But yet, I fail to see how any of that compares to taking out the Mafia, cleaning up downtown New York, the Bronx, revitalizing the city completely, and then handling 9-11 on top of that. It's a pretty profound record.
No, it really isn't. Especially given some of the illegal and underhanded tactics he used to reach some of those conclusions. Ones which would abhor the libertarian feelings of many people. As far as revitalizing the city, he was riding a national surge. Even so, no urban center grows nearly as quickly as the surrounding suburbs so we should be giving lauditory praise to Long Island and Jersey while we're at it.
Wait. He actually is crediting Rudy for taking down the Mafia? The same guy who was the main reason that John Gotti became known as the "Teflon Don"?
Pardon me while I laugh my head off.
Again, Rudy is more or less tangental to most of these issues.
Mafia: Rudy screwed the pooch on this. It took his successor to break the Gambino family.
Cleaning up NY: If you're talking the revitalization, that was all the magic of Disney. If you're talking the community policing, that's mostly thanks to William Bratton, Rudy's first police commish. Oh, and when Bratton started getting deserved credit for what he did, you know what Rudy did? Shitcanned his ass. Nobody makes Rudy look bad, at least in his own mind.
9/11: Two words: broken radios.
Or how about putting the emergency command center up in WTC 7, instead of in a bunker on the ground like any intelligent, non-corrupt person would do?
Face it - 9/11 was the best thing to happen to Rudy. Because without it, he'd be a washed up ex-pol.
Let me start off by saying that I do not believe being openly homosexual should be reason for immediate discharge from the military. Similarly, you should not be discharged because of ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, nor any other divisive belief (including bigotry, chauvinism, or other socially distasteful characteristics).
That being said, the military is a machine. When you join the military, you must accept that you will be mistreated if it is considered to be for the greater good (an unabashedly subjective metric) of the country. If, in keeping with the example of homosexuality, a soldier attracts negative attention to the point where his presence is detrimental to the effectiveness of his unit or the military as a whole, action should be taken which will have the best outcome for the military, if not for the soldier.
A simplistic hypothetical situation:
The military in question is composed of three soldiers, A, B, and C. Soldier A is homosexual. Upon A revealing this to Soldiers B and C, who themselves are bigoted against homosexuality, an assault occurs. This is a lose-lose situation, because B and C must be punished, but so also action be taken to remove A should it be seen as likely that this could occur again with A. All soldiers being equal, and there being no possibility of effective mediation of the situation in the future, the military is best served to side with the majority, as a greater number of soldiers should equate to greater effectiveness in carrying out its directive.
The Republicans in this debate are not necessarily bigoted against homosexuals (although my gut instinct tells me that many are). They may simply be under the assumption that a significant percentage of the fighting force would be inexorably bigoted against homosexuals. If this is true, then I agree with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The military is not a platform with which to push cultural reform, unless an argument can be made that the positives gained by said reform outweigh the negatives in terms of the defence of our country.
I am not under this assumption, and I believe that the vast majority our military that would not react so poorly to homosexuals among them. I posit that allowing openly homosexual individuals would provide a net gain in terms of membership and therefore military effectiveness. This is, of course, speculation as I don't have any statistical data to back up my assertion.
In counter to the argument that we already can have homosexuals, so long as they are not open about it:
We could make similar provisions against any possibly divisive trait (see above for a list), but the possibility of alienating recruits and current members of our armed forces would be dangerous. Furthermore, the bureaucracy required to deal with soldiers who failed to hide some such facet of their live would be enormous.
The Republicans in this debate are not necessarily bigoted against homosexuals (although my gut instinct tells me that many are). They may simply be under the assumption that a significant percentage of the fighting force would be inexorably bigoted against homosexuals. If this is true, then I agree with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The military is not a platform with which to push cultural reform, unless an argument can be made that the positives gained by said reform outweigh the negatives in terms of the defence of our country.
Actually this is historically untrue. The military or service has often been a catalyst for social advancements. Desegregation of the military and interactions of blacks from disparate regions of the country was a major impetous for the civil rights movement, for instance. It isn't very difficult to imagine openly gay men and women serving with heterosexual men and women and proving themselves to be just as capable and just as human as anybody else would lead to an advancement of the LGBT rights movement as well.
The Republicans in this debate are not necessarily bigoted against homosexuals (although my gut instinct tells me that many are). They may simply be under the assumption that a significant percentage of the fighting force would be inexorably bigoted against homosexuals. If this is true, then I agree with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The military is not a platform with which to push cultural reform, unless an argument can be made that the positives gained by said reform outweigh the negatives in terms of the defence of our country.
Actually this is historically untrue. The military or service has often been a catalyst for social advancements. Desegregation of the military and interactions of blacks from disparate regions of the country was a major impetous for the civil rights movement, for instance. It isn't very difficult to imagine openly gay men and women serving with heterosexual men and women and proving themselves to be just as capable and just as human as anybody else would lead to an advancement of the LGBT rights movement as well.
It is certainly true that the military has been used as a political / social tool in the past, and surely it will be again in the future. I'm not arguing against facts. However, I consider this to be a misuse of resources. Any benefits to the civil rights movements should have been tangential to the purpose of strengthening the military through desegregation.
It's pretty well known that Clinton's attempt to allow homosexuals to serve openly was stymied by the brass (most notably Powell.) As I've stated before, the response to that needs to be a simple one - the general in question should be informed that if he will not obey a lawful order, then he has two options - resign or face court-martial.
The problem is not that open homosexuality is disruptive. The problem is that General Peter Pace felt no fucking shame in stating, in front of Congress, that he feels that homosexuals cannot serve with honor and integrity. The day when generals like Pace realize that making such statements will mean that their careers will come to a screeching end is when this injustice will finally be fixed.
