long before the military has been given the time to follow the process, and have the time to do it right. And if your argument is that they can repeal DADT now and not let that go into effect until the military has had time to deal with the changes needed, then you double validate my point that the whole DADT fight is really a politically motivated anti-military move and nothing else.

Again - somethig to back this up would be nice. I have heard lots of DADT repeal advocates who I wouldn’t personally describe as ‘hating the military’. Not least Gates.

Look at the people pushing it the hardest, the organizations, and then look at how in general they deal with the military, what they think about the military.

One simple & quick example though are the plethora of universities that have banned or tried to ban military recruiting or ROTC programs on their campuses and used DADT as the excuse to justify this. I guarantee you that as soon as DADT is repealed they would find a different excuse to bar the military from doing either still. It will then be the evil UCMJ. Once that was out of the way they would blame the military of being full of baby killers or some such other nonsense. I will not even bother discussing GLAD.

Again, I’m not sure what you mean by this point.... could you expand?

Seriously britishcress, do you think that as soon as gays are allowed to serve that all problems will vanish? The brass isn’t naive enough to believe this luckily. The military hating organizations in our PC society are ready to crucify the hated military for everything and anything. All you need is someone making an accusation of discrimination because they are gay, true or not, to have a media frenzy and opportunist politicians forcing the military to take actions that not only impact morale negatively, but cost a ton of money. You want proof? Look at how much the integration of females cost the military, and still does, and double that. What do you think happens the first time the military brings an Article 32 against gays for “loss of zipper control”?

My overall point is that DADT doesn’t work for anyone.

You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that DADT currently is far better than the alternative if it was just done away with. Other than that you are right.

If having gays in the military is demonstrably bad, then lets not have gays in the military.

Whose making this argument? Why do you feel the need to bring it up?

If it isn’t bad, then lets allow them to serve.

They are already allowed to serve! The only condition is that they keep their sexual preferences personal. While not obvious to non military people, the military actually enforces the same on heterosexuals!

Make a decision.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Forcing soldier to live their lives undercover can’t be a good policy, neither can be discharging soldiers that were deemed vital just a few days before someone noticed they has a male partner.

As someone that served, I expected that you at least would know that soldiers are forced to deal with a lot more crap than not divulging their sexual preferences. Even if you agree with the fact that its bad policy to discharge them over this, you have to at least realize that the repeal of DADT will only make it worse.

I can’t see anywhere that anyone has accused you of being homophobic. I’m not sure why you would say that anyone has.

Read the first few posts. They don’t have to come right out and say so, but it certainly was inferred.

Posted by AlexinCT on 12/01/10 at 08:04 AM from United States

It’s this equating of ‘homosexual’ = ‘flaming queen’ that is wrong. Your problem is with effeminate men - many of which are heterosexual. I should know. I’m British :-)

That was funny dude.

Today, that scenario doesn’t carry as much weight - being gay doesn’t matter nearly as much in modern society.

Being gay and pretending you are not, which still happens a lot, still does poses a huge risk.

Posted by on 12/01/10 at 09:13 PM from United States

Since this congress was elected corporate profits are now almost 3 times as great as they were when the Bush regime left it crapfest for everyone else to clean up

So Alexct, if this is true, why should anyone have a problem with it?  Assuming that it isn’t because of government cronyism, would increaserd corporate profits be a good thing?

<< Back to main