–by Sebastian
I don't have much to say on the underlying issue that isn't being said better elsewhere. It was unjust, ridiculous, and it is well for the country and the armed forces that it is gone. I'm not going to tell the stories of friends whose lives will be made better by this–though you should know that they definitely exist.
I want to highlight one thing about how this has all played out in the last year. This didn't end up passing bundled with anything else. It wasn't attached to other bills, it wasn't hidden under an appropriations umbrella. People voting against it didn't have the excuse of other bills they didn't like. They are on a clear record. People voting for it didn't burden it with unrelated or less popular issues. They are on a clear record.
Sometimes you can make a clear stand, on a clear issue. Pelosi made the right choice to push the individual bill by itself. And Reid finally let it stand on its own in the Senate. Perhaps more things should be done like that.
Goodbye DADT. Good riddance.
Agree.
Agree.
megadittos
megadittos
bad budget – killed
DADT – passed
DREAM – deferred
START – passed
tax cuts – passed
The Senate doing real work, priceless.
bad budget – killed
DADT – passed
DREAM – deferred
START – passed
tax cuts – passed
The Senate doing real work, priceless.
I don’t have much to say on the underlying issue that isn’t being said better elsewhere. It was unjust, ridiculous, and it is well for the country and the armed forces that it is gone.
Actually, I think you covered the underlying issue pretty damned well, right there in your second sentence.
I don’t have much to say on the underlying issue that isn’t being said better elsewhere. It was unjust, ridiculous, and it is well for the country and the armed forces that it is gone.
Actually, I think you covered the underlying issue pretty damned well, right there in your second sentence.
Agree with you 100%, Sebastian.
(I just hope all the so-called “moderates” and the Republican dead-enders remember that, when it came down to it, only 7 Republican Senators voted for repeal. Seven. And every single “No” vote was a Republican, including man of honor John McCain.)
Agree with you 100%, Sebastian.
(I just hope all the so-called “moderates” and the Republican dead-enders remember that, when it came down to it, only 7 Republican Senators voted for repeal. Seven. And every single “No” vote was a Republican, including man of honor John McCain.)
Just so this doesn’t become liberal circle jerk within an echo chamber…..Disagree with you Sebastian.
A bunch of academics and overly pc politicians who, overwhelmingly, never did serve or plan to serve (and probably not allow their children to either) in a combat arms MOS push a potentially detrimental social agenda on a deadly serious organization that they have no understanding of.
Great! Hoorah!
This pile of crap and others like it, say the global warming hoax, make hook/line/sinker liberals equally goofy as hook/line/sinker conservatives with their creationism et al.
Nothing to celebrate here.
Just so this doesn’t become liberal circle jerk within an echo chamber…..Disagree with you Sebastian.
A bunch of academics and overly pc politicians who, overwhelmingly, never did serve or plan to serve (and probably not allow their children to either) in a combat arms MOS push a potentially detrimental social agenda on a deadly serious organization that they have no understanding of.
Great! Hoorah!
This pile of crap and others like it, say the global warming hoax, make hook/line/sinker liberals equally goofy as hook/line/sinker conservatives with their creationism et al.
Nothing to celebrate here.
It’s good news, avedis notwithstanding.
And I agree with Sebastian’s further point that it would be desirable to let more questions be dealt with on a stand-alone basis.
It’s good news, avedis notwithstanding.
And I agree with Sebastian’s further point that it would be desirable to let more questions be dealt with on a stand-alone basis.
it would be desirable to let more questions be dealt with on a stand-alone basis.
It would indeed. Unfortunately, because the Senate rules are broken, that is impossible for most bills. The rules allow all sorts of time-consuming obstructionism, so that little time is left on the legislative calendar so that the only way for most bills to be considered is as part of enormous assemblies of legislation. As Senator Merkley said:
it would be desirable to let more questions be dealt with on a stand-alone basis.
It would indeed. Unfortunately, because the Senate rules are broken, that is impossible for most bills. The rules allow all sorts of time-consuming obstructionism, so that little time is left on the legislative calendar so that the only way for most bills to be considered is as part of enormous assemblies of legislation. As Senator Merkley said:
Sebastian: unsurprisingly, full agreement, and well said.
Marty: Merry Christmas and happy New Year, or whatever your choice of celebration is!
I have a post in mind about all the unhappy-making implications of the START treaty, but we’ll see if I actually write it.
Keynote: Priceless? Are you effing kidding?
That it was this enormous an amount of trouble to pass a treaty that reduces no arms whatever, and instead commits the U.S. to:
a) spending six times the total scale of the Manhattan Project in New Mexico, measured in constant dollars on new nuclear weapons;
b) that all spending on nuclear weapons will be exempt from any budget cuts, and, okay, should draft this as a post, not a comment.
It’s really quite appalling, though.
Comprehensive Test Ban is almost certainly dead until god knows when, and so much for getting anywhere towards, you know, fewer nuclear warheads and launchers or oh, even spending several billion dollars more than the U.S. was already going to spend on such vital upgrades, instead of the $85 billion, 10-year plan we’re now committed to.
That this was a “good” accomplishment is horrific.
But more later, or not at all.
Gosh, that’s wonderful. I consider $85 billion not pocket change. (I’m not even going into, here, how much more money it implicitly commits to spending, but if I do a post, it’ll be there.)
But all part of fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget, eh?
Not like those nasty unemployment benefits extensions, or health care fascism, that we can’t afford to spend money on because it hurts people. What’s a few hundred billion more on those new nuclear warheads we so desperately need?
Thanks, Senators Alexander, Cochran, Feinstein, and Inouye! Good job!
Anyone like an old nuclear weapon? We have some to spare.
Sebastian: unsurprisingly, full agreement, and well said.
Marty: Merry Christmas and happy New Year, or whatever your choice of celebration is!
I have a post in mind about all the unhappy-making implications of the START treaty, but we’ll see if I actually write it.
Keynote: Priceless? Are you effing kidding?
That it was this enormous an amount of trouble to pass a treaty that reduces no arms whatever, and instead commits the U.S. to:
a) spending six times the total scale of the Manhattan Project in New Mexico, measured in constant dollars on new nuclear weapons;
b) that all spending on nuclear weapons will be exempt from any budget cuts, and, okay, should draft this as a post, not a comment.
It’s really quite appalling, though.
Comprehensive Test Ban is almost certainly dead until god knows when, and so much for getting anywhere towards, you know, fewer nuclear warheads and launchers or oh, even spending several billion dollars more than the U.S. was already going to spend on such vital upgrades, instead of the $85 billion, 10-year plan we’re now committed to.
That this was a “good” accomplishment is horrific.
But more later, or not at all.
Gosh, that’s wonderful. I consider $85 billion not pocket change. (I’m not even going into, here, how much more money it implicitly commits to spending, but if I do a post, it’ll be there.)
But all part of fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget, eh?
Not like those nasty unemployment benefits extensions, or health care fascism, that we can’t afford to spend money on because it hurts people. What’s a few hundred billion more on those new nuclear warheads we so desperately need?
Thanks, Senators Alexander, Cochran, Feinstein, and Inouye! Good job!
Anyone like an old nuclear weapon? We have some to spare.
Meanwhile, getting rid of DADT is a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful thing.
Though it never should have happened in the first place, and for that, we have the Republicans of the 103rd Congress to thank.
On START, the issue is that it was a trivial piece of boilerplate that should have passed unanimously so negotiations for a treaty that would, you know, lower the amount of nuclear arms on either side, rather than increase spending on them vastly could take place.
I don’t advise anyone to hold their breath waiting for that.
Thanks, Republicans of the 111th Congress! We should be so grateful!
Meanwhile, getting rid of DADT is a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful thing.
Though it never should have happened in the first place, and for that, we have the Republicans of the 103rd Congress to thank.
On START, the issue is that it was a trivial piece of boilerplate that should have passed unanimously so negotiations for a treaty that would, you know, lower the amount of nuclear arms on either side, rather than increase spending on them vastly could take place.
I don’t advise anyone to hold their breath waiting for that.
Thanks, Republicans of the 111th Congress! We should be so grateful!
Avedis:
Nonsense! Let’s all celebrate the joys of argument by assertion!
It’s a well-known fact that if we engage in such celebrations, we’ll ALL GET PONIES. And spaceships and candy and fusion power tomorrow.
I’ve provided equal support for my assertion as you did yours.
So they must be equally true.
Prove me wrong.
And we can all celebrate! Joy to us all, especially those of us who aren’t homophobes, and do know some things about military organizations, that:
But I’m sure heterosexual armies with gays forced to live undercover would undoubtedly defeat them all, as opposed to the crippling defeats we’d suffer if we operated under the same handicaps as * 1.1 Albania
* 1.2 Argentina
* 1.3 Australia
* 1.4 Austria
* 1.5 Belgium
* 1.6 Canada
* 1.7 Republic of China
* 1.8 Colombia
* 1.9 Czech Republic
* 1.10 Denmark
* 1.11 Estonia
* 1.12 Finland
* 1.13 France
* 1.14 Germany
* 1.15 Greece
* 1.16 Republic of Ireland
* 1.17 Israel
* 1.18 Italy
* 1.19 Japan
* 1.20 Lithuania
* 1.21 Luxembourg
* 1.22 Malta
* 1.23 The Netherlands
* 1.24 New Zealand
* 1.25 Norway
* 1.26 Peru
* 1.27 Philippines
* 1.28 Poland
* 1.29 Romania
* 1.30 Russia
* 1.31 Serbia
* 1.32 Slovenia
* 1.33 South Africa
* 1.34 Spain
* 1.35 Sweden
* 1.36 Switzerland
* 1.37 United Kingdom
* 1.38 Bermuda
* 1.39 Uruguay
Woe is our military! Woe!
Also, let’s talk specifically about unit cohesion, if you like.
You are, after all, more knowledgeable about this than hook/line/sinker liberals like me. Educate me and the rest of us.
You have the floor. Go for it.
Avedis:
Nonsense! Let’s all celebrate the joys of argument by assertion!
It’s a well-known fact that if we engage in such celebrations, we’ll ALL GET PONIES. And spaceships and candy and fusion power tomorrow.
I’ve provided equal support for my assertion as you did yours.
So they must be equally true.
Prove me wrong.
And we can all celebrate! Joy to us all, especially those of us who aren’t homophobes, and do know some things about military organizations, that:
But I’m sure heterosexual armies with gays forced to live undercover would undoubtedly defeat them all, as opposed to the crippling defeats we’d suffer if we operated under the same handicaps as * 1.1 Albania
* 1.2 Argentina
* 1.3 Australia
* 1.4 Austria
* 1.5 Belgium
* 1.6 Canada
* 1.7 Republic of China
* 1.8 Colombia
* 1.9 Czech Republic
* 1.10 Denmark
* 1.11 Estonia
* 1.12 Finland
* 1.13 France
* 1.14 Germany
* 1.15 Greece
* 1.16 Republic of Ireland
* 1.17 Israel
* 1.18 Italy
* 1.19 Japan
* 1.20 Lithuania
* 1.21 Luxembourg
* 1.22 Malta
* 1.23 The Netherlands
* 1.24 New Zealand
* 1.25 Norway
* 1.26 Peru
* 1.27 Philippines
* 1.28 Poland
* 1.29 Romania
* 1.30 Russia
* 1.31 Serbia
* 1.32 Slovenia
* 1.33 South Africa
* 1.34 Spain
* 1.35 Sweden
* 1.36 Switzerland
* 1.37 United Kingdom
* 1.38 Bermuda
* 1.39 Uruguay
Woe is our military! Woe!
Also, let’s talk specifically about unit cohesion, if you like.
You are, after all, more knowledgeable about this than hook/line/sinker liberals like me. Educate me and the rest of us.
You have the floor. Go for it.
This pile of crap and others like it, say the global warming hoax, make hook/line/sinker liberals equally goofy as hook/line/sinker conservatives with their creationism et al.
Let’s all raise a glass to ignorance and false equivalence! Hooray!
This pile of crap and others like it, say the global warming hoax, make hook/line/sinker liberals equally goofy as hook/line/sinker conservatives with their creationism et al.
Let’s all raise a glass to ignorance and false equivalence! Hooray!
I’m curious if anyone has or could recommend a read as to why DADT repeal and other things even got to the floor. I’m not sure if I read this or if I am making it up, but some of the theories I think I have seen were:
-Republican moderates were taking revenge on McConnell for reneging on the budget, which freed them to register their displeasure
-moderates were looking at this strategically, and saw no value in prolonging these sorts of fights and so let them be decided at this point rather than down the road
-moderates saw the coming tsunami of craziness and felt they needed to deal with these things now
-packaging these as stand-alones made it impossible for moderates to do the usual shuffle.
Of course, this gets into speculation about motives and mental states, and the above are not either/or choices but how those moderates were gotten to seems to be an important cog in any future efforts to get things thru.
I’m curious if anyone has or could recommend a read as to why DADT repeal and other things even got to the floor. I’m not sure if I read this or if I am making it up, but some of the theories I think I have seen were:
-Republican moderates were taking revenge on McConnell for reneging on the budget, which freed them to register their displeasure
-moderates were looking at this strategically, and saw no value in prolonging these sorts of fights and so let them be decided at this point rather than down the road
-moderates saw the coming tsunami of craziness and felt they needed to deal with these things now
-packaging these as stand-alones made it impossible for moderates to do the usual shuffle.
Of course, this gets into speculation about motives and mental states, and the above are not either/or choices but how those moderates were gotten to seems to be an important cog in any future efforts to get things thru.
A bunch of academics and overly pc politicians who, overwhelmingly, never did serve or plan to serve (and probably not allow their children to either) in a combat arms MOS push a potentially detrimental social agenda on a deadly serious organization that they have no understanding of.
Speaking as active-duty Army personnel, lol. Thank you for a hearty chuckle, Avedis. That is all.
(If you had your heart set on a substantive response, Gary covered that quite well. “[H]ave no understanding of”, indeed…)
A bunch of academics and overly pc politicians who, overwhelmingly, never did serve or plan to serve (and probably not allow their children to either) in a combat arms MOS push a potentially detrimental social agenda on a deadly serious organization that they have no understanding of.
Speaking as active-duty Army personnel, lol. Thank you for a hearty chuckle, Avedis. That is all.
(If you had your heart set on a substantive response, Gary covered that quite well. “[H]ave no understanding of”, indeed…)
Gary:
The START Treaty wasn’t very good on a few levels, some financial and some deficiencies were not addressed because the Senate refused to amend anything.
It was one of the few debates I watched days of on CSPAN. If anyone wants to watch and listen to professional obstructionist tactics they should replay the rope a dope tactics Kerry used to make this get through this Congress.
All that said, sort of jumping to lj’s point, once the omnibus budget was killed I sent an email to several Senators (a first for me) asking them to deal with DREAM, DADT and START in the lame duck.
As standalones they will have little long term political downside for anyone, they will be out of the news cycle by the time the next Congress convenes, and the new Congress can focus on the budget and fiscal policy.
Plus, it’s a ray of hope things may move forward for a few more months until we get into the full 2012 election cycle.
Gary:
The START Treaty wasn’t very good on a few levels, some financial and some deficiencies were not addressed because the Senate refused to amend anything.
It was one of the few debates I watched days of on CSPAN. If anyone wants to watch and listen to professional obstructionist tactics they should replay the rope a dope tactics Kerry used to make this get through this Congress.
All that said, sort of jumping to lj’s point, once the omnibus budget was killed I sent an email to several Senators (a first for me) asking them to deal with DREAM, DADT and START in the lame duck.
As standalones they will have little long term political downside for anyone, they will be out of the news cycle by the time the next Congress convenes, and the new Congress can focus on the budget and fiscal policy.
