Senate Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' 828
An anonymous reader writes "The Senate and House have now acted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, [a decision] which President Obama will soon sign into law. While this does not permit homosexuals to openly serve, it does return control of the policy to military leaders after nearly two decades."
Yea America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now get rid of torture and death sentence and you'll upgrade from stone age to bronze age!
Re: (Score:3)
Errr, I thought Bronze Age armies in Greece and whatnot had openly gay soldiers.
Re: (Score:3)
Errr, I thought Bronze Age armies in Greece and whatnot had openly gay soldiers.
No, but gay meant allowing oneself to be buggered by someone of equal or lesser status; it was perfectly fine to ass-ream women, children, or younger males (let alone animals or slaves). The Theban Sacred Band was about 60% older soldiers screwing their recruits and PFC-equivalents. Read an annotated translation of Aristophanes' The Clouds for more on this (where it also points out that homosexuality was an upper class affectation considered silly by the lower classes).
The Clouds is a satire / comedy play (Score:5, Informative)
Aristophanes Clouds is a satire / theatre comedy. So some of the views shown by the characters will represent what Athenians thought was funny rather what was true so might not represent true views of the time. Don't take what's said as being the Athenian view of society. After all if you were to do that reading other Aristophanes you'd believe that all Greeks thought that rain was Zeus pissing through a sieve.
Other references from the time to cross references Aristophanes and strengthen your arguments?
Though of course there is always a grain of truth in comedy.
From my classical studies I remember reading that gay relationships were encouraged on the grounds that soldiers would fight harder for their lovers in the line next to them. This paper seems to cover some of that ground: "The Eros of Achilles: Homoerotic Bonding Among Combat Soldiers" by J Laskaris - Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 2000 - vol 10 p139 onwards.
Re:The Clouds is a satire / comedy play (Score:5, Insightful)
This paper seems to cover some of that ground: "The Eros of Achilles: Homoerotic Bonding Among Combat Soldiers" by J Laskaris - Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 2000 - vol 10 p139 onwards.
Wow, awesome find.
First of all, there's a section titled "Mantaming Sparta."
Second, there is this very interesting passage:
Jonathan Shay calls attention to our culture's homophobia as inhibiting or preventing combat soldiers from expressing their full grief at the loss of close comrades - a process that he considers essential in preventing post-traumatic stress disorder and states that, ''Veterans need to voice their grief and love for their dead comrades if they are to heal. However, many have learned to keep quiet because of their culture's discomfort with love between men that is so deeply felt."
That's an aspect of homophobia / "don't ask don't tell" that few think about.
Re:Yea America! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, we still have the Christian fundamentalists and the far right to help us catch up to radical Islam in the race back the middle ages.
Re: (Score:3)
But remember who is commander-in-chief of the military. Obama will be making a mistake if he doesn't have a press conference to, first, sign the bill, and second, give an order pronouncing DADT dead.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yea America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lame?
Or maybe the fact that nearly anything of substance(and a lot of things that aren't) are getting filibustered regularly in a political atmosphere that's ever more hostile to reason and rational thinking in the name of short term political gains?
I can't even begin to comprehend the political calculus if the healthcare reform bill would've been possible if the democrats started from a stronger point of view.
There was posted a long list of accomplishments by Barack Obama in the last two years.
Don't give me this bullpucky that Democrats can run on their accomplishments, because it's not that simple. Russ Feingold? He ran on those accomplishments. and lost.
On the other hand though, Blanche Lincoln? Ran away from those accomplishments and still lost.
The political arena these days is a place where common wisdom goes to die. It's going to be a very weird few years.
Re:Yea America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but now there is a real ability to protect Gays and Lesbian's and unless we make a huge step backwards, I doubt we will have another president who is homophobic like Reagan or Bush Sr. was.
"Don't ask, don't tell" is what's being repealed here. I'll mention that this policy came from the Clinton administration. If it is an inherently homophobic policy then Clinton would be the homophobe in question.
Now, there are a lot of childish people on this site. Childish people don't understand the concept that one can criticize a Democrat without also supporting a Republican. I think understanding that would be against their religion and they are quite devout. Anyway, in the hopes that they'll control their urge to knee-jerk, I'll roll my eyes and explain for their benefit that I'm no defender of Reagan and I am especially no defender of Bush.
Having said that, I'd like you to help me understand your viewpoint if you would. What is homophobic about "don't ask, don't tell"? Do you believe it is inherently homophobic and no amount of reform could fix that, or do you believe it is inherently neutral but has been implemented in a homophobic manner?
I never liked Clinton, not just because I have philosophical disagreements with him but also because he is a masterful politician. He always gave me the impression of a master salesman who could talk you into buying things you don't need and cannot afford and make you think that doing it was your own idea. That's a skill that honest people don't need. Yet I am thankful that I don't suffer from the popular need to demonize anything or anyone I don't like, so when I think something he did was a good idea I can say so.
It seemed to me that "don't ask, don't tell" was a way to reinforce the professionalism of the military. It made it easier for the soldiers to focus on their difficult and dangerous work instead of being distracted by concerns like what consenting adults do behind closed doors. I believe concerns like that have no place on the battlefield. I believe that's true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. If you believe I am wrong or misguided, can you tell me why?
Re:Yea America! (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? So you can't see that being a worthwhile skill for a hostage negotiator? Or a diplomat having to prevent a war?