The Republicans in this debate are not necessarily bigoted against homosexuals (although my gut instinct tells me that many are). They may simply be under the assumption that a significant percentage of the fighting force would be inexorably bigoted against homosexuals. If this is true, then I agree with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The military is not a platform with which to push cultural reform, unless an argument can be made that the positives gained by said reform outweigh the negatives in terms of the defence of our country.
Actually this is historically untrue. The military or service has often been a catalyst for social advancements. Desegregation of the military and interactions of blacks from disparate regions of the country was a major impetous for the civil rights movement, for instance. It isn't very difficult to imagine openly gay men and women serving with heterosexual men and women and proving themselves to be just as capable and just as human as anybody else would lead to an advancement of the LGBT rights movement as well.
It is certainly true that the military has been used as a political / social tool in the past, and surely it will be again in the future. I'm not arguing against facts. However, I consider this to be a misuse of resources. Any benefits to the civil rights movements should have been tangential to the purpose of strengthening the military through desegregation.
The civil rights movement was largely created as a direct result of military desegregation. The army was ahead of the curve, it didn't wait for all the bigots to accept blacks before they made their decision. The military is often advanced in those regards rather than being dependent on the moodswings of the country at large. Which is one of the many reasons why expecting all those bigots to accept teh gays before finally abolishing DADT doesn't make any sense.
It is certainly true that the military has been used as a political / social tool in the past, and surely it will be again in the future. I'm not arguing against facts. However, I consider this to be a misuse of resources. Any benefits to the civil rights movements should have been tangential to the purpose of strengthening the military through desegregation.
So, please explain to me how the FUCK dismissing Arabic translators, at a time when we most needed them, for being homosexuals, was in any fucking way "strengthening the military"?
The simple fact is that the ban is indefensible, and only exists because of the prejudices of the top brass and the unwillingness of the Executive Branch to do its fucking job as Commander-In-Chief and inform said brass that either they can stop discriminating, leave the service, or face a court-martial in which they will assuredly be convicted.
The Republicans in this debate are not necessarily bigoted against homosexuals (although my gut instinct tells me that many are). They may simply be under the assumption that a significant percentage of the fighting force would be inexorably bigoted against homosexuals. If this is true, then I agree with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The military is not a platform with which to push cultural reform, unless an argument can be made that the positives gained by said reform outweigh the negatives in terms of the defence of our country.
Actually this is historically untrue. The military or service has often been a catalyst for social advancements. Desegregation of the military and interactions of blacks from disparate regions of the country was a major impetous for the civil rights movement, for instance. It isn't very difficult to imagine openly gay men and women serving with heterosexual men and women and proving themselves to be just as capable and just as human as anybody else would lead to an advancement of the LGBT rights movement as well.
It is certainly true that the military has been used as a political / social tool in the past, and surely it will be again in the future. I'm not arguing against facts. However, I consider this to be a misuse of resources. Any benefits to the civil rights movements should have been tangential to the purpose of strengthening the military through desegregation.
I understand where you are coming from but do not agree. Our military is spread very thin and coming up very low in recruitment levels. The time is ripe to accept gays because our military needs them. Other troops will be more willing to accept gays since their contribution would be visible and useful. During wartime social differences are going to be less obvious because people are relying on each other to survive and get their job done. It's when they're sitting back not doing a heck of alot you'd probably get more friction.
It is certainly true that the military has been used as a political / social tool in the past, and surely it will be again in the future. I'm not arguing against facts. However, I consider this to be a misuse of resources. Any benefits to the civil rights movements should have been tangential to the purpose of strengthening the military through desegregation.
So, please explain to me how the FUCK dismissing Arabic translators, at a time when we most needed them, for being homosexuals, was in any fucking way "strengthening the military"?
The simple fact is that the ban is indefensible, and only exists because of the prejudices of the top brass and the unwillingness of the Executive Branch to do its fucking job as Commander-In-Chief and inform said brass that either they can stop discriminating, leave the service, or face a court-martial in which they will assuredly be convicted.
The Pubs aren't scared of the brass. They're scared of their base.
It is certainly true that the military has been used as a political / social tool in the past, and surely it will be again in the future. I'm not arguing against facts. However, I consider this to be a misuse of resources. Any benefits to the civil rights movements should have been tangential to the purpose of strengthening the military through desegregation.
So, please explain to me how the FUCK dismissing Arabic translators, at a time when we most needed them, for being homosexuals, was in any fucking way "strengthening the military"?
The simple fact is that the ban is indefensible, and only exists because of the prejudices of the top brass and the unwillingness of the Executive Branch to do its fucking job as Commander-In-Chief and inform said brass that either they can stop discriminating, leave the service, or face a court-martial in which they will assuredly be convicted.
The Pubs aren't scared of the brass. They're scared of their base.
Which, again, is one reason that I want to see the winner in 08 get elected without the help of the "Southern bloc" of voters. Once people realize that they're no longer the American kingmaker, it's going to be a long, cold winter for them.
It is certainly true that the military has been used as a political / social tool in the past, and surely it will be again in the future. I'm not arguing against facts. However, I consider this to be a misuse of resources. Any benefits to the civil rights movements should have been tangential to the purpose of strengthening the military through desegregation.
So, please explain to me how the FUCK dismissing Arabic translators, at a time when we most needed them, for being homosexuals, was in any fucking way "strengthening the military"?
The simple fact is that the ban is indefensible, and only exists because of the prejudices of the top brass and the unwillingness of the Executive Branch to do its fucking job as Commander-In-Chief and inform said brass that either they can stop discriminating, leave the service, or face a court-martial in which they will assuredly be convicted.