Plus, it’s a ray of hope things may move forward for a few more months until we get into the full 2012 election cycle.
Gary, presenting the list of countries allowing openly gay service members is a red herring.
The guys wearing the CIB (you, “envy”?) are not Europeans; nor are they in a cumpulsory service society like Israel where there is greater representation of all segments of that society. Neither are they graduates of liberal arts programs.
Rather, they are disproportionately young men from rural USA – a very different breed of cat – and there is some representation from the tougher urban areas.
In short, the guys doing the hard, dangerous, dirty work are not at all like the people pushing the gay agenda.
If the people behind the agenda were actually out there walking point I suppose that openly gay integration would probably work. But they’re not and never will be. They don’t dare. Instead they preach and impose their “values” on those that do.
You don’t get this because you don’t want to.
Gary, presenting the list of countries allowing openly gay service members is a red herring.
The guys wearing the CIB (you, “envy”?) are not Europeans; nor are they in a cumpulsory service society like Israel where there is greater representation of all segments of that society. Neither are they graduates of liberal arts programs.
Rather, they are disproportionately young men from rural USA – a very different breed of cat – and there is some representation from the tougher urban areas.
In short, the guys doing the hard, dangerous, dirty work are not at all like the people pushing the gay agenda.
If the people behind the agenda were actually out there walking point I suppose that openly gay integration would probably work. But they’re not and never will be. They don’t dare. Instead they preach and impose their “values” on those that do.
You don’t get this because you don’t want to.
Oh, and the comparison of gays to blacks (the link you provided) is another red herring.
Skin color and sexual orientation are two entirely different issues.
Again, you should know better and that you apparently do not causes me think that a discussion on this topic with you is a waste of time because you don’t want to understand.
Oh, and the comparison of gays to blacks (the link you provided) is another red herring.
Skin color and sexual orientation are two entirely different issues.
Again, you should know better and that you apparently do not causes me think that a discussion on this topic with you is a waste of time because you don’t want to understand.
This is an interactive map of the where the American casualties came from.
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_international/iraq3000/index.html?SITE=WIMIL
This is an interactive map of the where the American casualties came from.
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_international/iraq3000/index.html?SITE=WIMIL
If the people behind the agenda were actually out there walking point I suppose that openly gay integration would probably work. But they’re not and never will be. They don’t dare. Instead they preach and impose their “values” on those that do.
You don’t get this because you don’t want to.
And yet, “avedis”, by strange coincidence polling shows a minority of my peers opposing the repeal.
You don’t get this because it’s ideologically inconvenient.
If the people behind the agenda were actually out there walking point I suppose that openly gay integration would probably work. But they’re not and never will be. They don’t dare. Instead they preach and impose their “values” on those that do.
You don’t get this because you don’t want to.
And yet, “avedis”, by strange coincidence polling shows a minority of my peers opposing the repeal.
You don’t get this because it’s ideologically inconvenient.
Look, to be clear, it’s been a while since military personnel have been opposed near so staunchly and fiercely as the right-wing ideologues who sit back far from harm’s way having fainting spells at the idea of open service by homosexuals, wailing “Won’t someone think of the poor homophobic Soldiers?!?!?!?”. For all your lofty talk of the utter gall of non-military personnel daring using military policy to push political and cultural agendas… methinks your house is looking rather glassy.
Look, to be clear, it’s been a while since military personnel have been opposed near so staunchly and fiercely as the right-wing ideologues who sit back far from harm’s way having fainting spells at the idea of open service by homosexuals, wailing “Won’t someone think of the poor homophobic Soldiers?!?!?!?”. For all your lofty talk of the utter gall of non-military personnel daring using military policy to push political and cultural agendas… methinks your house is looking rather glassy.
envy, get real. 72% of those polled nevered returned their answers. Who knows what they think. Maybe they’re indifferent; maybe they are resigned to unwanted change.
Of the 28% that did return responses there is a clear split between rear echelon/service troops and combat arms; with combat arms personnel being mostly opposed to the repeal. Were you aware of that little nuance?
And then there is the fact that even of those in combat arms who replied that they are serving or had served with someone they thought is gay without a problem, the experience was under DADT. So it isn’t really a proxy because more openly gay behavior might ellicit a difference response from straight peers.
envy, get real. 72% of those polled nevered returned their answers. Who knows what they think. Maybe they’re indifferent; maybe they are resigned to unwanted change.
Of the 28% that did return responses there is a clear split between rear echelon/service troops and combat arms; with combat arms personnel being mostly opposed to the repeal. Were you aware of that little nuance?
And then there is the fact that even of those in combat arms who replied that they are serving or had served with someone they thought is gay without a problem, the experience was under DADT. So it isn’t really a proxy because more openly gay behavior might ellicit a difference response from straight peers.
also, to be clear, I served (USMC) and both my children are currently in; one in combat arms (son, USA) and one (daughter) in the Navy.
For the record, I do not consider myself a conservative.
So I don’t know what glass houses you could be referring to.
also, to be clear, I served (USMC) and both my children are currently in; one in combat arms (son, USA) and one (daughter) in the Navy.
For the record, I do not consider myself a conservative.
So I don’t know what glass houses you could be referring to.
The glass houses sheltering your right-wing ideologue allies in Congress, in the media, etc., who you don’t seem to find objectionable for using this as a tool to push their agenda. You know, the non-military personnel favoring your personally preferred outcome regarding this that are using military policy as a political and ideological bludgeon, despite not ever serving themselves or even having children serving. But oh wait, it’s only suspect to lack that cred’ if they disagree with you. Sorry, forgot. It’s Okay If You Agree With Someone Who Doesn’t Consider Themselves A Conservative (IOIYAWSWDCTAC).
The glass houses sheltering your right-wing ideologue allies in Congress, in the media, etc., who you don’t seem to find objectionable for using this as a tool to push their agenda. You know, the non-military personnel favoring your personally preferred outcome regarding this that are using military policy as a political and ideological bludgeon, despite not ever serving themselves or even having children serving. But oh wait, it’s only suspect to lack that cred’ if they disagree with you. Sorry, forgot. It’s Okay If You Agree With Someone Who Doesn’t Consider Themselves A Conservative (IOIYAWSWDCTAC).
And in re: your 1223, absence of evidence is evidence of absence now, is it? I think that says all I need to hear. Have fun with your convictions unshakable by any force.
And in re: your 1223, absence of evidence is evidence of absence now, is it? I think that says all I need to hear. Have fun with your convictions unshakable by any force.
Avedis:
It’s certainly true that feelings in the armed forces are, of course, mixed.
It couldn’t be otherwise.
Beyond that, it pays to be specific. And beyond that, last I looked, the military isn’t a democracy.
Be specific, please. Which individuals are you referring to, what polls of serving active militay, and then we’re back to “are military policies set by majority vote of serving members of the military?”
I assume you yourself are actively serving, and not retired or Reserve or inactive?
I make no claims to having any military service, since I have none.
Neither do I claim to speak for anyone other than myself.
Are you speaking for anyone besides yourself?
I’m afraid I’d like to see your telepathy license before I could agree with the notion that you know what I want or don’t want better than I do.
I’m quite sure I can’t read your mind, and I’m quite sure I don’t know what you think. Mileage clearly varies on our belief in our respective telepathic powers, but thanks for the input on what I think.
If you already are having a conversation with an imaginary version of me, or anyone else, in your head, you don’t need my help to continue.
But if you’d like to know what I, in fact, actually think, do feel free to ask.
They’re different issues, but, of course, “skin color” was not quite the issue; lack of understanding of the fact that “skin color” is meaningless beyond what color your skin is, was the underlying issue.
Sexual orientation is indeed a bit different, but in what ways it is and isn’t is, again, worth being specific about. If one wants to make an argument, rather than an assertion.
You’re free to make any argument you like here, and you are equally free to stick to mere assertion. Enjoy either.
I think you may find that some may find argument more persuasive than assertion, but many find argument tedious and makes their head hurt, so you’ll also find many who will agree with assertion so long as they’re previously disposed to, and if that’s what you enjoy, may it bring you great pleasure.
Your logic and support for it with cites to facts that you have so compellingly laid out for us may cause me, and many others, to completely reconsider our views and ponder the irrestible nature of your argument.
Or not.
If you’d like to leave it there, then happy new year.
But, whoops, more comments:
There have been many polls: which one are you citing? Link, please?
Interesting question you have there.
What’s your own answer?
Indeed.
If you read this thread, or just do a “find” search on it, you may notice that the only person so far to mention the word “conservative” is you. Who, specifically, are you responding to here with this announcement? Which person, which comment?
It’s helpful to quote the words you’re responding to, or at least enough to let us know which comment you’re responding to, and it’s helpful to address individuals.
We only have individuals around here. We don’t have any appointed spokespeople for anyone else, as a rule, other than those of us who have been elected or appointed so some specific position, which, as a rule, people tend to mention when relevant.
You are, of course, free to announce anything you’d like here about yourself, so long as it’s vaguely on topic, and not in violation of the posting rules.
Hang out and tell us more, as much as you like. Or not. It’s all up to you.
Thanks for your thoughts, and have a merry celebration of your choice; if it’s Christmas, merry Christmas.
Avedis:
It’s certainly true that feelings in the armed forces are, of course, mixed.
It couldn’t be otherwise.
Beyond that, it pays to be specific. And beyond that, last I looked, the military isn’t a democracy.
Be specific, please. Which individuals are you referring to, what polls of serving active militay, and then we’re back to “are military policies set by majority vote of serving members of the military?”
I assume you yourself are actively serving, and not retired or Reserve or inactive?
I make no claims to having any military service, since I have none.
Neither do I claim to speak for anyone other than myself.
Are you speaking for anyone besides yourself?
I’m afraid I’d like to see your telepathy license before I could agree with the notion that you know what I want or don’t want better than I do.
I’m quite sure I can’t read your mind, and I’m quite sure I don’t know what you think. Mileage clearly varies on our belief in our respective telepathic powers, but thanks for the input on what I think.
If you already are having a conversation with an imaginary version of me, or anyone else, in your head, you don’t need my help to continue.
But if you’d like to know what I, in fact, actually think, do feel free to ask.
They’re different issues, but, of course, “skin color” was not quite the issue; lack of understanding of the fact that “skin color” is meaningless beyond what color your skin is, was the underlying issue.
Sexual orientation is indeed a bit different, but in what ways it is and isn’t is, again, worth being specific about. If one wants to make an argument, rather than an assertion.
You’re free to make any argument you like here, and you are equally free to stick to mere assertion. Enjoy either.
I think you may find that some may find argument more persuasive than assertion, but many find argument tedious and makes their head hurt, so you’ll also find many who will agree with assertion so long as they’re previously disposed to, and if that’s what you enjoy, may it bring you great pleasure.
Your logic and support for it with cites to facts that you have so compellingly laid out for us may cause me, and many others, to completely reconsider our views and ponder the irrestible nature of your argument.
Or not.
If you’d like to leave it there, then happy new year.
But, whoops, more comments:
There have been many polls: which one are you citing? Link, please?
Interesting question you have there.
What’s your own answer?
Indeed.
If you read this thread, or just do a “find” search on it, you may notice that the only person so far to mention the word “conservative” is you. Who, specifically, are you responding to here with this announcement? Which person, which comment?
It’s helpful to quote the words you’re responding to, or at least enough to let us know which comment you’re responding to, and it’s helpful to address individuals.
We only have individuals around here. We don’t have any appointed spokespeople for anyone else, as a rule, other than those of us who have been elected or appointed so some specific position, which, as a rule, people tend to mention when relevant.
You are, of course, free to announce anything you’d like here about yourself, so long as it’s vaguely on topic, and not in violation of the posting rules.
Hang out and tell us more, as much as you like. Or not. It’s all up to you.
Thanks for your thoughts, and have a merry celebration of your choice; if it’s Christmas, merry Christmas.
Please allow me to apologize, Avedis: it’s clear that you were responding to “methinks your house is looking rather glassy” from envy.
However, when you state that you “don’t know what glass houses you could be referring to,” have you considered the possibility that some might interpret your writing in this thread so far as an attempt to speak for someone or ones other than yourself, while you are making claims about unnamed people (“bunch of academics and overly pc politicians”: who, specifically?), and that that might strike some as questionable?
You may be entirely correct in your point of view. But I’m unclear why or how you would expect anyone to consider your arguments if you don’t get around to making any.
And then we’re back to that being a choice that’s up to you or not.
No need to rush; I’m sure this thread will still be around on Sunday and Monday. I hope you’re having a good time with family and friends, and if not, may you find happiness otherwise.
Thanks for your service to our country. I owe you one. Or more.
Please allow me to apologize, Avedis: it’s clear that you were responding to “methinks your house is looking rather glassy” from envy.
However, when you state that you “don’t know what glass houses you could be referring to,” have you considered the possibility that some might interpret your writing in this thread so far as an attempt to speak for someone or ones other than yourself, while you are making claims about unnamed people (“bunch of academics and overly pc politicians”: who, specifically?), and that that might strike some as questionable?
You may be entirely correct in your point of view. But I’m unclear why or how you would expect anyone to consider your arguments if you don’t get around to making any.
And then we’re back to that being a choice that’s up to you or not.
No need to rush; I’m sure this thread will still be around on Sunday and Monday. I hope you’re having a good time with family and friends, and if not, may you find happiness otherwise.
Thanks for your service to our country. I owe you one. Or more.
I forgot, twice, to mention that I’m sure Sebastian will enjoy finding out that he’s a liberal.
I may have misunderstood this statement by you to indicate that that’s what you were saying, avedis:
May I ask: are you suggesting that Sebastian is a “liberal”? Or is that a misinterpretation of what you intended to say there?
I forgot, twice, to mention that I’m sure Sebastian will enjoy finding out that he’s a liberal.
I may have misunderstood this statement by you to indicate that that’s what you were saying, avedis:
May I ask: are you suggesting that Sebastian is a “liberal”? Or is that a misinterpretation of what you intended to say there?
“Posted by: Walter Willis”
You wouldn’t perchance be the Walter Willis I’ve met in person several times, would you?
If so, I’d be grateful for an email to gary underscore farber at yahoo dot com
If you felt like it.
If you’re someone else, never mind.
“Posted by: Walter Willis”
You wouldn’t perchance be the Walter Willis I’ve met in person several times, would you?
If so, I’d be grateful for an email to gary underscore farber at yahoo dot com
If you felt like it.
If you’re someone else, never mind.
Rather, they are disproportionately young men from rural USA – a very different breed of cat – and there is some representation from the tougher urban areas.
In short, the guys doing the hard, dangerous, dirty work are not at all like the people pushing the gay agenda.
Do you suppose no gay people — even those who “push the gay agenda” (wink wink) — come from “rural USA” (wherever THAT is) or “tougher urban areas?”
Rather, they are disproportionately young men from rural USA – a very different breed of cat – and there is some representation from the tougher urban areas.
In short, the guys doing the hard, dangerous, dirty work are not at all like the people pushing the gay agenda.
Do you suppose no gay people — even those who “push the gay agenda” (wink wink) — come from “rural USA” (wherever THAT is) or “tougher urban areas?”
I fear that Barney Frank confessed to the Gay Agenda on Wednesday.
The Sekrit Plan laid down for us by Bill Ayers, Gore Vidal, George Soros, Osama bin Laden, and Vladimir Lenin is revealed. Oh noes!
Worse, there’s video. Warning! Those gay people do disgusting things, so you may not want to watch a gay homosexual male lesbian sissyboy queer doing one those things he does with his mouth.
But if you, the generic you, man up, you may be able to get the thrust of it, though it probably won’t penetrate.
I fear that Barney Frank confessed to the Gay Agenda on Wednesday.