Re:Yea America! (Score:5, Informative)
The simple answer is that the military isn't always on the battlefield and people's lives in the military are significantly more entwined than co-workers at a civilian job. You live with the people you work with. You go to bars with them and get roaring drunk with them. They invite you to their parties and weddings. The bosses make sure everybody has a place to go on Thanksgiving and Christmas. A lot of the time, your co-workers are the only people who speak the same language as you.
"Don't ask, don't tell" full name is "Don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, don't pursue." Until it was passed, someone could make a complaint to the relevant authority that you were a homosexual and the authority, such as NCIS, was obliged to investigate and determine if, in fact, you were a homosexual. If they believed(not proved) that you were a homosexual, you were then dishonorable discharged, under a special code. The code would show up when your prospective employer checked and would tell them that you were a homosexual. How would an employer react to finding out you were a homosexual pre-nineties?
"Don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise. It put an end to the proactive investigations, military police searching your room for proof on someone else's word. It did not end the discrimination, for if you were caught doing something homosexual, for example, holding hands or kissing or hanging out in a gay bar (which they, to this day, raid) that person was obligated to testify against you to have you discharged. That is just the legalese version. Have you every talked about your significant other while at work? Can you imagine being forbidden from doing so? Can you imagine meeting everybody's girlfriends and wives, but if you even have the courage to bring yours (which most of the time you don't) you can only introduce yours as "a good friend?" That is what "Don't ask, don't tell" is. It let us homos serve, so long as we act sexless. I'm not saying that we should be allowed to have gay sex on a table in the chow hall during lunch, but it would have been nice to go on a date to a nice restaurant without taking a group of friends as "cover."
"Don't ask, don't tell" forces gays and lesbians to separate their lives in a way that straights don't worry about. That is why it was homophobic. It averted some persecution, but it gave no freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, to be tangential, if a man and women is caught in an indelicate position in the park, they are more likely to be let off with a warning, whereas if it is two men, their names get in the paper.
To your main point, I understand what you are saying. I agree with most of what you said. Get the government out of the marriage business. However, your information on how the military works seems a little out of date. Women do now serve in the same units as men. It is frowned upon to sleep with members of
Re:Yea America! (Score:5, Insightful)
How does that make for a stronger military?
How about we keep the over-achieving homosexuals and just ask the immature redneck with no coping skills to get out of the way so that a real man take his place?
Re:Yea America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. It was a way to ostracize and degrade homosexuals because they're disliked.
If it is about the professionalism of not talking about sexuality, why not make the policy apply to heterosexuals too? If a man was witnessed on a date or courting a woman on or off duty, on or off base, by another soldier, that soldier would be obligated to report it to his superior and the soldier would be summarily dishonorably discharged.
Other grounds for dismissal: wearing a wedding ring, mentioning a wife/gf, using gender-specific pronouns when talking about a spouse/gf or ex-gf, mentioning your biological children, even by accident, keeping a photo of you with another person that suggests intimate heterosexuality, bringing a date/wife/gf to any work-related event, having books/movies with overtly heterosexual story-lines or themes on display, mentioning a gender pronoun when applying for benefits for a spouse.
It irks me when heterosexuals say they don't like when homosexuals are 'overt' about their sexuality. What you don't realize is heterosexuals are overt about their sexuality ALL THE TIME. You just don't notice it.
Re: (Score:3)
To me the democrats are incompetent and the republicans are evil, but I don't live in the US and am just happy that this bill finally passed.
Re:Yea America! (Score:5, Informative)
I left Clinton out because DADT was a proposed rule to protect Gays in the military. It reversed the policies under Reagan and Bush that persecuted Gays and Lesbians by "protecting their private lives from scrutiny". It was not an Anti-gay measure, even though it failed miserably and allowed persecution to continue, but now codified it and tied the executive branch's hands from being able to do anything about it.
But go on living in your bizzaro world where stoopid is smart.
The reason this is slashdot worthy (Score:5, Funny)
A protocol with an ask request without a tell response could be considered an early form of udp.
This is why the Dems lost the House (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether you agree with DADT or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority. Shut down Guantanamo Bay, get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and do something about the economy and deficit. Then I won't view this debate as an utter waste of congress' time. In the meantime, this is just a wedge issue that Republicans can use to gain midwestern support, much like gay marriage was for Bush in '04. I doubt Obama even personally cares about this issue -- he just cares about the money he gets from the homosexual interest groups. This hardly changes anything. Now gay service members can talk about being gay. Whoop-di-do. I'd rather they be safe at home and not be allowed to talk about their sexuality than serving in hostile territory allowed to talk about it. It just doesn't matter if DADT is right or wrong, it's nowhere near as wrong as putting these soldiers in harm's way unnecessarily. Obama pretended to be outraged by these wars and Guantanamo Bay on the campaign trail, what happened to that?
Re:This is why the Dems lost the House (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is Guantanamo a priority and DADT isn't?
Unlike the Iraq war, practically speaking, Guantanamo doesn't make a big difference. There are only 174 people there. The biggest benefit to closing it is a "we care about people's rights" angle. Which is an excellent idea, but doesn't DADT fall into the exactly same category? It probably even affects many more people in the practical sense.
Re:This is why the Dems lost the House (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to.
I'd prefer to have neither really.
I think both DADT repeal and Guantanamo closing should have happened long ago. I just don't think that social progress should be stopped until all terrible injustices get resolved first. Otherwise we can get into a loop of:
Let's repeal DADT? No, there's Guantanamo first
How about now? No, there's the Iraq war first
How about now? No, now we started another war somewhere else
How about now? No, there's...