The Pubs aren't scared of the brass. They're scared of their base.
Which, again, is one reason that I want to see the winner in 08 get elected without the help of the "Southern bloc" of voters. Once people realize that they're no longer the American kingmaker, it's going to be a long, cold winter for them.
The lack of a real front runner in the GOP race shows how splintered the party is already becoming.
So, please explain to me how the FUCK dismissing Arabic translators, at a time when we most needed them, for being homosexuals, was in any fucking way "strengthening the military"?
I have to assume you didn't read my original post very carefully. I clearly stated multiple times that I am opposed to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
The simple fact is that the ban is indefensible, and only exists because of the prejudices of the top brass and the unwillingness of the Executive Branch to do its fucking job as Commander-In-Chief and inform said brass that either they can stop discriminating, leave the service, or face a court-martial in which they will assuredly be convicted.
I find comfort in optimism. That's why I suggested that it may be the perception by the "brass" that the soldiers won't accept homosexuals that is motivating this ban, not their own personal bigotry. If your description of the testimony given is accurate, I think it is fair to say that Gen. Pace's own bias that causes him to side against openly homosexual servicemen. I'm working off of principles here rather than a fresh knowledge of the particulars.
Which, again, is one reason that I want to see the winner in 08 get elected without the help of the "Southern bloc" of voters. Once people realize that they're no longer the American kingmaker, it's going to be a long, cold winter for them.
The lack of a real front runner in the GOP race shows how splintered the party is already becoming.
It's not just about the Republicans. The "Southern bloc" has a distorting effect on American politics as a whole, and it's directly attributable to their kingmaker aspect. If you remove that, they just become another region, and considering how many of the states in that region are debtor states, they're a region with not much to offer. Their political fortunes will go downhill fast.
For your warrior idea: What the fuck is wrong with you? Homosexuality is not deviant behavior, and it is no less disciplined than heterosexual behavior. Also, our standards for our 'warriors' (what an idiotic term) are frighteningly low. Why not let gays in?
As for your comment about equality, it's an ideal Americans are supposed to aspire to. It's what we're trying to achieve. Unfortunately, people like you would rather wallow in your prejudice and stupidity than learn something.
First and foremost, to the right wing, to most religious people (not just Christian, but Jewish, Muslim, etc) homosexuality is considered deviant behavior. Just because the Romans used to engage in it, and just because we've had 30 years of a homosexual movement investing it's money in an equality movement, doesn't detract from that reality. And in a truly understanding world, homosexuals will act as they wish, and will not be oppressed, but they also won't try to glorify sodomy in our culture to the point that it's constantly in the faces of those who believe it is deviant behavior. Now the reality is that for a long time all of Western society (and Muslim society today) oppressed the homosexual community, and that was wrong. But you dont' correct it by turning the whole of culture into some sort of idol to how great the homosexual acts are.
Our standards for our warriors are actually pretty high, but they get lowered some when we need to recruit more. I for one don't really care whether someone is openly gay in the military, but I see the reasoning behind it. A bunch of guys playing "grab ass" (yes this is a bit of an exaggeration, to make a specific point) in the barracks really isn't conducive to a high morale, especially when it's being done around men who disagree with the practice. I'm sorry but you will most likely never see open homosexuality allowed in the US military for this exact reason.
Also, consider the reality that open sexual activity between males and females isn't allowed either, so it's not like this is a double standard.
And let me just state for the record I disagree with your assessment of "Americans about achieving more and more equality all the time" stuff. I reject that completely. America is founded on the idea that all men are created equal. That doesn't mean we are supposed to disregard all common sense and charge headlong towards false equality and moral equivalency. You are created equal, you start at the same position.
How far you make it in the race is entirely up to you and your decisions in life, and sometimes when you make a choice, you have to make it knowing that you will affect many areas of your life.
Basically, everyone is offered an equal spot on the starting line, but equality of who finishes the race is never guaranteed.
And let me remidn you that feeling this way about these topics doesn't mean something is "wrong with you". That's the prejudiced notions you yourself are exhibiting in believing that someone who believes in old traditional style morality is somehow "wrong" or broken. That morality has existed for far longer than any of us have or will exist, and people will be following those lifestyles tens of thousands of years in the future if we even make it that far before turning everyone into irradiated ash.
Everything you say is such a horrible misrepresentation of what homosexuality is it's disgusting. Let's begin with this one premise, one that nullifies most of the meat of your argument: we are not a theocracy. What a religion states about a behavior doesn't matter at all when making policy.
Next, I'd like to know what you're misinterpreting as an attempt to glorify homosexuality. Was it glorifying other races to desegregate? You're pointing at something that you perceive as a potential threat (for whatever reason, I don't really care) that just isn't fucking there. Equality is not glorification.
Lastly, that you imply that "grab-assing" will be a frequent practice in the barracks is really telling about how much of a bigot you yourself are. The quality of being gay doesn't automatically include a raging, uncontrollable sex drive. You do have a problem with the idea gays in the military, and it's that you seem to have no concept of the fact that gay men are indistinguishable from straight men save for a specific preference that confers no other differences.
If your description of the testimony given is accurate, I think it is fair to say that Gen. Pace's own bias that causes him to side against openly homosexual servicemen. I'm working off of principles here rather than a fresh knowledge of the particulars.
If your description of the testimony given is accurate, I think it is fair to say that Gen. Pace's own bias that causes him to side against openly homosexual servicemen. I'm working off of principles here rather than a fresh knowledge of the particulars.
Military justice is not based on which choice would result in keeping more soldiers, it's supposed to be a code of honor that makes you an exceptional person as well.
For some reason, I don't find Homophobia to be anywhere between Honor and Integrity, but it seems the current military fad is to just pretend bad things don't happen, instead of punishing offenders.