The Sekrit Plan laid down for us by Bill Ayers, Gore Vidal, George Soros, Osama bin Laden, and Vladimir Lenin is revealed. Oh noes!
Worse, there’s video. Warning! Those gay people do disgusting things, so you may not want to watch a gay homosexual male lesbian sissyboy queer doing one those things he does with his mouth.
But if you, the generic you, man up, you may be able to get the thrust of it, though it probably won’t penetrate.
I’m 52 years old, and have had 3 months of college. September to December, 1975.
Could you elaborate on the distinction you’re making, please? I was born in Flatbush, Brooklyn, and when I was 4-5, we moved not terribly far away to another neighborhood in Brooklyn, Midwood. In junior high, I had to run a gamut on the stairwells every day of being shaken down at knife point. When I moved out on my own at age 15, I moved to one of the tougher areas of the Bronx, and then to Washington Heights, in different locations, but if there’s a “tougher urban area,” I’d be curious to know which, specific, neighborhood, in which specific city or cities, you have in mind.
It’s true that I’ve lived a life of idle luxury, what with having spent years being homeless, but my vast educational credentials have allowed me to overcome this.
mostly.
But your statement is essentially true.
I’m unclear what conclusion you are drawing: could you elaborate, perhaps? Are Europeans inherently bad at war-making? Do you have a link to some data about how not forcing out of the service tens of thousands of distinguished veterans has harmed their military? Or?
This is true, and the merits and demerits of a volunteer military versus a fair draft, and the problems resulting from a volunteer military, as well as the benefits, can be a quite interesting discussion over an entirely valid distinction with a great many implications, many of which have been written about at length.
We can discuss that, if you like.
Let’s go to those wacky liberals at the Heritage Foundation, shall we?
There are many helpful charts, and more data, if you’d like to peruse.
Or we could go to another source, if you’d like to discuss facts.
This is true.
I couldn’t agree more than this is problematic. We could continue that discussion, if you like.
I’m 52 years old, and have had 3 months of college. September to December, 1975.
Could you elaborate on the distinction you’re making, please? I was born in Flatbush, Brooklyn, and when I was 4-5, we moved not terribly far away to another neighborhood in Brooklyn, Midwood. In junior high, I had to run a gamut on the stairwells every day of being shaken down at knife point. When I moved out on my own at age 15, I moved to one of the tougher areas of the Bronx, and then to Washington Heights, in different locations, but if there’s a “tougher urban area,” I’d be curious to know which, specific, neighborhood, in which specific city or cities, you have in mind.
It’s true that I’ve lived a life of idle luxury, what with having spent years being homeless, but my vast educational credentials have allowed me to overcome this.
mostly.
But your statement is essentially true.
I’m unclear what conclusion you are drawing: could you elaborate, perhaps? Are Europeans inherently bad at war-making? Do you have a link to some data about how not forcing out of the service tens of thousands of distinguished veterans has harmed their military? Or?
This is true, and the merits and demerits of a volunteer military versus a fair draft, and the problems resulting from a volunteer military, as well as the benefits, can be a quite interesting discussion over an entirely valid distinction with a great many implications, many of which have been written about at length.
We can discuss that, if you like.
Let’s go to those wacky liberals at the Heritage Foundation, shall we?
There are many helpful charts, and more data, if you’d like to peruse.
Or we could go to another source, if you’d like to discuss facts.
This is true.
I couldn’t agree more than this is problematic. We could continue that discussion, if you like.
Gary, while DADT absolutely needed to go, it is over the top to say that “it never should have happened in the first place”. It is worth remembering that the policy which it replaced was worse. Having a policy which would not allow the military to actively research the private lives of soldiers was a step forward over one which enabled repeated witch-hunts.
We progress, albeit slowly and (apparently) reluctantly. But we need to keep in mind that even some of the things that we believe must be changed may have been, when they were started, also a step forward. A sense of history is a good thing.
Gary, while DADT absolutely needed to go, it is over the top to say that “it never should have happened in the first place”. It is worth remembering that the policy which it replaced was worse. Having a policy which would not allow the military to actively research the private lives of soldiers was a step forward over one which enabled repeated witch-hunts.
We progress, albeit slowly and (apparently) reluctantly. But we need to keep in mind that even some of the things that we believe must be changed may have been, when they were started, also a step forward. A sense of history is a good thing.
@avedis Skin color and sexual orientation are two entirely different issues.
Well, except that
a) both are, on the evidence, something that the individual is born with, rather than a choice,
b) the arguments against repealing DADT are, overwhelmingly (actually, with only one exception), the same as were made half a century ago when Truman was ordering the racial integration of the military.
The only difference that I can see is that it is (in some cases) harder to conceal race than to conceal sexual orientation. Although a over the years a lot of people have “passed” in order to avoid discrimination.
So what is the one exception I mentioned? The one argument against repealing DADT that I am aware of, and which would not apply to race, is all about sexual unwanted advances. But the military already has in place (as I’m sure you are aware from your service) regulations dealing with sexual harassment and similar issues.
So what those concerns amount to, IMHO, is this: “If we enforce the sexual harassment regs when homosexuals are involved, we might have to start enforcing them when only heterosexuals are involved. Oh, the horror!” No doubt that’s an overstatement. But, unfortunately, not as much of one as those who haven’t known women in the military might like to believe.
@avedis Skin color and sexual orientation are two entirely different issues.
Well, except that
a) both are, on the evidence, something that the individual is born with, rather than a choice,
b) the arguments against repealing DADT are, overwhelmingly (actually, with only one exception), the same as were made half a century ago when Truman was ordering the racial integration of the military.
The only difference that I can see is that it is (in some cases) harder to conceal race than to conceal sexual orientation. Although a over the years a lot of people have “passed” in order to avoid discrimination.
So what is the one exception I mentioned? The one argument against repealing DADT that I am aware of, and which would not apply to race, is all about sexual unwanted advances. But the military already has in place (as I’m sure you are aware from your service) regulations dealing with sexual harassment and similar issues.
So what those concerns amount to, IMHO, is this: “If we enforce the sexual harassment regs when homosexuals are involved, we might have to start enforcing them when only heterosexuals are involved. Oh, the horror!” No doubt that’s an overstatement. But, unfortunately, not as much of one as those who haven’t known women in the military might like to believe.
“It would indeed. Unfortunately, because the Senate rules are broken, that is impossible for most bills. The rules allow all sorts of time-consuming obstructionism, so that little time is left on the legislative calendar so that the only way for most bills to be considered is as part of enormous assemblies of legislation.”
Let us consider an alternate explanation: The general theory of Chinese menu bills is that by shoving enough widely popular items into a bill, people will overlook the unpopular items, and it will sale through.
But perhaps what happens is that they do NOT overlook the unpopular items, and the only result is that the popular items, which would NOT have been obstructed as stand alone bills get blocked along with the unpopular.
I can understand the appeal of assuming one’s foes are indiscriminately obstructive, but that’s usually not the case.
“It would indeed. Unfortunately, because the Senate rules are broken, that is impossible for most bills. The rules allow all sorts of time-consuming obstructionism, so that little time is left on the legislative calendar so that the only way for most bills to be considered is as part of enormous assemblies of legislation.”
Let us consider an alternate explanation: The general theory of Chinese menu bills is that by shoving enough widely popular items into a bill, people will overlook the unpopular items, and it will sale through.
But perhaps what happens is that they do NOT overlook the unpopular items, and the only result is that the popular items, which would NOT have been obstructed as stand alone bills get blocked along with the unpopular.
I can understand the appeal of assuming one’s foes are indiscriminately obstructive, but that’s usually not the case.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean that they’ll be more tidy and decorative, or that they’ll be indulging in some gay orgies right out in the open?
Or something else? I mean, what could this mean? What, in a like vein, could “more openly heterosexual behavior” mean in a military-personnel context?
ISTM that there are strictures against fraternization that might apply, even in the Hellmouth that is the US military without DADT.
Oh, by the way: I AM a conservative, in some sense, to the extent that I firmly believe that what people do in their private, spare time with other consenting adults is none of my business, nor should it be.
Also in other senses that don’t apply here.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean that they’ll be more tidy and decorative, or that they’ll be indulging in some gay orgies right out in the open?
Or something else? I mean, what could this mean? What, in a like vein, could “more openly heterosexual behavior” mean in a military-personnel context?
ISTM that there are strictures against fraternization that might apply, even in the Hellmouth that is the US military without DADT.
Oh, by the way: I AM a conservative, in some sense, to the extent that I firmly believe that what people do in their private, spare time with other consenting adults is none of my business, nor should it be.
Also in other senses that don’t apply here.
@Avedis:
I was gonna leave off, but there was one point you were arguing that I made the mistake of thinking back to, and it kinda did offend me more than a little. As Gary observed,
And beyond that, last I looked, the military isn’t a democracy.
This. This, this, this, this, this. Your arguments seem by turns to hinge on a denial of this point, or perhaps instead a refutation of civilian control of the military. See, when I raised my right hand, I swore to uphold the Constitution we had, not the Constitution I wanted. And the Constitution we have does not grant vetos to the military when outlining its control by the civilian branches of government. It doesn’t say that the military only has to follow the rules laid out by civilians if it likes them, or if they poll well among the troops… or among the real troops, as opposed to the fobbits. But that seems to be what you’re arguing.
I’d say I’m overstating this, and you’re just arguing this is an ill-advised policy imposed by the civilian government that it really should re-consider… but you argued something stronger than that. You argued that there are certain classes of individuals, who by virtue of their fundamental disconnect from the likes of 11s and 18s and jarheads and suchlike, should not be allowed to make rules governing their behavior. I’m sorry, no. That’s not the Constitution I, nor you, swore to uphold. Civilian control of the military. It’s a cornerstone of the republic.
Again, the military is not a democracy. If the civilians writing the laws governing the armed forces decide the military will conduct themselves in a certain manner, it doesn’t matter if the infantrymen are a “different breed of cats” – they’re not such shrinking violets that they can or should get special exemption from obeying the chain of command above them. The military is not a democracy. When my superiors discussed the perceived inevitability of the repeal, they hammered that point home. Our personal opinions do not matter. Ultimately, we serve society, and we obey their whims. Yes, we’re citizen-Soldiers, but our opinions carry no more weight than those of citizen-civilians, or citizen-academics, or citizen-overly-pc-politicians. We don’t get to veto the civilian government that controls us, and if they change what is lawful, we’re obliged to obey it. It doesn’t matter if we’d rather not. We gave up the option to “rather not” when we raised our right hands.
@Avedis:
I was gonna leave off, but there was one point you were arguing that I made the mistake of thinking back to, and it kinda did offend me more than a little. As Gary observed,
And beyond that, last I looked, the military isn’t a democracy.
This. This, this, this, this, this. Your arguments seem by turns to hinge on a denial of this point, or perhaps instead a refutation of civilian control of the military. See, when I raised my right hand, I swore to uphold the Constitution we had, not the Constitution I wanted. And the Constitution we have does not grant vetos to the military when outlining its control by the civilian branches of government. It doesn’t say that the military only has to follow the rules laid out by civilians if it likes them, or if they poll well among the troops… or among the real troops, as opposed to the fobbits. But that seems to be what you’re arguing.
I’d say I’m overstating this, and you’re just arguing this is an ill-advised policy imposed by the civilian government that it really should re-consider… but you argued something stronger than that. You argued that there are certain classes of individuals, who by virtue of their fundamental disconnect from the likes of 11s and 18s and jarheads and suchlike, should not be allowed to make rules governing their behavior. I’m sorry, no. That’s not the Constitution I, nor you, swore to uphold. Civilian control of the military. It’s a cornerstone of the republic.
Again, the military is not a democracy. If the civilians writing the laws governing the armed forces decide the military will conduct themselves in a certain manner, it doesn’t matter if the infantrymen are a “different breed of cats” – they’re not such shrinking violets that they can or should get special exemption from obeying the chain of command above them. The military is not a democracy. When my superiors discussed the perceived inevitability of the repeal, they hammered that point home. Our personal opinions do not matter. Ultimately, we serve society, and we obey their whims. Yes, we’re citizen-Soldiers, but our opinions carry no more weight than those of citizen-civilians, or citizen-academics, or citizen-overly-pc-politicians. We don’t get to veto the civilian government that controls us, and if they change what is lawful, we’re obliged to obey it. It doesn’t matter if we’d rather not. We gave up the option to “rather not” when we raised our right hands.
DADT was created as a result of a purely political attack by Republicans on Clinton; DADT should never have happened; the current policy should have been put into place at the time, and would have if the Republicans in question had been sane, decent, people informed about gay people.
I hope this clarifies where I stand without my having to write a full post about the history of DADT, which would be a good thing to do, but which is not in my plans in the next few days.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing.
DADT was created as a result of a purely political attack by Republicans on Clinton; DADT should never have happened; the current policy should have been put into place at the time, and would have if the Republicans in question had been sane, decent, people informed about gay people.
I hope this clarifies where I stand without my having to write a full post about the history of DADT, which would be a good thing to do, but which is not in my plans in the next few days.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing.
Who knows what they think
good point.
and yet you seem to be claiming to know what everybody else in the country thinks, what motivates them, etc..
Who knows what they think
good point.
and yet you seem to be claiming to know what everybody else in the country thinks, what motivates them, etc..
wj:
I tend to let uses of the word “race” pass, because otherwise one is in the same discussion endlessly.
But since it’s directly relevant to what’s being discussed here, I feel compelled to stress the point that, even though I’m sure you don’t mean it that way, and are simply using the language that has been customary since the pseudoscience of “race” was invented in the 19th century, that there are, in fact, no such things as “races” of human beings, and there’s no actual “passing” as one or the other.
What actually occurred was the construction of a false and absurd set of categorizations whose assumptions and terms most people, even many of the most clear-thinking, still use.
I can go into the history of this at great length, and have been known to, unsurprisingly, many times, including on this blog, but it’s almost as easy to write it all again from scratch, as I’ve done many times, as go find links to my past writings about this, but since it’s an important topic, it’s one that I’d very much make a priority of disussing again if this is controversial.
Otherwise, full agreement, as is often the case.
Just so.
The issue is fear. Fear of The Other.
Our military personnel must not be fearful. Perhaps especially of their own citizenry, and compatriots.
Brett:
Define “usually” as you’re using it here, please?
I can agree with it over a range of specifics, but very much not over others, and I have no idea what you are being inclusive or inclusive of in your “usually.”
It may be clear to others than myself, and you.
envy: what you said.
wj:
I tend to let uses of the word “race” pass, because otherwise one is in the same discussion endlessly.
But since it’s directly relevant to what’s being discussed here, I feel compelled to stress the point that, even though I’m sure you don’t mean it that way, and are simply using the language that has been customary since the pseudoscience of “race” was invented in the 19th century, that there are, in fact, no such things as “races” of human beings, and there’s no actual “passing” as one or the other.
What actually occurred was the construction of a false and absurd set of categorizations whose assumptions and terms most people, even many of the most clear-thinking, still use.
I can go into the history of this at great length, and have been known to, unsurprisingly, many times, including on this blog, but it’s almost as easy to write it all again from scratch, as I’ve done many times, as go find links to my past writings about this, but since it’s an important topic, it’s one that I’d very much make a priority of disussing again if this is controversial.
Otherwise, full agreement, as is often the case.
Just so.
The issue is fear. Fear of The Other.
Our military personnel must not be fearful. Perhaps especially of their own citizenry, and compatriots.
Brett:
Define “usually” as you’re using it here, please?
I can agree with it over a range of specifics, but very much not over others, and I have no idea what you are being inclusive or inclusive of in your “usually.”
It may be clear to others than myself, and you.
envy: what you said.