And progress for millions gets stopped by something horrible happening to a few people somewhere. I'm not saying to reverse the order either, we could just do both things. There are millions of people in a country, it's possible to fix several issues at once.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you give up rights when you enter the military, but the issue was still one of equality. A heterosexual soldier feared no consequences for talking about his or her sexual interests, but a homosexual soldier could not. The rules don't have to uphold civilian notions of civil liberties, but they do have to apply equally to all concerned, if they are to just rules.
Re: (Score:3)
Not even sexual interests. How about normal day-to-day stuff like "I had a fight with the significant other." If your SO is the same sex, you can't talk about that.
Re:This is why the Dems lost the House (Score:5, Insightful)
I indirectly refer to my sexuality at work all the time, like every time I refer to my wife as in, "Yeah, no problem I can stay until 5 today, my wife is getting the kids today."
Being required to keep your sexuality hidden, basically amounts to a ban on talking of, even indirectly, your private life.
Are heterosexual soldiers required to completely refrain from making any statement that tags them as heterosexual ? Are they allowed mentioning the wife ?
It's blatant discrimination to require silence from homosexuals, on topics heterosexuals are free to discuss.
Re: (Score:3)
He woke up one day and was the president, then he realized all the stuff Bush had been saying about there not being easy, quick solution to these things were true..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously? For DADT, there's a very very easy solution - the President is Commander in Chief of the army, he can literally say "this is bullshit guys, you must treat people of all sexual orientations equally". Quick and easy - after all, that's what the commander does, he commands. I mean, how do you think Bill Clinton got DADT started in the first place? He just said "allright people, you just can't talk about this", and then Congress fought about it for a while.
The problem Obama has, of course, is that th
Re: (Score:3)
You say this right after he GOT this passed. And it had to be a bi-partisan effort (to some degree at any rate) due to the super-majority requirement caused by the GOP filibuster system. If he sha
Re:This is why the Dems lost the House (Score:5, Interesting)
For DADT, there's a very very easy solution - the President is Commander in Chief of the army, he can literally say "this is bullshit guys, you must treat people of all sexual orientations equally"
I might be missing something about the US chain of command, but my understanding was that DADT was passed as a law (wikipedia confirms this: federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654)). No officer, even the CinC, may give an order to violate a law without facing court martial. If he ordered the generals to ignore DADT, he would be telling them to ignore a law, which would be an illegal order and they would have no obligation to follow it.
Re: (Score:3)
My sentiments exactly. Obama has mostly fought the wrong battles and lost all the ones that mattered. Health care reform? Please. I can't believe people call this guy a socialist. If only. . .
Re:This is why the Dems lost the House (Score:5, Insightful)
You could make the same argument about any number of rights issues: "Whether or not you agree with civil rights, it's hard to argue that allowing blacks to vote and ending segregation is a priority when we have the Vietnam War and Soviet imperialism to worry about. Until we do something about that, civil rights is an utter waste of time" Or how about:"Whether or not you agree with the suffrage movement or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority. After all we have the Great War to worry about. Until we win against Germany, debating about an amendment to give women the vote is an utter waste of time"
How can we say that basic civil rights aren't a priority? How can we say that ending discrimination is a waste of time? That justice is just too inconvenient right now? Because that's exactly what you're arguing. Our society is fundamentally about rights and liberties. The right to speak and assemble, the right to worship as we choose, the right to privacy, the right to a just trial, the right to pursue happiness- to live your life. Those rights aren't an inconvenient afterthought, they're the entire point of the country. It's critical that gays and lesbians are allowed to serve in the military, because it's defending the rights of everybody, including and especially those who are different, that makes the country worth fighting for in the first place. If we aren't doing that, then everything else becomes just a waste of time.
How long will it last when 'transgendered' apply? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Any votes on how long the policy lasts after someone 'transgendered' files a lawsuit requesting permission to live in the opposite-sex barracks and wear the opposite-sex uniform?
You realize that 'gay' and 'transgendered' are unrelated categories, don't you? Policy regarding gays is a separate issue from policy regarding transgendered people.
Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl (Score:4, Interesting)
Canadian Military Changes Transgender Policy [justout.com]
"Under the new policy, Canadian soldiers are instructed to wear the uniform of their “target” gender, regardless of their biological sex. Military personnel are also instructed to give transgender soldier privacy and respect for their decision — for example, not asking reasons when a soldier changes his or her name on military records. "
Re: (Score:3)
Awesome use of scare quotes, but repealing DADT still leaves trans people in the dust. [transequality.org] Ignoring the fact that (as someone mentioned below) trans people and gay people aren't the same thing (it's a Venn diagram with some overlap, just like straight and trans have some overlap) the US military will still be discriminating against trans people. Don't worry.
(How preventing a trans person like myself, with a tech background and a desire to serve her country, from entering military service helps keep our country
New army moto (Score:5, Funny)
Happened Before (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, if somebody wants to pick up a rifle and go defend my cowardly ass, why on earth would I care who they sleep with when they're on leave.
It is NOT a repeal! (Score:3)
Prior to DADT, the rule was no gays in the military, period. If this were a repeal of the policy, it would mean returning to that. This new law goes further IN THE SAME DIRECTION as DADT.
Serving openly? (Score:3)
I can find nothing in the linked article [washingtonpost.com] that says that homosexuals can not openly serve. In fact, the very first sentence says:
So is TFS wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
No, TFS is correct. Read further down the article, specifically the bottom of page 2.