By the logic of "hey, some soldiers may have issues with gay dudes and abuse them!", I refer you to active duty rape. It appears they have issues with women, too. Let's just kick Them out as well!
Don't give blacks the vote. I'm not a bigot, it's just that as a white nation, we'd piss off a lot of people, so it's better for everyone not to give blacks the vote.
Besides, we don't need to be running around glorifying and worshiping their culture and that jazz nonsense. If we let blacks vote, everyone will just be all sex, sex, sex and jazz.
If your description of the testimony given is accurate, I think it is fair to say that Gen. Pace's own bias that causes him to side against openly homosexual servicemen. I'm working off of principles here rather than a fresh knowledge of the particulars.
This is the problem. This statement should have ENDED his career.
It did, but only because he would have had to answer for it at reconfirmation in a democratically controlled Senate when W nominated him to head up the Joint Chiefs again.
moniker on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited November 2007
The "old traditional ways" change a lot faster than you think, Hadj. Yes there are still a lot of racists in the South, but they no longer support slavery for the most part and they generally watch their mouths in mixed company. They might bitch a little about woman voters or co-workers, but they generally aren't looking to take away the vote from women nor require that they leave the workplace.
Just because conservatives are laggards when it comes to social morality doesn't mean that they're not advancing. It just means that they're advancing about 30 years behind the rest of us.
The "old traditional ways" change a lot faster than you think, Hadj. Yes there are still a lot of racists in the South, but they no longer support slavery for the most part and they generally watch their mouths in mixed company. They might bitch a little about woman voters or co-workers, but they generally aren't looking to take away the vote from women nor require that they leave the workplace.
Just because conservatives are laggards when it comes to social morality doesn't mean that they're not advancing. It just means that they're advancing about 30 years behind the rest of us.
Which means that they're in the 70s. And dragging us back there with them.
Damnit Will, you know how polyester and Day-Glo dyes make me chafe!
I checked Wikipedia's article on 1977, and almost nothign happened it seemed. Star Wars released, sure, but not much else I saw...
Then this.
After campaigning by Anita Bryant and her anti-gay "Save Our Children" crusade, Miami-Dade County, Florida voters overwhelmingly vote to repeal the county's gay rights ordinance.
Military justice is not based on which choice would result in keeping more soldiers, it's supposed to be a code of honor that makes you an exceptional person as well.
For some reason, I don't find Homophobia to be anywhere between Honor and Integrity, but it seems the current military fad is to just pretend bad things don't happen, instead of punishing offenders.
By the logic of "hey, some soldiers may have issues with gay dudes and abuse them!", I refer you to active duty rape. It appears they have issues with women, too. Let's just kick Them out as well!
Men get raped in the military as well. Just like in civilian life things happen. The real problem is that in highly stressful and testosterone fueled situations it tends to happen more.
Part of military justice is keeping a code of honor and a higher standard of character then the general populace. Mainly because you're put in situations of responsibility and they try to ingrain this into you in the hope that you won't make a jackass out of yourself and create a public fiasco. But a lot of it has to do with traditions.
As for homophobia, it's blown way out of proportion. Don't ask don't tell goes out the window as I knew many gay marines and sailors (bring on the gay navy jokes), and from talking with my friends in other services it's not that much different.
The thing is crude jokes and non political correctness are part of the private military culture. But at the end of the day when somebody is on your side in a fire fight or life and death situation you're not going to care who the hell they sleep with at night.
Much in the same way that the military played a critical role in breaking down racial barriers, it can (and to an extent is) doing the same with homosexuality.
In reality a lot of the "no gays in the military" comes from politicians and right wingers that aren't even in the military. It's used for political purposes and doesn't really represent at all what goes on among the rank and file troops.
waterlogged on
Democrat that will switch parties and turn red if Clinton is nominated.:P[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The thing is crude jokes and non political correctness are part of the private military culture. But at the end of the day when somebody is on your side in a fire fight or life and death situation you're not going to care who the hell they sleep with at night.
I've heard this a number of times from what were very racist infantry when they joined.
A year of service (counting boot, even) later, and they've openly talked about how after being exposed to other races in high stress situations, they're actually getting to be fond of them.
Anywho, I didn't mean that post in a "hay, the military sucks" as much as there's been a lot of the chain of command turning a blind eye instead of cleaning house, due to wanting to avoid public relations nightmares, and it bites them in the ass constantly. But the general idea is that if you make a rule allowing openly gay people in the military, you just have to crack down HARD on the first wave of bullshit, and it should be pretty tame beyond that.
If your description of the testimony given is accurate, I think it is fair to say that Gen. Pace's own bias that causes him to side against openly homosexual servicemen. I'm working off of principles here rather than a fresh knowledge of the particulars.
This is the problem. This statement should have ENDED his career.
Initially, it appeared that he was suggesting that although he doesn't agree with homosexuality, he would perform his duty despite his own bias. However, it all went downhill when he suggested that one of his duties to the nation was to object to what he found immoral. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for us, this is in fact not one his duties. The task of the military is to defend the country, and not to set moral precedent. That falls into the purview of our legislature.
In reality a lot of the "no gays in the military" comes from politicians and right wingers that aren't even in the military. It's used for political purposes and doesn't really represent at all what goes on among the rank and file troops.
Um, did you watch the video I posted? That was a standing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs making that statement. Yes, in large part he was able to because he knew he had political cover, but to say that this is all the politicians' fault is wrong.
In reality a lot of the "no gays in the military" comes from politicians and right wingers that aren't even in the military. It's used for political purposes and doesn't really represent at all what goes on among the rank and file troops.