Gary, you are correct — we aren’t disagreeing. DADT was not what should have been put in place at the time. But that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a step in the right direction. Not as big a step as should have been taken; but a step nonetheless.
Gary, you are correct — we aren’t disagreeing. DADT was not what should have been put in place at the time. But that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a step in the right direction. Not as big a step as should have been taken; but a step nonetheless.
there are, in fact, no such things as “races” of human beings, and there’s no actual “passing” as one or the other.
Gary, I agree completely. Which is why I always respond to queries about my race (e.g. from polls, the census, etc.) with “Mixed” . . . blue eyes and blond hair notwithstanding. As any anthropologist knows, it’s the only accurate response.
But in the context of the mid-20th century, “race” was used (e.g. in segregating the armed forces), and “passing” [as white] was, in fact, a strategy for avoiding the racial biases of the time. For that matter, there were instances of things like Jews “passing” as non-Jews in circumstances where their religion was likely to cause them to be discriminated against — name changes, avoiding using certain words, etc. Today, that seems almost inconceivable; half a century or more ago, it was simply reality.
there are, in fact, no such things as “races” of human beings, and there’s no actual “passing” as one or the other.
Gary, I agree completely. Which is why I always respond to queries about my race (e.g. from polls, the census, etc.) with “Mixed” . . . blue eyes and blond hair notwithstanding. As any anthropologist knows, it’s the only accurate response.
But in the context of the mid-20th century, “race” was used (e.g. in segregating the armed forces), and “passing” [as white] was, in fact, a strategy for avoiding the racial biases of the time. For that matter, there were instances of things like Jews “passing” as non-Jews in circumstances where their religion was likely to cause them to be discriminated against — name changes, avoiding using certain words, etc. Today, that seems almost inconceivable; half a century or more ago, it was simply reality.
wj: yes.
wj: yes.
“Gary, while DADT absolutely needed to go, it is over the top to say that “it never should have happened in the first place”. It is worth remembering that the policy which it replaced was worse. Having a policy which would not allow the military to actively research the private lives of soldiers was a step forward over one which enabled repeated witch-hunts.”
I can’t agree. The number of soldiers investigated and discharged under DADT went up dramatically under the previous regime.
“DADT was created as a result of a purely political attack by Republicans on Clinton; DADT should never have happened; the current policy should have been put into place at the time, and would have if the Republicans in question had been sane, decent, people informed about gay people.”
This is also not true. DADT was championed by the ranking Democrats on the Senate committees at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate.
“Gary, while DADT absolutely needed to go, it is over the top to say that “it never should have happened in the first place”. It is worth remembering that the policy which it replaced was worse. Having a policy which would not allow the military to actively research the private lives of soldiers was a step forward over one which enabled repeated witch-hunts.”
I can’t agree. The number of soldiers investigated and discharged under DADT went up dramatically under the previous regime.
“DADT was created as a result of a purely political attack by Republicans on Clinton; DADT should never have happened; the current policy should have been put into place at the time, and would have if the Republicans in question had been sane, decent, people informed about gay people.”
This is also not true. DADT was championed by the ranking Democrats on the Senate committees at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate.
I AM a conservative, in some sense, to the extent that I firmly believe that what people do in their private, spare time with other consenting adults is none of my business, nor should it be.
That is not a conservative trait.
Liberals weren’t the dissenters in Lawrence v. Texas, conservatives were: Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.
Among a million other instances where conservatives make it their business what people do in their private, spare time with other consenting adults.
Liberals weren’t the ones who wanted to ban contraceptives.
Liberals weren’t the ones who wanted to ban interracial marriage.
Those were conservatives, making their case using conservative arguments.
It goes on and on.
I AM a conservative, in some sense, to the extent that I firmly believe that what people do in their private, spare time with other consenting adults is none of my business, nor should it be.
That is not a conservative trait.
Liberals weren’t the dissenters in Lawrence v. Texas, conservatives were: Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.
Among a million other instances where conservatives make it their business what people do in their private, spare time with other consenting adults.
Liberals weren’t the ones who wanted to ban contraceptives.
Liberals weren’t the ones who wanted to ban interracial marriage.
Those were conservatives, making their case using conservative arguments.
It goes on and on.
Sebastian:
Quick note to say that I think that’s a fair statement and mine was obviously an immensely simplistic generalization, which I think is still defensible up to a point, but you’re perfectly correct that my taking the time to make a more careful and accurate description would be better.
I have a friend coming over shortly, until we decide it’s time for him to leave, so I don’t expect to be around ObWi until then. I’ll be happy to discuss the details of this further, later, if it seems sensible.
Merry happy, Sebastian, and to all those you care about.
Sebastian:
Quick note to say that I think that’s a fair statement and mine was obviously an immensely simplistic generalization, which I think is still defensible up to a point, but you’re perfectly correct that my taking the time to make a more careful and accurate description would be better.
I have a friend coming over shortly, until we decide it’s time for him to leave, so I don’t expect to be around ObWi until then. I’ll be happy to discuss the details of this further, later, if it seems sensible.
Merry happy, Sebastian, and to all those you care about.
This seems to be a complete non-sequitur to a statement of personal beliefs. I’m sure you don’t wish to leave people with the impression that you know Slartibartfast’s views and notions — which I’ve observed evolve considerably over the past several years — better than he does, right?
What some other folks think probably isn’t what Slart thinks, unless he, you know, says so.
Similarly, I might say that since I’m familiar with, oh, Thurgood Marshall’s written legal opinions, and many of his other views and far more detail about his life than I have more than some bare facts that I know about Slart’s life, that therefore I should assume his views are yours, and I should argue with you on that basis.
Maybe I’d be correct, but it wouldn’t be the approach I’d think best.
I’d prefer to ask you what you think, rather than decide you fit under a simplistic label, and then respond to what I imagine you might think. Would you rather I, or others, do otherwise?
This seems to be a complete non-sequitur to a statement of personal beliefs. I’m sure you don’t wish to leave people with the impression that you know Slartibartfast’s views and notions — which I’ve observed evolve considerably over the past several years — better than he does, right?
What some other folks think probably isn’t what Slart thinks, unless he, you know, says so.
Similarly, I might say that since I’m familiar with, oh, Thurgood Marshall’s written legal opinions, and many of his other views and far more detail about his life than I have more than some bare facts that I know about Slart’s life, that therefore I should assume his views are yours, and I should argue with you on that basis.
Maybe I’d be correct, but it wouldn’t be the approach I’d think best.
I’d prefer to ask you what you think, rather than decide you fit under a simplistic label, and then respond to what I imagine you might think. Would you rather I, or others, do otherwise?
By the way, Duff Clarity, you have some nice links on your blog; I may make use of a couple or more; if I forget to credit you, please remind me.
And thanks for indirectly bringing them to my attention.
Hope you’re having as good a holiday as you can.
By the way, Duff Clarity, you have some nice links on your blog; I may make use of a couple or more; if I forget to credit you, please remind me.
And thanks for indirectly bringing them to my attention.
Hope you’re having as good a holiday as you can.
Me: “…that therefore I should assume his views are yours, and I should argue with you on that basis.”
Apologies for poor construction and faulty antecedent: “his” refers to Thurgood Marshall’s views, not Slart’s.
Me: “…that therefore I should assume his views are yours, and I should argue with you on that basis.”
Apologies for poor construction and faulty antecedent: “his” refers to Thurgood Marshall’s views, not Slart’s.
Perhaps the opponents of DADT repeal were saying to our brave hetero men and women who serve, with regard to the (heretofore secret) orientation of their gay and lesbian colleagues:
“You can’t HANDLE the truth!!”
Unless, of course, Santa Claus brought these service members an additional measure of testicular fortitude (and whatever the feminine equvalent thereof is).
Perhaps the opponents of DADT repeal were saying to our brave hetero men and women who serve, with regard to the (heretofore secret) orientation of their gay and lesbian colleagues:
“You can’t HANDLE the truth!!”
Unless, of course, Santa Claus brought these service members an additional measure of testicular fortitude (and whatever the feminine equvalent thereof is).
I’m sure you don’t wish to leave people with the impression that you know Slartibartfast’s views and notions
I have no idea what Slartibartfast’s views and notions are and am happy to accept his word for them.
What I disagree with is his characterisation of those views as conservative. It is not my perception that conservatives believe in leaving consenting adults to decide what they do in their private time. It is my perception that that is what liberals have been advocating for the last half century at least, in the face of opposition from conservatives.
you have some nice links on your blog; I may make use of a couple or more; if I forget to credit you, please remind me
No credit needed, I’m glad someone found the blog worth reading.
Cheers.
I’m sure you don’t wish to leave people with the impression that you know Slartibartfast’s views and notions
I have no idea what Slartibartfast’s views and notions are and am happy to accept his word for them.
What I disagree with is his characterisation of those views as conservative. It is not my perception that conservatives believe in leaving consenting adults to decide what they do in their private time. It is my perception that that is what liberals have been advocating for the last half century at least, in the face of opposition from conservatives.
you have some nice links on your blog; I may make use of a couple or more; if I forget to credit you, please remind me
No credit needed, I’m glad someone found the blog worth reading.
Cheers.
Duff, I’m not sure where Slarti is actually located. But in the western part of the country (where I am), “Conservative” has historically had strong libertarian overtones. (See, for example, Barry Goldwater.) So “mind your own business” would be an unexceptional conservative position.
I realize that elsewhere “conservative” has other overtones. Including the one which has captured the public perception of the term over the last decade or two: “once upon a (mythical) time, things were much better. So nothing should be changed and anything that differs from how we think things were (accurately or not) should be reversed.” Plus heavy overtones of “Morality, as I see it, is endangered and everybody’s actions and thoughts must be controlled to restore at least the outward appearance that I am comfortable with.” But that isn’t the only way to view “conservative”; and in earlier times “reactionary” would have been a more usual way to describe it.
Duff, I’m not sure where Slarti is actually located. But in the western part of the country (where I am), “Conservative” has historically had strong libertarian overtones. (See, for example, Barry Goldwater.) So “mind your own business” would be an unexceptional conservative position.
I realize that elsewhere “conservative” has other overtones. Including the one which has captured the public perception of the term over the last decade or two: “once upon a (mythical) time, things were much better. So nothing should be changed and anything that differs from how we think things were (accurately or not) should be reversed.” Plus heavy overtones of “Morality, as I see it, is endangered and everybody’s actions and thoughts must be controlled to restore at least the outward appearance that I am comfortable with.” But that isn’t the only way to view “conservative”; and in earlier times “reactionary” would have been a more usual way to describe it.
If only “mind your own business” could shake loose some money, so that the culture warrior fundraisers who live off of rousing the rabble would not be so terrified of having to — shudder — get .. a .. job!!!
If only “mind your own business” could shake loose some money, so that the culture warrior fundraisers who live off of rousing the rabble would not be so terrified of having to — shudder — get .. a .. job!!!
“Conservative” has historically had strong libertarian overtones
If by conservative, one means libertarian, why not just say libertarian?
Libertarians are in favour of the right to privacy for consenting adults. Surely Slartibartfast isn’t insinuating that liberals are not in favour of the right to privacy for consenting adults. So now we are supposed to believe that conservatives have also been in favour of the right to privacy for consenting adults all along?
If liberals, conservatives, and libertarians have all been in favour of the right to privacy for consenting adults, then why were there laws on the books, until 2003, that made homosexual sex illegal?
Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas wanted the laws making homosexual sex illegal to stay on the books. How would you characterise them politically? Liberals? Libertarians? Or something else?
They’re were certainly not being reactionary in this case. Homosexual behaviour has been punished for thousands of years. Arguing that something that has been punished for thousands of years should continue to be punished is not reactionary.
“Conservative” has historically had strong libertarian overtones
If by conservative, one means libertarian, why not just say libertarian?
Libertarians are in favour of the right to privacy for consenting adults. Surely Slartibartfast isn’t insinuating that liberals are not in favour of the right to privacy for consenting adults. So now we are supposed to believe that conservatives have also been in favour of the right to privacy for consenting adults all along?
If liberals, conservatives, and libertarians have all been in favour of the right to privacy for consenting adults, then why were there laws on the books, until 2003, that made homosexual sex illegal?
Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas wanted the laws making homosexual sex illegal to stay on the books. How would you characterise them politically? Liberals? Libertarians? Or something else?
They’re were certainly not being reactionary in this case. Homosexual behaviour has been punished for thousands of years. Arguing that something that has been punished for thousands of years should continue to be punished is not reactionary.
Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas wanted the laws making homosexual sex illegal to stay on the books. How would you characterise them politically?
Reactionary seems to pretty well characterize their view. Scalia and Thomas especially. In this particular case, it isn’t that they want something to not change (although they do), but that the reason that they want it to not change seems to be because it harks back to their image of how things were in the Golden Age they believe in. Even though anyone who lived through said “Golden Age” is likely to have a somewhat different take on what it was actually like.
As for why not simply differentiate libertarians and conservatives, there are some differences but also some overlaps. Just as there are overlaps between liberals and libertarians. And ignoring the libertarian parts of each is IMHO what leads people to miss the libertarian variety of conservatism.
Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas wanted the laws making homosexual sex illegal to stay on the books. How would you characterise them politically?
Reactionary seems to pretty well characterize their view. Scalia and Thomas especially. In this particular case, it isn’t that they want something to not change (although they do), but that the reason that they want it to not change seems to be because it harks back to their image of how things were in the Golden Age they believe in. Even though anyone who lived through said “Golden Age” is likely to have a somewhat different take on what it was actually like.
As for why not simply differentiate libertarians and conservatives, there are some differences but also some overlaps. Just as there are overlaps between liberals and libertarians. And ignoring the libertarian parts of each is IMHO what leads people to miss the libertarian variety of conservatism.
“Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas wanted the laws making homosexual sex illegal to stay on the books.”
That’s not entirely clear to me; I know that they think THEY aren’t entitled to remove them from the books, but unless you’re just assuming that every justice feels themselves entitled to overturn any law they happen to dislike, and uphold any law they approve of, the fact that they aren’t willing to overturn a law doesn’t necessarily imply they want that law in place.
“Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas wanted the laws making homosexual sex illegal to stay on the books.”
That’s not entirely clear to me; I know that they think THEY aren’t entitled to remove them from the books, but unless you’re just assuming that every justice feels themselves entitled to overturn any law they happen to dislike, and uphold any law they approve of, the fact that they aren’t willing to overturn a law doesn’t necessarily imply they want that law in place.
“And beyond that, last I looked, the military isn’t a democracy.
This. This, this, this, this, this. Your arguments seem by turns to hinge on a denial of this point, or perhaps instead a refutation of civilian control of the military.”
I agree, Envy, the military isn’t a democracy; nor should it be. How else can orders be given that knowingly send men to their deaths. I’m retired for many years. I work in the civilian sector now. I can’t remember the word “fairness” ever coming up as an issue for discussion when giving or receiving orders in my Marine Corps. I fact, I can’t ever remember anything resembling the Bill of Rights being in effect in the chain of command.
It looks to me like this repeal is all about “fairness” (i.e. it’s not fair that gays can’t openly act out their lifestyles when in the service). As you well know, there are many lifestyle choices that can’t be acted out in the service. Don’t volunteer if you can’t abide by the rules.
As for your point about upholding the Constitution and civilian control, well, it just doesn’t hold water. I am saying that the civilians in control made a bad decision. Sure, the organizations will hold their noses (yes, even the Marines, SOF, regular 11s) and mostly accept this imposition, but that doesn’t make it a good idea. There are all sorts of classes/types of people currently barred from service that are given a helping hand and/or are protected to some extent in the civilian world. Would you be so ok with any or all of these being permitted membership in the armed forces if the civilian leadership decided that it would be the right thing to do in the interest of fairness?