This leaves it to the military leadership (Obama and the joint chiefs) to decide whether to allow open homosexuals to serve, if they find that it would not affect "troop readiness, cohesion or military recruitment and retention", which a recent report by the pentagon says it wouldn't, so this should be happening shortly.
I'm wondering on what they base this notion.... (Score:4, Insightful)
While it's granted that people who admit to doing something that sounds unusual or strange can be distracting, where, exactly, do they get the idea that people who openly admit to being homosexual is going to be any more distracting than anyone else who openly admits to doing anything that other people around them might not necessarily understand?
For example...
"I really enjoy vampire larping"
"I often wake up in the middle of the night to find I've been sleep-masturbating."
"Twilight was a good movie"
I mean, the list is endless. Who would not find any of the above remarks so alien to their own experience that they might find simply being around a person who admitted to any of the above too distracting to usefully concentrate?
Same arguments, recycled. (Score:3)
I haven't heard a single resonant argument since gays in the military became an issue.
The opposition's arguments are the same arguments used to oppose desegregation in the military. The pro-segregation arguments have been trashed by sixty years experience.
When you think about it, the whole brouhaha is really stupid. Back in the sixties, during Vietnam, homosexuality was still a powerful taboo to almost all of male Americans (even the gay ones). Men went to Canada, when all they had to do to legally get out of going to war is express sexual orientation towards other men.
Time has passed this nonsense by. It would be seriously fucked if a young man could avoid the draft just by bringing a sex video of himself doing a sex act with another man. People would certainly avail themselves of that nowadays if the war was unpopular.
Those in power who want to send men into the meatgrinder of war surely have this on their mind. They don't want their manpower (cannon fodder) pool compromised by an easy way to avoid the draft.
There is no way around this if you want to have a fair draft that hits every man evenly. (And don't get me started on upper middle class deferments).
John McCain Says: (Score:4, Interesting)
Men and women were pretty heroic in World War II and the Korean War, just to name two. DADT wasn't in effect back then. I bet that GLBT and everything else were serving in the military back then, too. Hard to believe, I know... But I guess we are somehow more professional because we don't allow gay people to serve?
Speaking of professional... You know what would happen if you did this in a business? You'd get your ass sued right off, and rightly so.
Gays are ALREADY in the military (Score:4, Insightful)
It is kind of silly to worry what will happen as a result of gays being in the military, since they have always been there. They just haven't been allowed to admit it.
Re:In other (more accurate) words, (Score:5, Funny)
My brigade is more fabulous than yours.
Re:In other (more accurate) words, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other (more accurate) words, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In other (more accurate) words, (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not much of a thought. DADT was implemented because nothing was in the books, so it became an issue when individuals had (for lack of better terms) issues.
Now that all you do is remove the policy, the same problems will come back, because now there is no policy to say that you cant discriminate.
You can find similiar problems with the US constitution; historically, we have had to specifically state that women or black people also count. Sadly, there are plenty of places in the US where if those ammendments were not made, they wouldn't.
Re:In other (more accurate) words, (Score:4, Informative)
Obama and Gates will make sure they have a policy. They will just need to rewrite a few regulations to exclude homosexual behavior from being applied. If they catch two soldiers engaging in Homosexual behavior, then they will just use the fraternization section of the UCMJ.
Re: (Score:3)
Try again. Enlisted > Enlisted as well. There is almost always a rank difference because even in a room full of corporals, there are different enlistment dates.
This is what has been told to me both my brothers, one is a Staff Sargent in the Marines, the other is a Staff Sargent in the Air Force.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fraternization, as defined by the Manual for Courts-martial, is a personal relationship between an officer and an enlisted member that violates the customary bounds of acceptable behavior in the Air Force and prejudices good order and discipline, discredits the armed services, or operates to the personal disgrace or dishonor of the officer involved.
Enlisted and Enlisted is referred to as "Unprofessional Relationship". Read AFI 36-2909 for more specifics.
Re:In other (more accurate) words, (Score:5, Informative)
From a more realistic standpoint, relationships between enlisted personnel is not frowned upon for the most part, provided they are the same rank or at least both NCO's or non-NCO's (non-commissioned officer). Yes, there are different enlistment dates and more responsibilities are given to the soldier with the earliest enlistment date when they have the same rank, but that doesn't really apply to relationships from what I've seen. The big no-no amongst enlisted is if one is an NCO and one is not. If a Private and a Staff Sergeant hook up then the SSG can get in quite a bit of trouble for abusing the rank and higher authority. This is all assuming they are in the same Unit; soldiers with different MOS's and not in the same unit or company should be able to date whomever they want. It happens all the time and I know several NCO's married to non-NCO's and even officers.
People meet and fall in love in the military on a daily basis, regardless of rank or status.
Re:In other (more accurate) words, (Score:4, Informative)
Its not much of a thought. DADT was implemented because nothing was in the books, so it became an issue when individuals had (for lack of better terms) issues.
No. DADT came about because Clinton wanted to repeal the ban, (Homosexuals were considered security threat because they could be blackmailed into spying. How openly homosexual soldiers could be blackmailed on being gay, was never clear.) and there was push back because of fear that "sodomites" would try to rape straight soldiers while taking refuge from artillery barages in fox holes and whatnot. And really, what red blooded straight American boy with bulging muscles can resist the sailor from the Village People?
It was a compromise because bigots wanted to stay bigots. Clinton should have just pulled a Truman and ordered it.