Um, did you watch the video I posted? That was a standing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs making that statement. Yes, in large part he was able to because he knew he had political cover, but to say that this is all the politicians' fault is wrong.
Generals are pretty much politicians. Most of them get a star for ass kissing and they are heavily involved with high level politicians due to the issue of which bases are in which states.
If you think that the Chairman of the JCF, aka the presidents man in the military, in anyway represents the views, values, or concerns, of the rank and file you're completely wrong.
waterlogged on
Democrat that will switch parties and turn red if Clinton is nominated.:P[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
If your description of the testimony given is accurate, I think it is fair to say that Gen. Pace's own bias that causes him to side against openly homosexual servicemen. I'm working off of principles here rather than a fresh knowledge of the particulars.
This is the problem. This statement should have ENDED his career.
Initially, it appeared that he was suggesting that although he doesn't agree with homosexuality, he would perform his duty despite his own bias. However, it all went downhill when he suggested that one of his duties to the nation was to object to what he found immoral. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for us, this is in fact not one his duties. The task of the military is to defend the country, and not to set moral precedent. That falls into the purview of our legislature.
I would say it's not the purpose of the legislature either, but of The People. Or even, The Individual.
The task of the military is to defend the country, and not to set moral precedent. That falls into the purview of our legislature.
I would say it's not the purpose of the legislature either, but of The People. Or even, The Individual.
I consider laws restricting actions such as murder, theft, etc. to be, in a sense, moral definitions. I suppose morality could be defined merely as your principles, and not a restriction on your actions. Either way, it's semantics and I admit that I'm not entirely in the mood to nail down the proper definition when the gist of my sentiment is obvious. I apologize for the laziness with which I'm communicating my thought, but then I suppose I'm living up to my name.
Why the Right and the Military and it's leadership doesn't want homosexuals in the military is blatantly obvious to anyone who has been in or understands the military at all but I want to point something out to all of you that you probably don't realize about the military.
The Uniform Code of Justice forbids sexual conduct unbecoming of a military personnel even in heterosexual relationships. You can be kicked out of the military for deviant sexual activity in a married heterosexual relationship, so it's no surprise that open homosexuality isn't allowed.
Also, you can be gay and be in the military, you just can't flaunt your homosexuality. What the left complains about is that there should be no rules there. But the military is ALL RULES. If you don't want to follow those rules, don't join. When you join you give them that right to control every aspect of your life, up to and including leaving you behind to defend while others escape, if that need were to arise.
The point of being a warrior, or serving, is that of discipline, and discipline in every aspect of one's life is the strength of the warrior being. And the military feels that homosexual conduct, and deviant sexual behavior in any context, is a lack of personal discipline. If one cannot be disciplined in their personal conduct when they are not in a battle situation, how can one expect them to maintain discipline in the face of some of the most terrible experiences man can feel?
Everything in the world isn't about equality and fairness and glorification of sexual preferences and the right wing realizes that. Unfortunately, many people in our society are forgetting the old concepts of self discipline and self control, in part because they wish to rebel against perceived unfair judgements of others for their actions.
I understand that point of view, but self indulgence at any cost and total lack of personal discipline are not attributes you seek in those whom you put the very lives of your fellow countrymen in the hands of.
What on earth gives the military the right to determine what is "deviant" sexual behavior between two fully consenting adults who aren't actually hurting one another? Not to mention the outright bigotry of declaring homosexuality deviant sexual behavior by virtue of being homosexual sexual behavior
Also for those who say that homosexuality being unfit for militaries, people should really look back at ancient Sparta.
First and foremost, to the right wing, to most religious people (not just Christian, but Jewish, Muslim, etc) homosexuality is considered deviant behavior. Just because the Romans used to engage in it, and just because we've had 30 years of a homosexual movement investing it's money in an equality movement, doesn't detract from that reality. And in a truly understanding world, homosexuals will act as they wish, and will not be oppressed, but they also won't try to glorify sodomy in our culture to the point that it's constantly in the faces of those who believe it is deviant behavior. Now the reality is that for a long time all of Western society (and Muslim society today) oppressed the homosexual community, and that was wrong. But you dont' correct it by turning the whole of culture into some sort of idol to how great the homosexual acts are.
How in the hell is asking for equal rights "glorifying sodomy in our culture"
If I didn't think it was rude, I'd right out ask for your honest opinion on the morality of homosexuality, but your posts already seem to be shining that through loud and clear, unless you're trying some "Devil's Advocate" angle here
Let's just broaden out Don't Ask Don't Tell. If anyone is caught with any evidence that they have any sexual tendencies at all, they are thrown out. Straight, Gay, whatever. Any evidence that you are even interested in any sex with anyone gets an automatic dishonorable discharge.
I mean, the military is all about warriors living by disciplined rules. This would be the essence of the warrior.
Let's just broaden out Don't Ask Don't Tell. If anyone is caught with any evidence that they have any sexual tendencies at all, they are thrown out. Straight, Gay, whatever. Any evidence that you are even interested in any sex with anyone gets an automatic dishonorable discharge.
I mean, the military is all about warriors living by disciplined rules. This would be the essence of the warrior.
Seriously. I never understood how DADT allowed for heteros to let everyone know about their sexual preferences.
Ask anyone who has actually been in the military what its really like in boot camp, combat situations, or just normal, everyday military stress.
There's a reason why there isn't a co-ed barracks in basic training. Sure, there can males and females in the same unit, but are they sharing the same rooms, or the same shower? No. There's a reason for that.
Most of you non-military are thinking of some idealized Ender's Game, Starship Troopers military where men and women, gay and straight, are able to walk around, butt-naked with no sexual tension whatsoever. Fact is, that will only happen if the those military personel were robots. But we're human. With human emotions and flaws. The military realizes this. Combine regular human emotion and flaws with a very high stress environment, and you have a recipe for disaster.