Gary,
I am expressing an opinion. My opinion. I do not claim to speak for anyone else; though I know there are many who do agree with me. And you and the other DADT repeal supporters here are merely expressing an opinion. The difference is that you appear, at least to me, to think that you have the ultimate answers and righteousness on your side. You don’t care what the guys doing the fighting think about this or how it will effect them. You just want to use their service as an opportunity to lecture them and teach them to be better people in your image.
I do not pretend to know what the result of the repeal will be with certainty. I am merely offering a perspective that is not in agreement with yours. You don’t know what the result will be either, though you are willing to risk some severe consequences on the alter of “fairness”.
A few homosexuals have been discharged because of their sexual orientation despite otherwise good service records. That is too bad (really, I mean that), but, as Envy notes, the Armed Forces is not a democracy. All sorts of sacrfices are made to keep combat effectiveness at maximum. You are just emphasizing one of the more insignificant of those.
You continue to attempt to assert your correctness by citing “evidence” and asking me to do the same. The facts and figures concerning zip codes of enlistees that you provided up thread ignores the important distinction I made between hardcore combat troops and other military occupations (which are the majority by many times). I assert that among the hardcore the rural skew is even higher that what your stats show. I don’t think I need to explain the difference in attitudes of young testosterone charged male high school grads from rural areas who seek combat roles versus more educated and cosmopolitan suburban and city males. BTW, we are only talking about males because females are not allowed in combat arms (though I suppose that is next on the civilian leadership’s agenda).
Whether you like it or not, combat arms is a culture and that culture is very male/macho in every connotation and denotation of those terms. Those connotations may offend you. Sorry. The world is as it is; not as you’d wish it to be.
Integration of blacks could happen because blacks could prove their manhood within the definition of such by the warrior culture in this country. Openly homosexual men will have a much more difficult time accomplishing this. Some of them are going to get hurt; maybe killled by their peers. Some otherwise fine straight men will be discharged or jailed over this. Some good troops – perhaps many – will not re-up over the consequences the repeal has on their tight knit society.
What do you care if unit cohesion and combat effectiveness suffers a mere 10% -15%? That can’t be too many lives lost. The
gain is worth it, right? Now we have a protected class within the military. Now two guys can make out in the barracks in front of everyone else. Wow! That’s social advancement!. Now, if a homosexual service member is reprimanded for being slack/deficient they can hide behind allegations of harassment due to sexual orientation and probably get away with it.
“And beyond that, last I looked, the military isn’t a democracy.
This. This, this, this, this, this. Your arguments seem by turns to hinge on a denial of this point, or perhaps instead a refutation of civilian control of the military.”
I agree, Envy, the military isn’t a democracy; nor should it be. How else can orders be given that knowingly send men to their deaths. I’m retired for many years. I work in the civilian sector now. I can’t remember the word “fairness” ever coming up as an issue for discussion when giving or receiving orders in my Marine Corps. I fact, I can’t ever remember anything resembling the Bill of Rights being in effect in the chain of command.
It looks to me like this repeal is all about “fairness” (i.e. it’s not fair that gays can’t openly act out their lifestyles when in the service). As you well know, there are many lifestyle choices that can’t be acted out in the service. Don’t volunteer if you can’t abide by the rules.
As for your point about upholding the Constitution and civilian control, well, it just doesn’t hold water. I am saying that the civilians in control made a bad decision. Sure, the organizations will hold their noses (yes, even the Marines, SOF, regular 11s) and mostly accept this imposition, but that doesn’t make it a good idea. There are all sorts of classes/types of people currently barred from service that are given a helping hand and/or are protected to some extent in the civilian world. Would you be so ok with any or all of these being permitted membership in the armed forces if the civilian leadership decided that it would be the right thing to do in the interest of fairness?
Gary,
I am expressing an opinion. My opinion. I do not claim to speak for anyone else; though I know there are many who do agree with me. And you and the other DADT repeal supporters here are merely expressing an opinion. The difference is that you appear, at least to me, to think that you have the ultimate answers and righteousness on your side. You don’t care what the guys doing the fighting think about this or how it will effect them. You just want to use their service as an opportunity to lecture them and teach them to be better people in your image.
I do not pretend to know what the result of the repeal will be with certainty. I am merely offering a perspective that is not in agreement with yours. You don’t know what the result will be either, though you are willing to risk some severe consequences on the alter of “fairness”.
A few homosexuals have been discharged because of their sexual orientation despite otherwise good service records. That is too bad (really, I mean that), but, as Envy notes, the Armed Forces is not a democracy. All sorts of sacrfices are made to keep combat effectiveness at maximum. You are just emphasizing one of the more insignificant of those.
You continue to attempt to assert your correctness by citing “evidence” and asking me to do the same. The facts and figures concerning zip codes of enlistees that you provided up thread ignores the important distinction I made between hardcore combat troops and other military occupations (which are the majority by many times). I assert that among the hardcore the rural skew is even higher that what your stats show. I don’t think I need to explain the difference in attitudes of young testosterone charged male high school grads from rural areas who seek combat roles versus more educated and cosmopolitan suburban and city males. BTW, we are only talking about males because females are not allowed in combat arms (though I suppose that is next on the civilian leadership’s agenda).
Whether you like it or not, combat arms is a culture and that culture is very male/macho in every connotation and denotation of those terms. Those connotations may offend you. Sorry. The world is as it is; not as you’d wish it to be.
Integration of blacks could happen because blacks could prove their manhood within the definition of such by the warrior culture in this country. Openly homosexual men will have a much more difficult time accomplishing this. Some of them are going to get hurt; maybe killled by their peers. Some otherwise fine straight men will be discharged or jailed over this. Some good troops – perhaps many – will not re-up over the consequences the repeal has on their tight knit society.
What do you care if unit cohesion and combat effectiveness suffers a mere 10% -15%? That can’t be too many lives lost. The
gain is worth it, right? Now we have a protected class within the military. Now two guys can make out in the barracks in front of everyone else. Wow! That’s social advancement!. Now, if a homosexual service member is reprimanded for being slack/deficient they can hide behind allegations of harassment due to sexual orientation and probably get away with it.
I suppose that you could make a strong case for that, in the context of modern-day conservatism. But conservatives have been, at one time or another, at least notionally for less government intrusion into the private lives of people. That may not be what Republicans are about these days, but it’s probably worth pointing out that there’s a certain flexibility to what counts as “liberal” these days.
Anyway, if you’re wondering what the hell I meant by that sexual orientation of any member of the service is none of anyone’s business, provided the people involved adhere to the rest of the rules of the game, the above (hopefully) clarifies. You’re welcome to disagree.
Surely I’m not. And stop calling me Surely.
Um…reactionary, paying particular attention to the very first sentence.
I suppose that you could make a strong case for that, in the context of modern-day conservatism. But conservatives have been, at one time or another, at least notionally for less government intrusion into the private lives of people. That may not be what Republicans are about these days, but it’s probably worth pointing out that there’s a certain flexibility to what counts as “liberal” these days.
Anyway, if you’re wondering what the hell I meant by that sexual orientation of any member of the service is none of anyone’s business, provided the people involved adhere to the rest of the rules of the game, the above (hopefully) clarifies. You’re welcome to disagree.
Surely I’m not. And stop calling me Surely.
Um…reactionary, paying particular attention to the very first sentence.
Also, as much as John Cole and I disagree these days, back when he still adhered strongly to the conservative label (no idea where he says he is these days), he was (IIRC) pretty hard over (if you’ll excuse) in favor of gays in the military.
And he served, which should give him extra worthiness, in the eyes of people who think that’s extra important.
Also, as much as John Cole and I disagree these days, back when he still adhered strongly to the conservative label (no idea where he says he is these days), he was (IIRC) pretty hard over (if you’ll excuse) in favor of gays in the military.
And he served, which should give him extra worthiness, in the eyes of people who think that’s extra important.
They’re were certainly not being reactionary in this case. Homosexual behaviour has been punished for thousands of years.
Um…reactionary, paying particular attention to the very first sentence.
I’m paying attention to it but I’m not getting your point. I’m probably missing something obvious.
In 2003, homosexual sex was illegal in Texas. That was the status quo. The court was deciding whether or not to change that.
The status quo ante would be the days when Thomas Jefferson was considered a liberal for advocating that homosexuals merely be castrated instead of killed.
That’s what a reactionary would look like in 2003 – someone who advocated that homosexuals be killed or castrated rather than imprisoned.
I just don’t get why you would preface your belief in a right to privacy with a nod to conservatism. Liberals believe in it, libertarians believe in it, to find conservatives that believe in it you have to squint real hard.
Conservatives opposed interracial marriage, they opposed the right to use contraceptives, they opposed abortion, they opposed homosexual sex.
When you say “I firmly believe that what people do in their private, spare time with other consenting adults is none of my business, nor should it be”, you don’t sound like a conservative. That’s what I believe and I’m certainly not a conservative, I’m politically to the left of Gandhi and Dennis Kucinich.
They’re were certainly not being reactionary in this case. Homosexual behaviour has been punished for thousands of years.
Um…reactionary, paying particular attention to the very first sentence.
I’m paying attention to it but I’m not getting your point. I’m probably missing something obvious.
In 2003, homosexual sex was illegal in Texas. That was the status quo. The court was deciding whether or not to change that.
The status quo ante would be the days when Thomas Jefferson was considered a liberal for advocating that homosexuals merely be castrated instead of killed.
That’s what a reactionary would look like in 2003 – someone who advocated that homosexuals be killed or castrated rather than imprisoned.
I just don’t get why you would preface your belief in a right to privacy with a nod to conservatism. Liberals believe in it, libertarians believe in it, to find conservatives that believe in it you have to squint real hard.
Conservatives opposed interracial marriage, they opposed the right to use contraceptives, they opposed abortion, they opposed homosexual sex.
When you say “I firmly believe that what people do in their private, spare time with other consenting adults is none of my business, nor should it be”, you don’t sound like a conservative. That’s what I believe and I’m certainly not a conservative, I’m politically to the left of Gandhi and Dennis Kucinich.
You’re saying that a true reactionary would want to return to a state where the penalty for homosexual sex was death? That’s a pretty high bar for reactionary, there. Not one that everyone would agree with, I think.
You’re saying that a true reactionary would want to return to a state where the penalty for homosexual sex was death? That’s a pretty high bar for reactionary, there. Not one that everyone would agree with, I think.
I’m saying someone who advocated continuing the status quo can’t be described as a reactionary.
In 2003 homosexual sex was punishable by imprisonment in some states.
Before 1962, it was illegal in every state in the US.
If a reactionary is, as you imply, someone who seeks to return to a previous state in society, what would a reactionary in this instance have been in 2003, or 1962?
In contrast to a conservative.
I’m saying someone who advocated continuing the status quo can’t be described as a reactionary.
In 2003 homosexual sex was punishable by imprisonment in some states.
Before 1962, it was illegal in every state in the US.
If a reactionary is, as you imply, someone who seeks to return to a previous state in society, what would a reactionary in this instance have been in 2003, or 1962?
In contrast to a conservative.
I’m not sure that I’d call it belief in a right to privacy so much as a desire to limit the extent to which governmental powers intrude where they have no business.
If those two things sound equivalent to you, fine.
FWIW, I think you’re mostly arguing that Religious Right == conservative, which I disagree with. The Religious Right has undeniably affected Republican policies (such as they are) for the last three decades or so, give or take, but that doesn’t mean conservatives universally agree with those on the Religious Right.
I’m not sure that I’d call it belief in a right to privacy so much as a desire to limit the extent to which governmental powers intrude where they have no business.
If those two things sound equivalent to you, fine.
FWIW, I think you’re mostly arguing that Religious Right == conservative, which I disagree with. The Religious Right has undeniably affected Republican policies (such as they are) for the last three decades or so, give or take, but that doesn’t mean conservatives universally agree with those on the Religious Right.
In short, the guys doing the hard, dangerous, dirty work are not at all like the people pushing the gay agenda.
I have to admit I’m completely unclear on what this “gay agenda” is that everyone is so concerned about.
As far as I can tell, the “gay agenda” is that gay men are attracted to men, gay women are attracted to women, and both groups would prefer to not take a ration of crap from everybody else because of it.
If there’s more to it than that, I’m not aware of it.
Whether you like it or not, combat arms is a culture and that culture is very male/macho in every connotation and denotation of those terms.
If you think that machismo, a strong warrior ethic, and a robust capacity for general yang-itude is underrepresented in the homosexual community, I believe you are mistaken.
Maybe it’s time to update your blinders.
In short, the guys doing the hard, dangerous, dirty work are not at all like the people pushing the gay agenda.
I have to admit I’m completely unclear on what this “gay agenda” is that everyone is so concerned about.
As far as I can tell, the “gay agenda” is that gay men are attracted to men, gay women are attracted to women, and both groups would prefer to not take a ration of crap from everybody else because of it.
If there’s more to it than that, I’m not aware of it.
Whether you like it or not, combat arms is a culture and that culture is very male/macho in every connotation and denotation of those terms.
If you think that machismo, a strong warrior ethic, and a robust capacity for general yang-itude is underrepresented in the homosexual community, I believe you are mistaken.
Maybe it’s time to update your blinders.
The “gay agenda” phrasing sounds a great deal like the “gay mafia” phrase that Michael Savage was using with gay abandon last time I heard a snatch of his show, which was years ago.
When you’re too crazy for me, you’re certifiable.
The “gay agenda” phrasing sounds a great deal like the “gay mafia” phrase that Michael Savage was using with gay abandon last time I heard a snatch of his show, which was years ago.
When you’re too crazy for me, you’re certifiable.
russell, You know perfectly well what I am talking about re; male/macho with regards to the military society. To be blunt, I have no doubt whatsoever that there are homosexuals who have the phsyical and psychological right stuff to go out slaughter human beings with the best of ’em. However, the typical 18 to 24 year old who is out there doing that kind of work sees sexually conquering females as an important aspect of the personna and sucking dick and taking it up the ass as being antithetical to it.
The gay agenda? Change the thinking of the typical 18 to 24 year old (and everyone else) to accept that what the other 2% +/- does for fun is acceptable. That, or punish them into silence for expressing distaste.
BTW, Personally, I don’t care what gays do with other consenting adults. I get hit on by them from time to time and I always politely explain that I don’t swing that way and let it go at that. That’s me now. I can’t fully recall what I thought about it when I was 18 to 24. I do know I was a lot less understanding.
russell, You know perfectly well what I am talking about re; male/macho with regards to the military society. To be blunt, I have no doubt whatsoever that there are homosexuals who have the phsyical and psychological right stuff to go out slaughter human beings with the best of ’em. However, the typical 18 to 24 year old who is out there doing that kind of work sees sexually conquering females as an important aspect of the personna and sucking dick and taking it up the ass as being antithetical to it.
The gay agenda? Change the thinking of the typical 18 to 24 year old (and everyone else) to accept that what the other 2% +/- does for fun is acceptable. That, or punish them into silence for expressing distaste.
BTW, Personally, I don’t care what gays do with other consenting adults. I get hit on by them from time to time and I always politely explain that I don’t swing that way and let it go at that. That’s me now. I can’t fully recall what I thought about it when I was 18 to 24. I do know I was a lot less understanding.
I’d guess that people are effective soldiers, irrespective of who they’re fncking.
And people will get adjusted to that a damned sight quicker, once their superiors quit telling them that it’s important, who they’re fncking.
My take, anyway.
I’d guess that people are effective soldiers, irrespective of who they’re fncking.
And people will get adjusted to that a damned sight quicker, once their superiors quit telling them that it’s important, who they’re fncking.
My take, anyway.
Possibly, because you were told that you should be a lot less understanding.