Re:In other (more accurate) words, (Score:5, Funny)
Sooooo... openly gay soldiers were a security risk and prone to blackmailing, but closed gay soldiers who risk being kicked out of the military should it become known are not...
I think you need military intelligence to understand that logic.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is DADT was not an anti-discrimination policy, it was an anti-investigate policy, if knowledge of someone being gay came to the powers that be in the military, then the person was treated the same as before this policy came about (no gays allowed). The thing is it did not have to be the gay told, it could be an angry ex-spouse with a video tape, a police raid on a motel room, any number of other sources and then it was court martial time.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can you have "issues" with gays but you must not have "issues" with blacks, jews and women in your team?
Re:Obama achieved something (Score:4, Funny)
where have you been? He has been achieving his goals since day one.
Re:Obama achieved something (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me start off by saying I often agree with the Republicans, but I have been saying DADT was a bad policy since it first came about and it has nothing to do with gays serving in the military. This policy was a side step, it was like the solution of cutting the kid in half for joint custody, no one liked it. The reality of this policy after all was not "Don't Ask Don't Tell", but was instead "If we don't find out it is ok", just look at the number of gays in the military that were outed through no action of their own, who then had to face the punishment. At least now we can move on to something that is A POLICY.
Re:Obama achieved something (Score:5, Insightful)
America is headed toward a state of perpetual war, but still has an all-volunteer force. Nobody would support or comply with another draft.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Obama achieved something (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that he did not physically vote for this and he could have done far more but to say this is "no thanks to Obama" is just plain wrong.
Re:Obama achieved something (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the scale of the US political system I am amazed anything gets done at all. I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities. It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.
Re:Obama achieved something (Score:4, Insightful)
It really would be good for California to form it's own country. We would be much better off socially, financially, etc. California's economy as a nation would be about 9th in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
California's problems are in large part because of its absurd constitution which created one of the most worthless political systems in the democratic world.
Re: (Score:3)
And then the California agriculture industry would collapse.
Re:Obama achieved something (Score:4, Insightful)
Where's it going to go? It's going to go and price itself right out of the market. Thanks to the global market and technology shenanigans that have been played with food, food production for export/shipment just can't function without near-slavery wages on the fields. If you really want to end illegal immigration, you should be focusing on ending food export/shipment, dismantling NAFTA, and ending the War on Drugs.
Re:Obama achieved something (Score:5, Insightful)
The largest percentage of illegal immigrants (most of whom don't pay taxes)
That's bogus. They pay sales tax, they pay property tax via rents and the ones who work with fake papers pay income tax via withholding and fica and they don't get refunds or social security. The ones who work under the table make so little that they would probably qualify for the tax credits and other services given to the working poor if they were legit.
California's deficit (Score:3)
The Federal government takes much more in taxes from California than it returns
While that may be true California would be in better shape if the government there hadn't increased spending as much as it did in the 1990's while the economy was booming. The state budget [pdf] [ca.gov] in 1990-91 was $51,445.5 million, 2000-01 it was $96,381.5 million, and in 2010-11 it's $125,254.9 million.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of actually doing something about it you get surprisingly well respected idiots blaming all the money problems on prison officers demanding higher wages. Unions
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, a Confederate victory would have continued slavery for what, another decade or two, lead to more intervention the western hemisphere, and following slavery, how long would segregation have lasted?
Remember, southern states wanted Cuba and Haiti annexed, intervention and take over of Central America.
So you are arguing that because South Carolina wanted to keep blacks, and any whites who were even 1/32 black, as slaves or for a few third class citizens, and Maine and California thought those people should
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I wouldn't follow your elbow into battle, so your comment is worthless to me :)
Re:Pointless Article (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see. Does the name Alan Turing [wikipedia.org] ring a bell? The same guy who saved more lives in WW2 than anyone else by cracking the german cypher codes was also forced to take female hormones to chemically castrate him to avoid going to jail for being gay (1952).
The military owes a lot to the gays and lesbians, both civilian and military, who put up with the intolerance and ignorance to serve their country. The military is also the single biggest spender on technology. Any change in military hiring and staffing of this nature is relevant.
The summary is a bit inaccurate - the military is in fact required to implement the repeal; the actual timetable is set out in the bill, based on certain milestones. So DADT is pretty much dead.
Re:Pointless Article (Score:5, Insightful)
The stupid is strong with you.
Alan Turing wasn't some random gay person "working with technology." He fucking invented it.
Douchebag.
--
BMO
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather have the gays in the military than the homophobes. At least then they'd all believe in the freedom they're fighting for.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Men don't shower together in the military! This "shower together" meme is stupid, yet rich with homoerotic subtext. Is that what people think of the military? All day, a bunch of guys getting wet and soapy under a stream of hot water? I was in the Marines and the only time there was a group shower was the 3 months of boot camp, where you are so sick and exhausted, EVERY DAY, that you don't even wake up with a morning boner, much less have the energy to perv on guys in the shower. Everywhere else there are individual showers. I was on a tiny FOB in northern Iraq, living in tents and we built a shower stall, rather than some sort of group shower. Why are straight men afraid to shower with gay guys anyway? Women have good reason to be leery of showering with guys. Aren't 99% of rapist men? Combine that statistic with the physical shape a man is required to be in while in the military and women don't stand a huge chance of resisting, do they? I found on Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, that 15% of the women coming back from the current wars and going to the hospital have been doing so because of "sexual trauma." Sounds like women have a good reason to be afraid of straight men. What good reason do straight men have to be afraid of the gays?