I don't hate homosexuals. I have several friends who are openly gay. They're great people, but only one was in the military, and he'll tell you the same thing. My personel life and my military life are two completely different things, and are held in that regard. I believe it will take a major change within civilian society before the military will change their policy.
Ask anyone who has actually been in the military what its really like in boot camp, combat situations, or just normal, everyday military stress.
There's a reason why there isn't a co-ed barracks in basic training. Sure, there can males and females in the same unit, but are they sharing the same rooms, or the same shower? No. There's a reason for that.
Most of you non-military are thinking of some idealized Ender's Game, Starship Troopers military where men and women, gay and straight, are able to walk around, butt-naked with no sexual tension whatsoever. Fact is, that will only happen if the those military personel were robots. But we're human. With human emotions and flaws. The military realizes this. Combine regular human emotion and flaws with a very high stress environment, and you have a recipe for disaster.
I don't hate homosexuals. I have several friends who are openly gay. They're great people, but only one was in the military, and he'll tell you the same thing. My personel life and my military life are two completely different things, and are held in that regard. I believe it will take a major change within civilian society before the military will change their policy.
Do the gay NATO troops get their own barracks away from US troops? Also, why do you assume that a gay guy is going to be attracted to you or other members of the unit?
Do I actually need to whip out and scan my military ID to give myself some credibility on this issue?
Yeah, basic is stressful, but what you're saying is that these people won't be able to control themselves for some reason, but being gay doesn't increase the chances of a person having uncontrollable sexual desires. It happens to straight men, gay men, straight women, gay women, fucking everybody. It will probably happen that, at some point, a gay man will rape another man. But you know what? Straight men rape other men in the same setting. Ban them too?
I had two gay roommates in Iraq. On my thirty man shift there were four gay people altogether. Everyone knew about three of them and I'm sure plenty suspected the fourth. We used the same shower areas, slept in the same rooms, and treated each other the same. One made junior sailor of the quarter. Nobody had problems ever except for a couple bigots who fortunately couldn't do anything thanks to DHDP. My anectdotal evidence trumps yours.
Quid on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Ask anyone who has actually been in the military what its really like in boot camp, combat situations, or just normal, everyday military stress.
There's a reason why there isn't a co-ed barracks in basic training. Sure, there can males and females in the same unit, but are they sharing the same rooms, or the same shower? No. There's a reason for that.
Most of you non-military are thinking of some idealized Ender's Game, Starship Troopers military where men and women, gay and straight, are able to walk around, butt-naked with no sexual tension whatsoever. Fact is, that will only happen if the those military personel were robots. But we're human. With human emotions and flaws. The military realizes this. Combine regular human emotion and flaws with a very high stress environment, and you have a recipe for disaster.
I don't hate homosexuals. I have several friends who are openly gay. They're great people, but only one was in the military, and he'll tell you the same thing. My personel life and my military life are two completely different things, and are held in that regard. I believe it will take a major change within civilian society before the military will change their policy.
What, your Gay Friend will tell us that he never actually ravaged anyone, and it's laughable that gay people can't be in any army position, even a translator?
Also, very nice strawman on what "we think" the army is like (many of us [not me] are in the army), and also that stupidity about high stress environments turning people into uncontrolled sex maniacs.
All the anecdotal evidence I keep hearing tells me that it's politicians who care and regular soldiers couldn't give a flying fuck.
Well, the military is a microcosm of America itself, and for the most part people don't care. They also don't vote, which is why most of the marriage bans got passed by referrendum.
Posts
Wait. He actually is crediting Rudy for taking down the Mafia? The same guy who was the main reason that John Gotti became known as the "Teflon Don"?
Pardon me while I laugh my head off.
Again, Rudy is more or less tangental to most of these issues.
Mafia: Rudy screwed the pooch on this. It took his successor to break the Gambino family.
Cleaning up NY: If you're talking the revitalization, that was all the magic of Disney. If you're talking the community policing, that's mostly thanks to William Bratton, Rudy's first police commish. Oh, and when Bratton started getting deserved credit for what he did, you know what Rudy did? Shitcanned his ass. Nobody makes Rudy look bad, at least in his own mind.
9/11: Two words: broken radios.
Or how about putting the emergency command center up in WTC 7, instead of in a bunker on the ground like any intelligent, non-corrupt person would do?
Face it - 9/11 was the best thing to happen to Rudy. Because without it, he'd be a washed up ex-pol.
Bush didn't do 9/11. Guiliani did!
That being said, the military is a machine. When you join the military, you must accept that you will be mistreated if it is considered to be for the greater good (an unabashedly subjective metric) of the country. If, in keeping with the example of homosexuality, a soldier attracts negative attention to the point where his presence is detrimental to the effectiveness of his unit or the military as a whole, action should be taken which will have the best outcome for the military, if not for the soldier.
A simplistic hypothetical situation:
The military in question is composed of three soldiers, A, B, and C. Soldier A is homosexual. Upon A revealing this to Soldiers B and C, who themselves are bigoted against homosexuality, an assault occurs. This is a lose-lose situation, because B and C must be punished, but so also action be taken to remove A should it be seen as likely that this could occur again with A. All soldiers being equal, and there being no possibility of effective mediation of the situation in the future, the military is best served to side with the majority, as a greater number of soldiers should equate to greater effectiveness in carrying out its directive.
The Republicans in this debate are not necessarily bigoted against homosexuals (although my gut instinct tells me that many are). They may simply be under the assumption that a significant percentage of the fighting force would be inexorably bigoted against homosexuals. If this is true, then I agree with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The military is not a platform with which to push cultural reform, unless an argument can be made that the positives gained by said reform outweigh the negatives in terms of the defence of our country.