Culture. You’re soaking in it.
Same culture as I soaked in, when I was younger. So I suspect, anyway.
Possibly, because you were told that you should be a lot less understanding.
Culture. You’re soaking in it.
Same culture as I soaked in, when I was younger. So I suspect, anyway.
“However, the typical 18 to 24 year old who is out there doing that kind of work sees sexually conquering females as an important aspect of the personna and sucking dick and taking it up the ass as being antithetical to it.”
Come to San Diego, I’ll introduce you to gay Marines and gay SEALs. Especially now that they can admit it. For the most part they don’t have the remotest problem getting the respect of their peers if they are good at what they do.
“However, the typical 18 to 24 year old who is out there doing that kind of work sees sexually conquering females as an important aspect of the personna and sucking dick and taking it up the ass as being antithetical to it.”
Come to San Diego, I’ll introduce you to gay Marines and gay SEALs. Especially now that they can admit it. For the most part they don’t have the remotest problem getting the respect of their peers if they are good at what they do.
Avedis,
including reserves, there are over 2 million people in the US armed forces (and over 20% of them are women). Do you really believe that an organization like the military is simply made up of people who have the ‘physical and psychological right stuff to go out and slaughter human beings’. Don’t you think the whole concept of a national military requires a huge array of skills in addition to what you feel is the essential quality? If you are making the argument that we need to keep gays out because the ‘tip of the spear’ forces need to keep their macho worldview? (Note that the number of combat troops in Special Forces commands are ‘less than 10,000’ and that they are ” older and more rigorously trained.” link), it would probably be better to make that more explicit. However, it seems that you have a rather warped view of the requirements of the Armed Forces in general and the Special Forces in particular (As you acknowledge, you were a lot less understanding in your youth, so maybe you could consider that filling up the Special Forces with 18-24 year olds primarily interested in scoring with chicks would not be a good idea), which is complemented by a warped understanding of what homosexuality entails. And while I don’t want to silence you, I would suggest you be a little less colorful about how you describe homosexuality or you may be asked to leave. Of course, if you state it a bit more prosaically, you end up saying ‘We can’t have gays in the military because they are too passive to deal with the requirements of being in the military’ However, by stating it so colloquially, it seems like you think it is something where everyone receives and no one gives, which makes me think that you are more writing this out of some sense of threatened masculinity than clearly thinking this through.
Avedis,
including reserves, there are over 2 million people in the US armed forces (and over 20% of them are women). Do you really believe that an organization like the military is simply made up of people who have the ‘physical and psychological right stuff to go out and slaughter human beings’. Don’t you think the whole concept of a national military requires a huge array of skills in addition to what you feel is the essential quality? If you are making the argument that we need to keep gays out because the ‘tip of the spear’ forces need to keep their macho worldview? (Note that the number of combat troops in Special Forces commands are ‘less than 10,000’ and that they are ” older and more rigorously trained.” link), it would probably be better to make that more explicit. However, it seems that you have a rather warped view of the requirements of the Armed Forces in general and the Special Forces in particular (As you acknowledge, you were a lot less understanding in your youth, so maybe you could consider that filling up the Special Forces with 18-24 year olds primarily interested in scoring with chicks would not be a good idea), which is complemented by a warped understanding of what homosexuality entails. And while I don’t want to silence you, I would suggest you be a little less colorful about how you describe homosexuality or you may be asked to leave. Of course, if you state it a bit more prosaically, you end up saying ‘We can’t have gays in the military because they are too passive to deal with the requirements of being in the military’ However, by stating it so colloquially, it seems like you think it is something where everyone receives and no one gives, which makes me think that you are more writing this out of some sense of threatened masculinity than clearly thinking this through.
Culture to an extent, Slarti. Perhaps.
Then again, throughout history homosexuality has never enjoyed a cultural melieu where it gained equallity with the hetros. If culture is the key, then somewhere in history there should have been more acceptance. On the other hand, if resistance to it is something deeper in the human psyche, then we would expect to see a persistent reluctance to grant acceptance to homosexuality; which is what we have and which bodes badly for the gay community’s current efforts.
Any how, before signing off for good on this thread I ask, rhetorically, when the US military will allow open practice of necrophilia. Surely there must be a few necrophiliacs suffering the same oppression as gays under their own form of DADT. What is the difference? Where are their liberal champions?
Finally, I hope that the gays that are now attracted to the service for its new protective policies do more for it than they have done for the Catholic Church.
Culture to an extent, Slarti. Perhaps.
Then again, throughout history homosexuality has never enjoyed a cultural melieu where it gained equallity with the hetros. If culture is the key, then somewhere in history there should have been more acceptance. On the other hand, if resistance to it is something deeper in the human psyche, then we would expect to see a persistent reluctance to grant acceptance to homosexuality; which is what we have and which bodes badly for the gay community’s current efforts.
Any how, before signing off for good on this thread I ask, rhetorically, when the US military will allow open practice of necrophilia. Surely there must be a few necrophiliacs suffering the same oppression as gays under their own form of DADT. What is the difference? Where are their liberal champions?
Finally, I hope that the gays that are now attracted to the service for its new protective policies do more for it than they have done for the Catholic Church.
Then again, throughout history homosexuality has never enjoyed a cultural melieu where it gained equallity with the hetros.
If you leave out Ancient Greece and feudal Japan
On the other hand, the Greeks and the Japanese were not up with necrophilia. So draw your own conclusions.
Then again, throughout history homosexuality has never enjoyed a cultural melieu where it gained equallity with the hetros.
If you leave out Ancient Greece and feudal Japan
On the other hand, the Greeks and the Japanese were not up with necrophilia. So draw your own conclusions.
Maybe avedis is right in a kinky sort of way.
We should keep both gays and females out of the military and let wigged out, “my dick is my life”, testosterone governed zombies have their way in combat. After all, dick waving has a definite hetero bias.
Straight guys have a historically documented tendency to rape homosexuals-not the reverse. This is an undeniable fact. I mean this theme practically knocks you in the chin when you watch MSNBC’s “Lockup”, read prison fiction, or actually pay attention to reality. They (young heteros) also tend to rape females. Your surprised? Please. In fact, their “rape-acity” tends to know no bounds. Just ask wingnuts about the Soviet rape of (everything in) Berlin in the spring of 1945. Young heteros in combat are omni-rapists. If it moves (sometimes even that is not necessary) and they can stick their dick in it, it’s fair game.
I guess that makes them special. Since we have tasked them with defending our country, we should acceed to their needs as it were.
Clearly, the armed forces is no place for homosexuals (/females). They will only be taken advantage of.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/why_are_straight_guys_so_aroused_by_pris
Maybe avedis is right in a kinky sort of way.
We should keep both gays and females out of the military and let wigged out, “my dick is my life”, testosterone governed zombies have their way in combat. After all, dick waving has a definite hetero bias.
Straight guys have a historically documented tendency to rape homosexuals-not the reverse. This is an undeniable fact. I mean this theme practically knocks you in the chin when you watch MSNBC’s “Lockup”, read prison fiction, or actually pay attention to reality. They (young heteros) also tend to rape females. Your surprised? Please. In fact, their “rape-acity” tends to know no bounds. Just ask wingnuts about the Soviet rape of (everything in) Berlin in the spring of 1945. Young heteros in combat are omni-rapists. If it moves (sometimes even that is not necessary) and they can stick their dick in it, it’s fair game.
I guess that makes them special. Since we have tasked them with defending our country, we should acceed to their needs as it were.
Clearly, the armed forces is no place for homosexuals (/females). They will only be taken advantage of.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/why_are_straight_guys_so_aroused_by_pris
“Come to San Diego, I’ll introduce you to gay Marines and gay SEALs.”
I have already met both, thank you.
“Especially now that they can admit it.”
That might be the problem. I was ok with DADT. The openness is where I think the trouble starts.
LJ,”If you are making the argument that we need to keep gays out because the ‘tip of the spear’ forces need to keep their macho worldview? (Note that the number of combat troops in Special Forces commands are ‘less than 10,000’ and that they are ” older and more rigorously trained.” link), it would probably be better to make that more explicit.”
I have made that explicit repeatedly.
“so maybe you could consider that filling up the Special Forces with 18-24 year olds primarily interested in scoring with chicks would not be a good idea), .”
Huh? That is what 18 – 24 year olds are interested in. That is nature.
“…which is complemented by a warped understanding of what homosexuality entails…”
Really? 18 – 24 year olds are interested in sex. Period. Homo or hetro.
“I would suggest you be a little less colorful about how you describe homosexuality or you may be asked to leave.”
I am telling you how it is seen by those that you want to impose acceptance on. If you can’t handle that then I am afraid you are utterly unqualified to comment on the topic.
“Of course, if you state it a bit more prosaically, you end up saying ‘We can’t have gays in the military because they are too passive to deal with the requirements of being in the military’ However, by stating it so colloquially, it seems like you think it is something where everyone receives and no one gives”
Again, you have lost me. I wasn’t inferring psychology traits from the sexual acts performed.
“which makes me think that you are more writing this out of some sense of threatened masculinity than clearly thinking this through.”
Ah yes,there it is. The famous fallback position. If one is critical of something homosexual, then one must be secretly attracted to homosexuality. Sorry, That doesn’t work on me.
“Come to San Diego, I’ll introduce you to gay Marines and gay SEALs.”
I have already met both, thank you.
“Especially now that they can admit it.”
That might be the problem. I was ok with DADT. The openness is where I think the trouble starts.
LJ,”If you are making the argument that we need to keep gays out because the ‘tip of the spear’ forces need to keep their macho worldview? (Note that the number of combat troops in Special Forces commands are ‘less than 10,000’ and that they are ” older and more rigorously trained.” link), it would probably be better to make that more explicit.”
I have made that explicit repeatedly.
“so maybe you could consider that filling up the Special Forces with 18-24 year olds primarily interested in scoring with chicks would not be a good idea), .”
Huh? That is what 18 – 24 year olds are interested in. That is nature.
“…which is complemented by a warped understanding of what homosexuality entails…”
Really? 18 – 24 year olds are interested in sex. Period. Homo or hetro.
“I would suggest you be a little less colorful about how you describe homosexuality or you may be asked to leave.”
I am telling you how it is seen by those that you want to impose acceptance on. If you can’t handle that then I am afraid you are utterly unqualified to comment on the topic.
“Of course, if you state it a bit more prosaically, you end up saying ‘We can’t have gays in the military because they are too passive to deal with the requirements of being in the military’ However, by stating it so colloquially, it seems like you think it is something where everyone receives and no one gives”
Again, you have lost me. I wasn’t inferring psychology traits from the sexual acts performed.
“which makes me think that you are more writing this out of some sense of threatened masculinity than clearly thinking this through.”
Ah yes,there it is. The famous fallback position. If one is critical of something homosexual, then one must be secretly attracted to homosexuality. Sorry, That doesn’t work on me.
That is what 18 – 24 year olds are interested in. That is nature.
Yes, but that is not the composition of the Special Forces. So the military powers that be seem to specifically reject your notion that 18-24 year olds interested in getting the girls is needed. And I would tend to think that they have a better read on the requirements than you.
As for the famous fallback position, I’m not the one who felt compelled to bring up particular acts that are associated in your mind with homosexuality in florid terms. (and btw, they aren’t just for homosexuals) Perhaps you feel those emotive terms strengthen your position, but resorting to them suggests that you see this as an emotional argument rather than an objective one, claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
Perhaps you didn’t see my comment about ancient Greece and feudal Japan. I’d be interested to know if that changes your claim that throughout history homosexuality has never enjoyed a cultural melieu where it gained equallity with the hetros. I really think you need to rethink your position as it is not supported by the facts.
That is what 18 – 24 year olds are interested in. That is nature.
Yes, but that is not the composition of the Special Forces. So the military powers that be seem to specifically reject your notion that 18-24 year olds interested in getting the girls is needed. And I would tend to think that they have a better read on the requirements than you.
As for the famous fallback position, I’m not the one who felt compelled to bring up particular acts that are associated in your mind with homosexuality in florid terms. (and btw, they aren’t just for homosexuals) Perhaps you feel those emotive terms strengthen your position, but resorting to them suggests that you see this as an emotional argument rather than an objective one, claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
Perhaps you didn’t see my comment about ancient Greece and feudal Japan. I’d be interested to know if that changes your claim that throughout history homosexuality has never enjoyed a cultural melieu where it gained equallity with the hetros. I really think you need to rethink your position as it is not supported by the facts.
“You don’t care what the guys doing the fighting think about this or how it will effect them. You just want to use their service as an opportunity to lecture them and teach them to be better people in your image.”
I’d really appreciate seeing your telepathy license. I you can’t produce one, I’m afraid I can’t accept your assertions as to what I want, since you are, you know, completely wrong.
Come back and try a conversation where you ask me a question.
I promise I won’t announce to you what you want, and think, if you’ll give me the same courtesy. Thanks.
If you just want to converse with the imaginary Gary in your head, you really don’t need me around that.
“You don’t care what the guys doing the fighting think about this or how it will effect them. You just want to use their service as an opportunity to lecture them and teach them to be better people in your image.”
I’d really appreciate seeing your telepathy license. I you can’t produce one, I’m afraid I can’t accept your assertions as to what I want, since you are, you know, completely wrong.
Come back and try a conversation where you ask me a question.
I promise I won’t announce to you what you want, and think, if you’ll give me the same courtesy. Thanks.
If you just want to converse with the imaginary Gary in your head, you really don’t need me around that.
There are no mainstream champions for necrophilia. If you can’t figure out why, and how homosexuality differ, I suggest thinking about it more, and learning more about it. If that doesn’t work, indeed ask questions.
There are no mainstream champions for necrophilia. If you can’t figure out why, and how homosexuality differ, I suggest thinking about it more, and learning more about it. If that doesn’t work, indeed ask questions.
In 2007, over 1400 military personnel were assaulted and raped while serving in the armed forces.
Clearly we need get men out of the service, because they rape and sexually assault other solders.
Is there anything wrong about this view that isn’t wrong with “Finally, I hope that the gays that are now attracted to the service for its new protective policies do more for it than they have done for the Catholic Church.”
Are you saying that gay people are more prone to child molestation than heterosexuals? Really? Have you looked into the figures on that? If so, please cite them.
You probably want to look for yourself, because if you don’t, I’ll happily give them to you.
In 2007, over 1400 military personnel were assaulted and raped while serving in the armed forces.
Clearly we need get men out of the service, because they rape and sexually assault other solders.
Is there anything wrong about this view that isn’t wrong with “Finally, I hope that the gays that are now attracted to the service for its new protective policies do more for it than they have done for the Catholic Church.”
Are you saying that gay people are more prone to child molestation than heterosexuals? Really? Have you looked into the figures on that? If so, please cite them.
You probably want to look for yourself, because if you don’t, I’ll happily give them to you.
A few homosexuals have been discharged because of their sexual orientation despite otherwise good service records. That is too bad (really, I mean that), but, as Envy notes, the Armed Forces is not a democracy. All sorts of sacrfices are made to keep combat effectiveness at maximum.
Gotta complete the argument here, pal. Did discharging these otherwise good soldiers solely because of their sexual orientation make combat effectiveness better, or did it make it worse, or did it stay roughly the same? Without the answer, you’re just stringing together words.
To be blunt, I have no doubt whatsoever that there are homosexuals who have the phsyical and psychological right stuff to go out slaughter human beings with the best of ’em. However, the typical 18 to 24 year old who is out there doing that kind of work sees sexually conquering females as an important aspect of the personna and sucking dick and taking it up the ass as being antithetical to it.
Ah! I get it now. You’re not interested in preserving military culture. You’re interested in preserving rape culture. See, that’s not something I think we should do. At all.