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? What we need is better citizens.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me change one word in your first sentence (in italics):
This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate blacks.
Which was very true when the army was first integrated, and it's still true today. Many of those people were in the army then, and some of them still are.
The army survived integration, though, and it's fine. It'll survive the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and it'll still be fine
Re:Nice of them to decide to get something done (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you need to pay closer attention. The Democratic congress has worked almost every work day of each month, with some time off during the traditional times taken off. The Republicans are the ones who are never in session. during the Bush years, they worked 10 days a month... and the new house leadership has already scheduled next years session and they are back to 10 days a month.
Re:Nice of them to decide to get something done (Score:5, Funny)
It's what you do in a foxhole (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The comment above is clearly written in a way that will get a rise out of people, but it makes a legitimate point. Insofar as the LGBTQ civil rights struggle is one rooted in justice and equal rights, the DADT repeal strategy has left a lot of us scratching our heads. Any civil rights struggle which fits in a broader context would necessarily come to the same conclusions that the 60s/70s racial civil rights struggle in the US did: the oppression of classes within the domestic population is part of the same
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for your correct interpretation of my snarky derision for false progressivism.
This is no victory for people, or their rights - anywhere.
Oh, and now they can draft you, too... New pavement, just laid, to smooth that road.
Re:It's what you do in a foxhole (Score:4)
oh SHUT UP.
I'm tired of this phony intellectualistic post-modern conspiracy theory.
I am so fucking tired of it.
With out quoting Chomsky or with out resorting to, "The lack of proof IS THE proof of a conspiracy!" can you prove that there is a systematic oppression of minorities and gays that's spanned 5 decades since the 60's with a consistent message that also removes any doubt or skepticism anyone might have that this might be instead the result of short sighted and ignorant thinking?
I agree, shit SUCKS for the lower classes and it's largely because of moves by the moneyed elites who have worked to screw the poor; but to say that there's an active oppression going on really does disservice to what actual systematic oppression is. Given the fact that upward social mobility is a reality(yes, social upward mobility is absolutely slim, and the mechanisms that would allow it are so fucking restrictive it's not even funny), you're pretty dead wrong and dangerous. You ignore real change and wish to instill apathy until you get your absolute way. The reality is, the world is way more complex than you present it to be and that's incredibly dangerous.
Christ. Unless you can show documents or other actual evidence proving your conspiracy theory, shut up. There is no conspiracy to oppress the lower class; the rich aren't nearly that smart.
No, this isn't hetero-splainin' or what have you, I'm bi, and I've got friends who are GLB(T is still not covered under this repeal; hopefully soon) and serving. They serve because they love the service.
Re:It's what you do in a foxhole (Score:5, Insightful)
... and that the internal oppression is used as a means of social control in order to divide people who might otherwise unite to stop the broader system of oppression.
All of which is to say, speaking as a queer personally, I do not see a meaningful improvement in the cause of justice by allowing queers to go kill and die for US imperialism.
A meaningful queer civil rights struggle would be anti-imperialist and anti-militarist by default, and the extent to which it disregards those values it is actively undermining the fundamental moral principle of equal rights.
As a straight man, I supported the repeal of DADT for the same reasons that I support gay marriage. First, I believe that it's none of the government's business. Second, I believe that these "issues," along with many others, are intentionally used to split the population and keep them from uniting on issues that are really in there best interests. So in a way, I agree with you. But there are gays that want to serve in the military, and there are gays that want to get married and the fact they can't is discrimination. As long as this issue is unresolved, it will be an effective wedge. That and I guess I'm just a bleeding heart.
Now, in my opinion, focusing on the imperialism and militarism of the US is still focusing on a symptom. The cause is that over the last 150 or so years corporations have been acquiring all the rights of individual humans (and shedding the responsibilities). Therefore we do not have a government of the people, by the people. The "American interests" we spend billions (oops, trillions) to promote and defend are rarely in the best interest of most actual Americans.
P.S. Now that the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that freedom of speech is a corporation's "right" and furthermore money is speech, it's only going to get worse.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So are you trying to say that it would have been better to continue the open discrimination against LGBTQ?
First of all, DADT wasn't *open*. It was literally the exact opposite of open. Second of all, while I support the repeal of DADT as such, yes, I'm opposed to queers serving in the military. It's not part of the queer rights movement and shouldn't be portrayed as if it is. US militarism is on the opposite end of the moral spectrum from civil rights struggles.
If your answer is “yes, because it’s legitimizing our war machine etc etc etc” sorry, that doesn’t fly.
You're oversimplifying my point. And it's no wonder, after over-simplification, that it "doesn't fly." Let me reiterate: militarism and imperialism are
Re:It's what you do in a foxhole (Score:5, Insightful)
You used a lot of big words and I was worried that I might have missed something. Now that I am assured of my understanding, I am free to say that I disagree with your assertion that this repeal is not meaningful. It may mean nothing to you, but it means a lot to those affected by DADT. Civil rights are not a binary bit, civil rights or no civil rights. The fight for civil rights is like fighting a forest fire. You have to stamp out what you can, when you can. Also, I find it saddening that you think so little of those who work for equal rights, that you believe that they can be distracted from the ultimate goal of equality for all, with what you feel is a little sop. I understand your disaffection for the government and their manipulation of the people. It makes me angry too, but I sense at the end of your sentiment the belief that we can do without government and a military is immoral. That may be me putting words in your mouth though. All life is based on struggle. We as humans are in a nearly unique position to transcend that struggle, but we must acknowledge that we are nowhere near that position yet. Sometimes I feel like we are falling further from that goal. Until we get there, we will need mediation for conflict. The government is needed for peaceful disagreement, the military when that disagreement gets not-so peaceful. We need a government, we need a military. However, there may be imperfections that need fixed.