I am not under this assumption, and I believe that the vast majority our military that would not react so poorly to homosexuals among them. I posit that allowing openly homosexual individuals would provide a net gain in terms of membership and therefore military effectiveness. This is, of course, speculation as I don't have any statistical data to back up my assertion.
In counter to the argument that we already can have homosexuals, so long as they are not open about it:
We could make similar provisions against any possibly divisive trait (see above for a list), but the possibility of alienating recruits and current members of our armed forces would be dangerous. Furthermore, the bureaucracy required to deal with soldiers who failed to hide some such facet of their live would be enormous.
Actually this is historically untrue. The military or service has often been a catalyst for social advancements. Desegregation of the military and interactions of blacks from disparate regions of the country was a major impetous for the civil rights movement, for instance. It isn't very difficult to imagine openly gay men and women serving with heterosexual men and women and proving themselves to be just as capable and just as human as anybody else would lead to an advancement of the LGBT rights movement as well.
It is certainly true that the military has been used as a political / social tool in the past, and surely it will be again in the future. I'm not arguing against facts. However, I consider this to be a misuse of resources. Any benefits to the civil rights movements should have been tangential to the purpose of strengthening the military through desegregation.
It's pretty well known that Clinton's attempt to allow homosexuals to serve openly was stymied by the brass (most notably Powell.) As I've stated before, the response to that needs to be a simple one - the general in question should be informed that if he will not obey a lawful order, then he has two options - resign or face court-martial.
The problem is not that open homosexuality is disruptive. The problem is that General Peter Pace felt no fucking shame in stating, in front of Congress, that he feels that homosexuals cannot serve with honor and integrity. The day when generals like Pace realize that making such statements will mean that their careers will come to a screeching end is when this injustice will finally be fixed.
The civil rights movement was largely created as a direct result of military desegregation. The army was ahead of the curve, it didn't wait for all the bigots to accept blacks before they made their decision. The military is often advanced in those regards rather than being dependent on the moodswings of the country at large. Which is one of the many reasons why expecting all those bigots to accept teh gays before finally abolishing DADT doesn't make any sense.
So, please explain to me how the FUCK dismissing Arabic translators, at a time when we most needed them, for being homosexuals, was in any fucking way "strengthening the military"?
The simple fact is that the ban is indefensible, and only exists because of the prejudices of the top brass and the unwillingness of the Executive Branch to do its fucking job as Commander-In-Chief and inform said brass that either they can stop discriminating, leave the service, or face a court-martial in which they will assuredly be convicted.
I understand where you are coming from but do not agree. Our military is spread very thin and coming up very low in recruitment levels. The time is ripe to accept gays because our military needs them. Other troops will be more willing to accept gays since their contribution would be visible and useful. During wartime social differences are going to be less obvious because people are relying on each other to survive and get their job done. It's when they're sitting back not doing a heck of alot you'd probably get more friction.
The Pubs aren't scared of the brass. They're scared of their base.
Which, again, is one reason that I want to see the winner in 08 get elected without the help of the "Southern bloc" of voters. Once people realize that they're no longer the American kingmaker, it's going to be a long, cold winter for them.
The lack of a real front runner in the GOP race shows how splintered the party is already becoming.
I have to assume you didn't read my original post very carefully. I clearly stated multiple times that I am opposed to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
I find comfort in optimism. That's why I suggested that it may be the perception by the "brass" that the soldiers won't accept homosexuals that is motivating this ban, not their own personal bigotry. If your description of the testimony given is accurate, I think it is fair to say that Gen. Pace's own bias that causes him to side against openly homosexual servicemen. I'm working off of principles here rather than a fresh knowledge of the particulars.
It's not just about the Republicans. The "Southern bloc" has a distorting effect on American politics as a whole, and it's directly attributable to their kingmaker aspect. If you remove that, they just become another region, and considering how many of the states in that region are debtor states, they're a region with not much to offer. Their political fortunes will go downhill fast.
Everything you say is such a horrible misrepresentation of what homosexuality is it's disgusting. Let's begin with this one premise, one that nullifies most of the meat of your argument: we are not a theocracy. What a religion states about a behavior doesn't matter at all when making policy.
Next, I'd like to know what you're misinterpreting as an attempt to glorify homosexuality. Was it glorifying other races to desegregate? You're pointing at something that you perceive as a potential threat (for whatever reason, I don't really care) that just isn't fucking there. Equality is not glorification.
Lastly, that you imply that "grab-assing" will be a frequent practice in the barracks is really telling about how much of a bigot you yourself are. The quality of being gay doesn't automatically include a raging, uncontrollable sex drive. You do have a problem with the idea gays in the military, and it's that you seem to have no concept of the fact that gay men are indistinguishable from straight men save for a specific preference that confers no other differences.
Watch it for yourself.
This is the problem. This statement should have ENDED his career.
It's basically going to take an entire generation dying off to see the shit ended without a real fight.
For some reason, I don't find Homophobia to be anywhere between Honor and Integrity, but it seems the current military fad is to just pretend bad things don't happen, instead of punishing offenders.
By the logic of "hey, some soldiers may have issues with gay dudes and abuse them!", I refer you to active duty rape. It appears they have issues with women, too. Let's just kick Them out as well!
Besides, we don't need to be running around glorifying and worshiping their culture and that jazz nonsense. If we let blacks vote, everyone will just be all sex, sex, sex and jazz.
It's not about bigotry. It's for the country!
It did, but only because he would have had to answer for it at reconfirmation in a democratically controlled Senate when W nominated him to head up the Joint Chiefs again.
Just because conservatives are laggards when it comes to social morality doesn't mean that they're not advancing. It just means that they're advancing about 30 years behind the rest of us.