A few homosexuals have been discharged because of their sexual orientation despite otherwise good service records. That is too bad (really, I mean that), but, as Envy notes, the Armed Forces is not a democracy. All sorts of sacrfices are made to keep combat effectiveness at maximum.
Gotta complete the argument here, pal. Did discharging these otherwise good soldiers solely because of their sexual orientation make combat effectiveness better, or did it make it worse, or did it stay roughly the same? Without the answer, you’re just stringing together words.
To be blunt, I have no doubt whatsoever that there are homosexuals who have the phsyical and psychological right stuff to go out slaughter human beings with the best of ’em. However, the typical 18 to 24 year old who is out there doing that kind of work sees sexually conquering females as an important aspect of the personna and sucking dick and taking it up the ass as being antithetical to it.
Ah! I get it now. You’re not interested in preserving military culture. You’re interested in preserving rape culture. See, that’s not something I think we should do. At all.
Ok Gary; some direct questions.
1. Why do you think that gays should be allowed to serve openly?
2. Why do you think that their doing so won’t have a deletorious effect on combat troops (i.e. why do you disagree with the Commandant of the US Marine Corps, General Amos)?
3. Why do you think there is a distinction between allowing the open practice of homosexuality and the open practice of necrophilia?
Thank you in advance for you logical and considerate response to all of the above.
“You’re interested in preserving rape culture.”
Phil and Lib Jap, you two just don’t like male warrior – maybe any non-gay male – culture. Again, these guys do what you are afraid to do. Don’t ask them to be like you because then the job of protecting you won’t get done. I mean, you’re not gonna protect yourselves, are you?. And, lib jap, we are not just talking about 10,000 SOF, we are talking about tens of thousands more in the Marines and regular Army infantry, arty and armor.
Ok Gary; some direct questions.
1. Why do you think that gays should be allowed to serve openly?
2. Why do you think that their doing so won’t have a deletorious effect on combat troops (i.e. why do you disagree with the Commandant of the US Marine Corps, General Amos)?
3. Why do you think there is a distinction between allowing the open practice of homosexuality and the open practice of necrophilia?
Thank you in advance for you logical and considerate response to all of the above.
“You’re interested in preserving rape culture.”
Phil and Lib Jap, you two just don’t like male warrior – maybe any non-gay male – culture. Again, these guys do what you are afraid to do. Don’t ask them to be like you because then the job of protecting you won’t get done. I mean, you’re not gonna protect yourselves, are you?. And, lib jap, we are not just talking about 10,000 SOF, we are talking about tens of thousands more in the Marines and regular Army infantry, arty and armor.
avendis, perhaps, while Gary is contemplating the answer to your questions, you could favor us with the reason you disagree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen. Who, from his statements, expects no deleterious effects (provided only that the military has a chance to manage the transition). Are you saying that the Admiral just doesn’t like the mail warrior culture? Just wondering.
Thank you for enlightening us.
avendis, perhaps, while Gary is contemplating the answer to your questions, you could favor us with the reason you disagree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen. Who, from his statements, expects no deleterious effects (provided only that the military has a chance to manage the transition). Are you saying that the Admiral just doesn’t like the mail warrior culture? Just wondering.
Thank you for enlightening us.
Phil LJ, your portrayel of men in the armed forces as a bunch of rapists is insulting. I don’t need to be psychic when you toss out tells like that.
The rape rate in the armed forces, in fact all violent crime rates, is much lower than the general population; especially given the demographic involved.
Phil LJ, your portrayel of men in the armed forces as a bunch of rapists is insulting. I don’t need to be psychic when you toss out tells like that.
The rape rate in the armed forces, in fact all violent crime rates, is much lower than the general population; especially given the demographic involved.
wj, the short answer is politics.
The fact that the heads of 3 of the 4 main branches – Gen Amos of the USMC being the most vociferous – did indeed put up some opposition during the hearings is very telling (Gen Amos was clear that his Marines don’t want this and that there would be negative impact). Normally, at this level, there is a scramble to find the right words to support what civilian leadership wants. The carreer depends on it.
If you understood how these things work you would recognize that what was being said is something along the lines of, “we don’t like this and we think it’s a bad idea, but we recognize that you are going to do it any how. If we generally (no pun intended) go along with you, then we can keep our jobs and we can bargain for various considerations if not compromises”
wj, the short answer is politics.
The fact that the heads of 3 of the 4 main branches – Gen Amos of the USMC being the most vociferous – did indeed put up some opposition during the hearings is very telling (Gen Amos was clear that his Marines don’t want this and that there would be negative impact). Normally, at this level, there is a scramble to find the right words to support what civilian leadership wants. The carreer depends on it.
If you understood how these things work you would recognize that what was being said is something along the lines of, “we don’t like this and we think it’s a bad idea, but we recognize that you are going to do it any how. If we generally (no pun intended) go along with you, then we can keep our jobs and we can bargain for various considerations if not compromises”
Well, I’m glad you guys have something to wank about so I won’t have to worry about anyone arguing with ME. 😉
I was there when DADT was another one of those not-progressive-enough compromises of the Clinton administration. The fact that it’s now been repealed means it DID ITS JOB to open up this conversation.
Thank you, DADT, and grateful farewell.
Well, I’m glad you guys have something to wank about so I won’t have to worry about anyone arguing with ME. 😉
I was there when DADT was another one of those not-progressive-enough compromises of the Clinton administration. The fact that it’s now been repealed means it DID ITS JOB to open up this conversation.
Thank you, DADT, and grateful farewell.
“we don’t like this and we think it’s a bad idea, but we recognize that you are going to do it any how. If we generally (no pun intended) go along with you, then we can keep our jobs and we can bargain for various considerations if not compromises”
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no disagreement on the issue among the Joint Chiefs. But, except for General Amos, they are more concerned with their careers than with their sworn duty to “protect and defend the United States of America.” In short, that they have no honor. Please correct me if you see some other way to put career above military effectiveness.
Alternatively, it may be that there is sincere disagreement among the Joint Chiefs as to the probable effects. (Which is my personal view.) In which case, it becomes a matter of looking at the rationale that each side brings to their view. We can agree with either one, but what we can not do is maintain that either position is based on general opposition to the military and its culture.
“we don’t like this and we think it’s a bad idea, but we recognize that you are going to do it any how. If we generally (no pun intended) go along with you, then we can keep our jobs and we can bargain for various considerations if not compromises”
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no disagreement on the issue among the Joint Chiefs. But, except for General Amos, they are more concerned with their careers than with their sworn duty to “protect and defend the United States of America.” In short, that they have no honor. Please correct me if you see some other way to put career above military effectiveness.
Alternatively, it may be that there is sincere disagreement among the Joint Chiefs as to the probable effects. (Which is my personal view.) In which case, it becomes a matter of looking at the rationale that each side brings to their view. We can agree with either one, but what we can not do is maintain that either position is based on general opposition to the military and its culture.
Why do you think there is a distinction between allowing the open practice of homosexuality and the open practice of necrophilia?
Troll Alert. Level 6.
Why do you think there is a distinction between allowing the open practice of homosexuality and the open practice of necrophilia?
Troll Alert. Level 6.
I would say that Amos came out of this with his honor clean (Semper Fi). Otherwise, yes, of course, the Joint Chiefs are politicians. There is a lot of putting career ahead of what’s actually best. This is no secret. We used to say that the last honest rank is Captain. After that it’s all about bucking for promotion.
It has occurred to me that there is something bigger happening here and that the repeal is just a symptom. Civilian control of the military is another of the necessary checks and balances built into the Constitution. However, it used to be – and this was true of the men that wrote the law of the land – that those who would be in civilian leadership positions had, overwhelmingly, military service; sometimes extensive service. So there was this informal means of ensuring that civilian leadership would not ask the military to do anything too far out of step with its culture or capability. There was an understanding.
That understanding has been lost as these days civilian leadership – and the special interest groups they pander to – disproportionately has no personal experience with the service. Civilians expect increasingly unrealistic results from the military. This includes everything from DADT to two simultaneous ridiculously conceived endless counter insurgency nation building wars.
I would say that Amos came out of this with his honor clean (Semper Fi). Otherwise, yes, of course, the Joint Chiefs are politicians. There is a lot of putting career ahead of what’s actually best. This is no secret. We used to say that the last honest rank is Captain. After that it’s all about bucking for promotion.
It has occurred to me that there is something bigger happening here and that the repeal is just a symptom. Civilian control of the military is another of the necessary checks and balances built into the Constitution. However, it used to be – and this was true of the men that wrote the law of the land – that those who would be in civilian leadership positions had, overwhelmingly, military service; sometimes extensive service. So there was this informal means of ensuring that civilian leadership would not ask the military to do anything too far out of step with its culture or capability. There was an understanding.
That understanding has been lost as these days civilian leadership – and the special interest groups they pander to – disproportionately has no personal experience with the service. Civilians expect increasingly unrealistic results from the military. This includes everything from DADT to two simultaneous ridiculously conceived endless counter insurgency nation building wars.
@avedis it used to be – and this was true of the men that wrote the law of the land – that those who would be in civilian leadership positions had, overwhelmingly, military service; sometimes extensive service.
Let’s see, leaders and authors of the law of the land with no military service:
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
(three Presidents out of the first four)
Not to mention Abraham Lincoln — who kept working thru military leaders until he got to someone (General Grant) who was willing to do what needed doing (and which the military was, on the evidence, entirely capable of doing).
I could go on. But, while some leaders certainly had military experience, it was hardly seems to have been an “overwhelming” fraction.
@avedis it used to be – and this was true of the men that wrote the law of the land – that those who would be in civilian leadership positions had, overwhelmingly, military service; sometimes extensive service.
Let’s see, leaders and authors of the law of the land with no military service:
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
(three Presidents out of the first four)
Not to mention Abraham Lincoln — who kept working thru military leaders until he got to someone (General Grant) who was willing to do what needed doing (and which the military was, on the evidence, entirely capable of doing).
I could go on. But, while some leaders certainly had military experience, it was hardly seems to have been an “overwhelming” fraction.
avedis, with your age and remoteness from the military and modern cultural mores and expectations, I think that you are really not in a position to start explaining what our troops can and cannot deal with. Moreover, the fact that our military has gone from being conscription based to volunteer based means that we are running a highly professional, trained military whose members have to perform up to physical and professional expectations to succeed. There is no reason to assume that our military men are uniquely stupid in comparison to other modern western nations or that Americans in the military are uniquely unable to deal with openly gay members, compared to other American institutions.
The fact that your complaints about DADT are placed right alongside nonsensical talking points about global warming and liberal arts colleges and the like indicates to me that your primary objection to DADT is a cultural/partisan one: youre angry that your cultural/political “side” has ended up on the losing end and are lashing out against gays in your frustration and your declining relevance as the world passes you by.
avedis, with your age and remoteness from the military and modern cultural mores and expectations, I think that you are really not in a position to start explaining what our troops can and cannot deal with. Moreover, the fact that our military has gone from being conscription based to volunteer based means that we are running a highly professional, trained military whose members have to perform up to physical and professional expectations to succeed. There is no reason to assume that our military men are uniquely stupid in comparison to other modern western nations or that Americans in the military are uniquely unable to deal with openly gay members, compared to other American institutions.
The fact that your complaints about DADT are placed right alongside nonsensical talking points about global warming and liberal arts colleges and the like indicates to me that your primary objection to DADT is a cultural/partisan one: youre angry that your cultural/political “side” has ended up on the losing end and are lashing out against gays in your frustration and your declining relevance as the world passes you by.
wrong, wj. Just plain wrong.
Jefferson was a Col in the VA Militia. Lincoln fought in Indian wars……I could go on. Military service in the days before independence was a little more murky than post independence. Pre-independence warfare relied on militias as opposed to a standing army.
If you’re going to nitpick at least pick the right nits.
wrong, wj. Just plain wrong.
Jefferson was a Col in the VA Militia. Lincoln fought in Indian wars……I could go on. Military service in the days before independence was a little more murky than post independence. Pre-independence warfare relied on militias as opposed to a standing army.
If you’re going to nitpick at least pick the right nits.
Tyro,
Interesting analysis, but I am not that old. I had children relatively young. And, with both of those in the service – one having gone through four years of a military college – I do not feel that I am that far removed either. Maybe you are closer?
I don’t have “political side”. I think repub.s are out to put all the money and control in the hands of a few rich families; a thought which I abhor. I think dem.s are weak kneed and ineffective. The Libertarians are just plain nuts (what with not wanting to pay any taxes and all that). All parties have their hardcore elements that want to tell me how to think, feel and behave; which I also abhor. If anything, I am probably philosophically closer to a pure communist. Since that won’t work in a society as large and materialistic as ours, I guess maybe “my side” is lost.
I never said the troops are “stupid” and I don’t believe that they are. I also stated that I really don’t care about gays one way or the other except that in regards to their new found protected status to be openly so in the armed forces. There is a couple of older gay gentlemen living together right down the road from me. I have been known to join them for drinks and conversation from time to time. Nice guys, intersting conversation. I’m not lashing out at anyone.
Why does Gen Amos disagree with your assertion re; assimilation? Is he removed from the modern military as well?
Tyro,
Interesting analysis, but I am not that old. I had children relatively young. And, with both of those in the service – one having gone through four years of a military college – I do not feel that I am that far removed either. Maybe you are closer?
I don’t have “political side”. I think repub.s are out to put all the money and control in the hands of a few rich families; a thought which I abhor. I think dem.s are weak kneed and ineffective. The Libertarians are just plain nuts (what with not wanting to pay any taxes and all that). All parties have their hardcore elements that want to tell me how to think, feel and behave; which I also abhor. If anything, I am probably philosophically closer to a pure communist. Since that won’t work in a society as large and materialistic as ours, I guess maybe “my side” is lost.
I never said the troops are “stupid” and I don’t believe that they are. I also stated that I really don’t care about gays one way or the other except that in regards to their new found protected status to be openly so in the armed forces. There is a couple of older gay gentlemen living together right down the road from me. I have been known to join them for drinks and conversation from time to time. Nice guys, intersting conversation. I’m not lashing out at anyone.
Why does Gen Amos disagree with your assertion re; assimilation? Is he removed from the modern military as well?
avedis:
Meet the Classical Greeks whom we claim, rightfully, that much of contemporary Western society is built upon. Do you context either claim?
Please do read all the words at both links before replying, ok? Thanks.
Meet the Romans. Ask me if you need to quote any of the words, but otherwise I’d prefer you to read all the words below that link until you get to the Notes. It’s not a long read.
If you’d like more cites on these facts, I’ll be happy to provide more reading to point out to you that your assertion is difficult to support with claims to contemporary or modern knowledge of the Greek and Roman cultures, which is reasonable extensive, though imperfect.
More facts:
Over to you for your better cites on history to support your claim. Thanks for any corrections from more knowledgeable and authoritative sources! I’d appreciate any, so I could find out if, and contemporary scholarship, are in error. Thanks if you can help with this.
avedis:
Meet the Classical Greeks whom we claim, rightfully, that much of contemporary Western society is built upon. Do you context either claim?
Please do read all the words at both links before replying, ok? Thanks.
Meet the Romans. Ask me if you need to quote any of the words, but otherwise I’d prefer you to read all the words below that link until you get to the Notes. It’s not a long read.
If you’d like more cites on these facts, I’ll be happy to provide more reading to point out to you that your assertion is difficult to support with claims to contemporary or modern knowledge of the Greek and Roman cultures, which is reasonable extensive, though imperfect.
More facts:
Over to you for your better cites on history to support your claim. Thanks for any corrections from more knowledgeable and authoritative sources! I’d appreciate any, so I could find out if, and contemporary scholarship, are in error. Thanks if you can help with this.