Re:It's what you do in a foxhole (Score:4, Interesting)
It may mean nothing to you, but it means a lot to those affected by DADT.
Since apparently you missed it (don't feel bad, you're not alone), I'll repeat that I am queer. I was affected, at least in terms of legal application, by DADT.
Civil rights are not a binary bit, civil rights or no civil rights. The fight for civil rights is like fighting a forest fire. You have to stamp out what you can, when you can.
Which is a great analogy, and one which I agree with, except for the nagging issue that the DADT repeal is akin to pulling those firefighters out and directing them to use their fire hose to fill a private pool.
Also, I find it saddening that you think so little of those who work for equal rights, that you believe that they can be distracted from the ultimate goal of equality for all, with what you feel is a little sop.
I don't think little of the queer rights movement, I think little of the mainstream lobby movement that has co-opted their energy into the DADT issue. It's not *our* (note, I'm including myself here) fault that we don't have control over those lobbying resources.
I understand your disaffection for the government and their manipulation of the people. It makes me angry too, but I sense at the end of your sentiment the belief that we can do without government and a military is immoral. That may be me putting words in your mouth though. [...]
If you're inferring from my opposition to US imperialism that I'm an anarchist, I can only say this: while I am, in fact, an anarchist, my opposition to US imperialism shouldn't lead you to that conclusion. There is a big difference between opposing a system of government and its military apparatus that has been used for conquest and hegemony for centuries, on the one hand, and opposing all government and military on the other hand.
I could make a case for anarchism, and I do in other contexts, but this isn't the place for that and it will hopefully be enough here to say that my critique of the DADT repeal strategy doesn't depend on that argument. It should be enough to say that I don't want to send queers off to kill Afghanis or be killed by them. And that has no bearing on whether or not a government or a military is a necessary feature of a good society.
Re:It's what you do in a foxhole (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I get that. So your civil rights are forest fires, while the civil rights of gays in the military are private swimming pools? You want equal rights, but their choices aren't right choices and should be disregarded as not part of the movement?
A man's beliefs are fundamental in forming his opinions. That is why I brought it up. I deduced that you were at least a libertarian and/or a pacifist because of your dismissal of this repeal. A man who disagrees with his government's actions wouldn't have decided that it means nothing. He may have considered it a small step, but not nothing or, as you seem to see it, a setback. Who we are and what we believe has everything to do with how and what we argue.
Re: (Score:3)
>>my opposition to US imperialism shouldn't lead you to that conclusion. There is a big difference between opposing a system of government and its military apparatus that has been used for conquest and hegemony for centuries
US imperialism? Centuries?
Our ill-advised imperialist phase started in the 1890s with Cleveland, McKinley (and General Funston especially), who wanted the US to be "more like Europe" against the wishes of a significant portion of the country, who considered imperialism to be anti-A
Re: (Score:3)
So your civil rights are forest fires, while the civil rights of gays in the military are private swimming pools?
No, wait. I'm saying that building a civil rights movement for queers in the US by piggybacking it on an imperialist propaganda win is effectively diverting civil rights efforts away from the fundamental principle of equal rights and toward opportunistic goals. And I'm not talking about *my* equal rights—I'm relatively privileged and in a twisted sense I could benefit from the DADT repeal.
The lobbying organizations that are using the queer rights movement to repeal DADT are delivering a real win to th
Re:It's what you do in a foxhole (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel that your position is wrongheaded and nearsighted. I feel that the position stems from your own, very wrong and unrealistic, beliefs. I actually believe that with some thought, these feelings are correct and self-evident.
Well, good for you. I don't really care what you feel and believe. I've provided argument, and support for my argument, and you've responded by trying to paraphrase my argument in a way that's convenient for you to dismiss, but haven't provided much in the way of challenging my position.
I did not "twist" what you said. I am attempting to demonstrate.
You are changing the meaning of my position in so doing. It's called a straw man argument, look it up.
I simply restated on simpler terms and you found the statement distasteful. Why?
I chose my words carefully, and words are not always interchangeable. Your rephrasing of my position does not reflect what I meant to say, it reflects what you chose to see in it. And if you're not being deliberately dishonest, then you're demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between my version of my position and yours.
You are the one who brought up morality.
If you can't conceive of moral principles besides "evil" and "good"... I don't even know how to finish that sentence. Really?
Exactly how did I change the original meaning?
Well, I never said anyone or anything is evil, to begin with. So, basically, you entirely eliminated the original meaning and superimposed a completely ludicrous one on top of it.
You have taken an all-or-nothing approach to this discussion.
No, I haven't. I absolutely believe in incremental progress. I don't believe the repeal is progress, I believe it is an opportunistic misstep.
This repeal does nothing for you and you construe it to help your enemy.
And, I provide supporting logic for that point. Which you don't seem to care for.
You have some mythical big picture where the government plays us all as pawns and this repeal is a ploy to distract us.
I'm sorry if that's the impression I've given. I don't think it's anything as sinister as that. I think that the government, the military, and so on have interests that they serve, but I don't think they "play" us in any conscious sense. I think they serve their interests as well as they can, and if that means pink-washing imperialism than so be it. They don't have any principles besides power, and the social leanings of the day can be manipulated whatever they happen to be.