Which means that they're in the 70s. And dragging us back there with them.
Damnit Will, you know how polyester and Day-Glo dyes make me chafe!
Then this.
After campaigning by Anita Bryant and her anti-gay "Save Our Children" crusade, Miami-Dade County, Florida voters overwhelmingly vote to repeal the county's gay rights ordinance.
Fucking Florida. And I live in Florida...
Men get raped in the military as well. Just like in civilian life things happen. The real problem is that in highly stressful and testosterone fueled situations it tends to happen more.
Part of military justice is keeping a code of honor and a higher standard of character then the general populace. Mainly because you're put in situations of responsibility and they try to ingrain this into you in the hope that you won't make a jackass out of yourself and create a public fiasco. But a lot of it has to do with traditions.
As for homophobia, it's blown way out of proportion. Don't ask don't tell goes out the window as I knew many gay marines and sailors (bring on the gay navy jokes), and from talking with my friends in other services it's not that much different.
The thing is crude jokes and non political correctness are part of the private military culture. But at the end of the day when somebody is on your side in a fire fight or life and death situation you're not going to care who the hell they sleep with at night.
Much in the same way that the military played a critical role in breaking down racial barriers, it can (and to an extent is) doing the same with homosexuality.
In reality a lot of the "no gays in the military" comes from politicians and right wingers that aren't even in the military. It's used for political purposes and doesn't really represent at all what goes on among the rank and file troops.
I've heard this a number of times from what were very racist infantry when they joined.
A year of service (counting boot, even) later, and they've openly talked about how after being exposed to other races in high stress situations, they're actually getting to be fond of them.
Anywho, I didn't mean that post in a "hay, the military sucks" as much as there's been a lot of the chain of command turning a blind eye instead of cleaning house, due to wanting to avoid public relations nightmares, and it bites them in the ass constantly. But the general idea is that if you make a rule allowing openly gay people in the military, you just have to crack down HARD on the first wave of bullshit, and it should be pretty tame beyond that.
Initially, it appeared that he was suggesting that although he doesn't agree with homosexuality, he would perform his duty despite his own bias. However, it all went downhill when he suggested that one of his duties to the nation was to object to what he found immoral. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for us, this is in fact not one his duties. The task of the military is to defend the country, and not to set moral precedent. That falls into the purview of our legislature.
Um, did you watch the video I posted? That was a standing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs making that statement. Yes, in large part he was able to because he knew he had political cover, but to say that this is all the politicians' fault is wrong.
Generals are pretty much politicians. Most of them get a star for ass kissing and they are heavily involved with high level politicians due to the issue of which bases are in which states.
If you think that the Chairman of the JCF, aka the presidents man in the military, in anyway represents the views, values, or concerns, of the rank and file you're completely wrong.
I would say it's not the purpose of the legislature either, but of The People. Or even, The Individual.
I consider laws restricting actions such as murder, theft, etc. to be, in a sense, moral definitions. I suppose morality could be defined merely as your principles, and not a restriction on your actions. Either way, it's semantics and I admit that I'm not entirely in the mood to nail down the proper definition when the gist of my sentiment is obvious. I apologize for the laziness with which I'm communicating my thought, but then I suppose I'm living up to my name.
I don't see why as
A) These are televised nationally. This isn't just for Florida
and I feel that I have to comment on this too
What on earth gives the military the right to determine what is "deviant" sexual behavior between two fully consenting adults who aren't actually hurting one another? Not to mention the outright bigotry of declaring homosexuality deviant sexual behavior by virtue of being homosexual sexual behavior
Also for those who say that homosexuality being unfit for militaries, people should really look back at ancient Sparta.
How in the hell is asking for equal rights "glorifying sodomy in our culture"
If I didn't think it was rude, I'd right out ask for your honest opinion on the morality of homosexuality, but your posts already seem to be shining that through loud and clear, unless you're trying some "Devil's Advocate" angle here
I mean, the military is all about warriors living by disciplined rules. This would be the essence of the warrior.
There's a reason why there isn't a co-ed barracks in basic training. Sure, there can males and females in the same unit, but are they sharing the same rooms, or the same shower? No. There's a reason for that.
Most of you non-military are thinking of some idealized Ender's Game, Starship Troopers military where men and women, gay and straight, are able to walk around, butt-naked with no sexual tension whatsoever. Fact is, that will only happen if the those military personel were robots. But we're human. With human emotions and flaws. The military realizes this. Combine regular human emotion and flaws with a very high stress environment, and you have a recipe for disaster.
I don't hate homosexuals. I have several friends who are openly gay. They're great people, but only one was in the military, and he'll tell you the same thing. My personel life and my military life are two completely different things, and are held in that regard. I believe it will take a major change within civilian society before the military will change their policy.
Do the gay NATO troops get their own barracks away from US troops? Also, why do you assume that a gay guy is going to be attracted to you or other members of the unit?
Yeah, basic is stressful, but what you're saying is that these people won't be able to control themselves for some reason, but being gay doesn't increase the chances of a person having uncontrollable sexual desires. It happens to straight men, gay men, straight women, gay women, fucking everybody. It will probably happen that, at some point, a gay man will rape another man. But you know what? Straight men rape other men in the same setting. Ban them too?
What, your Gay Friend will tell us that he never actually ravaged anyone, and it's laughable that gay people can't be in any army position, even a translator?
Also, very nice strawman on what "we think" the army is like (many of us [not me] are in the army), and also that stupidity about high stress environments turning people into uncontrolled sex maniacs.
Well, the military is a microcosm of America itself, and for the most part people don't care. They also don't vote, which is why most of the marriage bans got passed by referrendum.