Exactly how will we become distracted? Is the HRC going to close up tomorrow?
*I* won't become distracted. I can't speak for you. But I can say that organizations lobbying for the DADT repeal will, if they proceed for changes beyond the repeal, be given the same line that all progressives with an ear in the White House have been getting for the last two years: your expectations are too high, get in line or shut up.
What does American imperialism have to do with DADT?
I don't know why you're asking me to explain something I've addressed from the outset, but okay. DADT was a mistaken policy, now corrected, implemented by the US military which is engaged in imperialism. By correcting this mistake, it is better suited to engage in imperialism.
Gays and lesbians, thousands of them, will someday soon, be able to go to work and not have to lie about how they spent their weekend. How is this repeal anything other than a good thing?
For those individuals, it's a good thing in a sense. And I don't begrudge them that. Though I do wish they'd find a better job. But it's also more than that. It's also a propaganda tool that plays exceptionally well into the hands of their employers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can have gay rights and imperialism. You can't have *equal* rights and imperialism.
Re:It's what you do in a foxhole (Score:5, Insightful)
The word imperial was not coined to describe the US.
Well, duh. That doesn't mean the US isn't an imperialist, just that it isn't alone (especially in history).
overall, the US is a force for good in the world.
I would never say the US has done no good in the world. But I can't agree that it has done more good than harm. The US began its empire, immediately after leaving the British empire, by conquering an entire continent, dispensing with hundreds of nations and millions of people in the process. It then conquered and annexed half of a neighboring country (Mexico). Much of the receding Spanish imperial territories (Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico), then the Philippines where hundreds of thousands were murdered. Then Hawaii. Overthrown governments include: Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq. It's intervened on behalf of the Phalange movement in Lebanon, death squads in Colombia (and really all over Latin America), brutal dictators like Pinochet, Suharto, Hussein, Zia-ul-Haq, and on and on. It's the only country on earth to have dropped nuclear bombs on civilian populations (twice!). Following WWII, it reinstated fascist governors throughout contested areas of Italy and Greece. It's supported genocide in East Timor and Kurdistan, committed genocide in Indochina, and been the primary source of support for Israel's ongoing colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine for over 40 years (with a lesser degree of support going all the way back to the Nakba in 1948). It is currently engaged in two military occupations which have taken hundreds of thousands of lives. In Iraq, it has displaced about 20% of the population. In Afghanistan, it continues to escalate against the wishes of the population, and the consequences—already pretty bad—will only grow worse.
And that's the short list. The one I could do off the top of my head, insofar as I could keep it roughly chronological. But here I want to take a step back and point back that imperialism is a precise term, and the moral and emotional qualities we're attaching to it are not part of its definition, but rather our reaction to it. Imperialism is the imposition of a state upon other populations. It is absolutely precise to describe the US' role as imperial. What you or I think about that is another matter.
ascribe bad motives to the US to the exclusion of everything else
I never said the US is unique. I don't know where you got that idea.
After fighting and defeating the Axis in the 20th century
Not alone, and not consistently. The US leadership was enamored with Franco and Mussolini, and had high regard for Hitler. Had the alliances played out differently, it's not inconceivable that the US would have entered the war on their side, particularly as a bulwark against the "real" threat (the Soviet Union), but really its immediate quarrel was with Japan, which is where it placed its focus. Germany was defeated primarily by the Soviet Union.
and helping to put things back together
In part by constructing a post-war economy that helped to stall European recovery at the advantage of the US.
and not completely taking away the sovereignty of the vanquished should tell anyone that the US wants a dominant position, but not an empire.
This is how *all* successful empires are run. The British had their Rajas, the Ottomans provincial autonomy, and so on. Few empires maintain absolute control over their entire sphere of influence, but instead shape the politics of the dominated places to be subservient to the central power.
Re:It's what you do in a foxhole (Score:4, Insightful)
1 - sexuality is not about behavior. Sexual behavior is not the same as sexuality. This is factual, not hair splitting. I could introduce you to a lesbian who was sexually behaved as a married straight woman for 15 years, happily. Although in the end she figured out she was missing out on something -- her own sexuality.
2 - most other western militaries are openly integrated and none report these kinds of imagined problems. It's just troops being bigoted without actually having to deal with reality that they already have gay troops and it's already fine, they just don't know it.
Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity (Score:5, Informative)
as a soldier. I would file for a discharge at the first possible opportunity and choose not to renew any enlistment. You should not have to cover your ass as well as your ass..
Nice homophobic rant. You might look at the rules about fraternization among soldiers. They will still apply. So your virgin butt hole is safe.
Re: (Score:3)
if he's got a virgin butt hole, it won't be for long. The only people who rage against homosexuality are those who struggle with their own homosexuality.
it's sad, really. I hope he finds some peace before he hurts someone.
Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity (Score:4)
You must never have served. There have always been gays in the service, usually left alone if they do their jobs.
Sound great. (Score:3)
Re:Sound great. (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom trumps discomfort, every single time.
If you are uncomfortable with other's freedom, (again back to the consenting adult litmus) then you are a bigot... you are irrationally opposed to another person's equal rights on the basis of irrelevant or woefully misguided reasons.
It's pretty simple really. It's absolutely enough to call someone a bigot over "one issue". People were once afraid of blacks in the military too. well, fuck those people, I have no problem at all making them "uncomfortable" if it means another human being gets to actually live their own lives, as they choose, with EQUAL rights.
and fuck these people for being afraid of gays serving openly too, just as heartily.