The rape rate in the armed forces, in fact all violent crime rates, is much lower than the general population; especially given the demographic involved.
However, rape compared to other violent crimes is less reduced. see: http://www.answers.com/topic/rape-by-military-personnel
Additionally the data may be suspect. see: http://www.dtic.mil/dtfsams/docs/11_09docs/DTFSAMS-Rept_Dec09.pdf [page 77]
The rape rate in the armed forces, in fact all violent crime rates, is much lower than the general population; especially given the demographic involved.
However, rape compared to other violent crimes is less reduced. see: http://www.answers.com/topic/rape-by-military-personnel
Additionally the data may be suspect. see: http://www.dtic.mil/dtfsams/docs/11_09docs/DTFSAMS-Rept_Dec09.pdf [page 77]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece
Gary, take a look at some of the historical quotes. It is clear that homosexual relationships in the ancient Greek military led to potentially mission compromising behaviors (e.g. special preference for lovers, jealousy over lovers among the ranks, needless self sacrifice for a lover’s sake).
That is the issue you must address. Would openly gay behavior and the possible influx of more gays into the service have an adverse effect on the mission. The example of the Greeks – which you cite – seems to point to the answer as being “yes”.
I don’t care how gays were treated in society at large or their impact on that society. I am talking about the special circumstances of the military and, within that, the even more unique environment of combat arms. I have yet to see anyone here, yourself included, intelligently address those specific circumstances. It’s like you just can’t seem to grasp that there is a difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece
Gary, take a look at some of the historical quotes. It is clear that homosexual relationships in the ancient Greek military led to potentially mission compromising behaviors (e.g. special preference for lovers, jealousy over lovers among the ranks, needless self sacrifice for a lover’s sake).
That is the issue you must address. Would openly gay behavior and the possible influx of more gays into the service have an adverse effect on the mission. The example of the Greeks – which you cite – seems to point to the answer as being “yes”.
I don’t care how gays were treated in society at large or their impact on that society. I am talking about the special circumstances of the military and, within that, the even more unique environment of combat arms. I have yet to see anyone here, yourself included, intelligently address those specific circumstances. It’s like you just can’t seem to grasp that there is a difference.
russell, You know perfectly well what I am talking about
Yeah, I know what you’re talking about. Gays are too limp-wristed and insufficient balls-to-the-wall macho to fight wars.
I know perfectly well what you’re talking about. I also know it’s a load of bullshit.
You have issues with gay people. That’s your problem, dude, not ours.
russell, You know perfectly well what I am talking about
Yeah, I know what you’re talking about. Gays are too limp-wristed and insufficient balls-to-the-wall macho to fight wars.
I know perfectly well what you’re talking about. I also know it’s a load of bullshit.
You have issues with gay people. That’s your problem, dude, not ours.
“Jefferson was a Col in the VA Militia.” True, it was common for wealthy men to receive such appointments to organize militia units. But never saw combat. Lincoln likewise was in a militia unit which never saw combat. Drill and training may give some glimmer of an idea of military culture. But I’m not entirely clear how they show anything special about unit cohesion in combat — which appears to be at the core of General Amos’ (and your) concerns.
“Jefferson was a Col in the VA Militia.” True, it was common for wealthy men to receive such appointments to organize militia units. But never saw combat. Lincoln likewise was in a militia unit which never saw combat. Drill and training may give some glimmer of an idea of military culture. But I’m not entirely clear how they show anything special about unit cohesion in combat — which appears to be at the core of General Amos’ (and your) concerns.
Phil and Lib Jap, you two just don’t like male warrior – maybe any non-gay male – culture.
Both father and grandfather are decorated combat vets, the former in Vietnam, the latter in WWII. I grew up on military bases. So try again, hotshot. Or not, as is your wont. But so far the mind-reading thing has failed on Gary and on me, so might I suggest it’s probably not a real practical line of argument for you? Not, at least, until you get a LOT better at it.
Oh, incidentally, both Dad and Granddad managed to get through their respective wars, get shot, get medals, get promotions, and — in Dad’s case — have a fruitful 26-year Army career without ever “sexually conquering females”. Nor, I venture to guess, would they ever have considered it part of either liberating Europe from the Nazis or of fighting the NVA and the Viet Cong.
Maybe you and the people with whom you served are just a**holes? Much like civilian life, you can find them pretty much anywhere.
Again, these guys do what you are afraid to do. Don’t ask them to be like you because then the job of protecting you won’t get done. I mean, you’re not gonna protect yourselves, are you?.
My goodness, you seem to know an awful lot about me! Could you tell me if I have enough gas in my car for the coming work week? I really don’t want to make a trip out today.
Oh, hey, if you don’t mind, can you maybe take a tiny second away from attempted — and pitifully failed — mindreading to answer my question? Did removing otherwise fine soldiers from service solely for their sexual orientation improve, compromise or have no effect on combat readiness?
You know, since you brought it up and all.
I’m not lashing out at anyone.
Uh, yeah.
Phil and Lib Jap, you two just don’t like male warrior – maybe any non-gay male – culture.
Both father and grandfather are decorated combat vets, the former in Vietnam, the latter in WWII. I grew up on military bases. So try again, hotshot. Or not, as is your wont. But so far the mind-reading thing has failed on Gary and on me, so might I suggest it’s probably not a real practical line of argument for you? Not, at least, until you get a LOT better at it.
Oh, incidentally, both Dad and Granddad managed to get through their respective wars, get shot, get medals, get promotions, and — in Dad’s case — have a fruitful 26-year Army career without ever “sexually conquering females”. Nor, I venture to guess, would they ever have considered it part of either liberating Europe from the Nazis or of fighting the NVA and the Viet Cong.
Maybe you and the people with whom you served are just a**holes? Much like civilian life, you can find them pretty much anywhere.
Again, these guys do what you are afraid to do. Don’t ask them to be like you because then the job of protecting you won’t get done. I mean, you’re not gonna protect yourselves, are you?.
My goodness, you seem to know an awful lot about me! Could you tell me if I have enough gas in my car for the coming work week? I really don’t want to make a trip out today.
Oh, hey, if you don’t mind, can you maybe take a tiny second away from attempted — and pitifully failed — mindreading to answer my question? Did removing otherwise fine soldiers from service solely for their sexual orientation improve, compromise or have no effect on combat readiness?
You know, since you brought it up and all.
I’m not lashing out at anyone.
Uh, yeah.
Phil and Lib Jap, you two just don’t like male warrior – maybe any non-gay male – culture.
Wait, wait, wait, wait — is this supposed to imply that I’m gay? Are you really going to resort to that third-grade gambit? Are you that stupid?
My wife of 20 years is sitting next to me on the couch. She’ll get a laugh out of that, after which maybe I’ll sexually conquer her.
The Avedis Mind-Reading Machine(TM patent pending) fails again!
Phil and Lib Jap, you two just don’t like male warrior – maybe any non-gay male – culture.
Wait, wait, wait, wait — is this supposed to imply that I’m gay? Are you really going to resort to that third-grade gambit? Are you that stupid?
My wife of 20 years is sitting next to me on the couch. She’ll get a laugh out of that, after which maybe I’ll sexually conquer her.
The Avedis Mind-Reading Machine(TM patent pending) fails again!
I think I’ll call my buddy Larry, who did four years active duty, is a colonel in the Reserves, and did 18 months in Kuwait just before Gulf War II, and ask how much time he spent sexually conquering females while he was there.
I think I’ll call my buddy Larry, who did four years active duty, is a colonel in the Reserves, and did 18 months in Kuwait just before Gulf War II, and ask how much time he spent sexually conquering females while he was there.
wj, Until recently with this silly war on terror, military life, even in combat units, is all about drilling and barracks life with most service members never seeing action. It doesn’t detract from my point that someone like Lincoln didn’t see action.
While, as I pointed out to Gary, the repeal has potential negative impact on actual combat effectiveness, I also believe that barracks life will also be impacted; which, in turn, has impact once the unit is actually deployed.
You know in the Marines, in boot camp, male and female recruits are totally separated from each other. There is no contact. There is a reason for this. But now you want to throw a wrench in this time honored and proven system by introducing open sexual attraction into the process.
wj, Until recently with this silly war on terror, military life, even in combat units, is all about drilling and barracks life with most service members never seeing action. It doesn’t detract from my point that someone like Lincoln didn’t see action.
While, as I pointed out to Gary, the repeal has potential negative impact on actual combat effectiveness, I also believe that barracks life will also be impacted; which, in turn, has impact once the unit is actually deployed.
You know in the Marines, in boot camp, male and female recruits are totally separated from each other. There is no contact. There is a reason for this. But now you want to throw a wrench in this time honored and proven system by introducing open sexual attraction into the process.
Phil LJ, your portrayel of men in the armed forces as a bunch of rapists is insulting. I don’t need to be psychic when you toss out tells like that.
That is, of course, not what I said. You’re the one who claimed that part of being a US combat soldier involves “sexually conquering females.” I happen to think better of our soldiers than that, as, I would venture to say, does most of the commentariat here. (You may want to read this link from the top right corner of the site you’re on now.) I’m sorry that you don’t think better of them, but don’t make that my problem.
(The ways in which “sexually conquering” differs from “rape,” given the implicit connotations of overcoming defenses and taking something against an opponent’s will, are trivial here. If you want to rescind that phrase, I’m all ears.)
Phil LJ, your portrayel of men in the armed forces as a bunch of rapists is insulting. I don’t need to be psychic when you toss out tells like that.
That is, of course, not what I said. You’re the one who claimed that part of being a US combat soldier involves “sexually conquering females.” I happen to think better of our soldiers than that, as, I would venture to say, does most of the commentariat here. (You may want to read this link from the top right corner of the site you’re on now.) I’m sorry that you don’t think better of them, but don’t make that my problem.
(The ways in which “sexually conquering” differs from “rape,” given the implicit connotations of overcoming defenses and taking something against an opponent’s will, are trivial here. If you want to rescind that phrase, I’m all ears.)
were they drafted phil? or did they volunteer for combat duty? And there is a big difference between young men raised in the 1930s and 1950s and those of today.
Either way, most of VN vets I know talk about how much they enjoyed all that pootang on R&R. European vets of ww2 talk about the French women. And Marines who served in the Pacific gripe because there were no women to chase unless they were lucky enough to get ashore in Australia.
were they drafted phil? or did they volunteer for combat duty? And there is a big difference between young men raised in the 1930s and 1950s and those of today.
Either way, most of VN vets I know talk about how much they enjoyed all that pootang on R&R. European vets of ww2 talk about the French women. And Marines who served in the Pacific gripe because there were no women to chase unless they were lucky enough to get ashore in Australia.
and Phil, you’re blowing this sexually conquer phrase all out of proportion. Maybe it was a bad choice of words on my part. What I meant was get a woman in the sack….have sex for fun…..that sort of thing. Sheesh. And if you’re going to tell me that that isn’t what’s on a young healthy man’s mind, especially one who has reason to believe he might not be alive this time next year, then we must be from different planets.
and Phil, you’re blowing this sexually conquer phrase all out of proportion. Maybe it was a bad choice of words on my part. What I meant was get a woman in the sack….have sex for fun…..that sort of thing. Sheesh. And if you’re going to tell me that that isn’t what’s on a young healthy man’s mind, especially one who has reason to believe he might not be alive this time next year, then we must be from different planets.
were they drafted phil? or did they volunteer for combat duty?
Not that it’s any of your business, what with your continued rudeness and snide insinuations, but Granddad was inducted on Aug. 14, 1942, having volunteered for service along with four of his brothers, as military duty was a damn sight better than working in the coal mines in W. Va., which is what he did beforehand. While he was not part of the D-Day invasion, he arrived in Germany shortly thereafter as part of Patton’s Third Army. Most of his time in Europe was as a member of the 397th Infantry. He joined the Army a a buck private and left in 1946 as a second lieutenant.
Dad volunteered for the Army in 1962 at the age of 17. After his first deployment to Vietnam, he volunteered repeatedly to return to combat there. Among other exploits, he earned the Air Medal with 15 oak leaf clusters for his service as a helicopter door gunner. He retired as a CW3 in 1988.
Does that answer your question?
were they drafted phil? or did they volunteer for combat duty?
Not that it’s any of your business, what with your continued rudeness and snide insinuations, but Granddad was inducted on Aug. 14, 1942, having volunteered for service along with four of his brothers, as military duty was a damn sight better than working in the coal mines in W. Va., which is what he did beforehand. While he was not part of the D-Day invasion, he arrived in Germany shortly thereafter as part of Patton’s Third Army. Most of his time in Europe was as a member of the 397th Infantry. He joined the Army a a buck private and left in 1946 as a second lieutenant.
Dad volunteered for the Army in 1962 at the age of 17. After his first deployment to Vietnam, he volunteered repeatedly to return to combat there. Among other exploits, he earned the Air Medal with 15 oak leaf clusters for his service as a helicopter door gunner. He retired as a CW3 in 1988.
Does that answer your question?
Oh, Dad also participated in Operation Bright Light and crossed a lot of borders we weren’t supposed to be crossing. In short, his military career prior to the end of the Vietnam War was pretty badass.
So next time you decide to question how I feel about military culture, or insinuate that I’m gay, save it.
Oh, Dad also participated in Operation Bright Light and crossed a lot of borders we weren’t supposed to be crossing. In short, his military career prior to the end of the Vietnam War was pretty badass.
So next time you decide to question how I feel about military culture, or insinuate that I’m gay, save it.
Impressive service records.
Phil, I never implied you were gay. You’re awfully touchy about that. You what Lib Jap would say in that regard 😉
I stand corrected on your opinion of military culture.
That being said, I do still think you are downplaying the attitude of the typical 18 – 24 currently volunteering for combat arms.
Out of curiosity, if he is still alive, I wonder if you have asked your father, as a soldier of high caliber, what he thinks of this whole DADT flap.
Impressive service records.
Phil, I never implied you were gay. You’re awfully touchy about that. You what Lib Jap would say in that regard 😉
I stand corrected on your opinion of military culture.
That being said, I do still think you are downplaying the attitude of the typical 18 – 24 currently volunteering for combat arms.
Out of curiosity, if he is still alive, I wonder if you have asked your father, as a soldier of high caliber, what he thinks of this whole DADT flap.
Phil, I never implied you were gay.
No, you said that I clearly don’t care about any male culture that isn’t gay male culture. Maybe you can unpack that for me, if it isn’t supposed to mean, “LOL, you’re gay.”
Out of curiosity, if he is still alive, I wonder if you have asked your father, as a soldier of high caliber, what he thinks of this whole DADT flap.
Yes, he is, yes, I have, and yes, he’s glad it’s gone. He thought it was stupid. Anyone who really wants to be a soldier with a combat MOS is fully capable of keeping his desires and his crushes to himself even if he is openly gay.
Phil, I never implied you were gay.
No, you said that I clearly don’t care about any male culture that isn’t gay male culture. Maybe you can unpack that for me, if it isn’t supposed to mean, “LOL, you’re gay.”
Out of curiosity, if he is still alive, I wonder if you have asked your father, as a soldier of high caliber, what he thinks of this whole DADT flap.
Yes, he is, yes, I have, and yes, he’s glad it’s gone. He thought it was stupid. Anyone who really wants to be a soldier with a combat MOS is fully capable of keeping his desires and his crushes to himself even if he is openly gay.
avedis:
There are any number of answers I could give.
Some samples:
Answer #1. Because I believe anyone qualified to serve in the U.S. armed forces, and have an MOS, and therefore who will be a benefit to the defense of our country should be able to serve, protect, and defend our country of the United States of America, and its Constitution.
Do you disagree?
“Qualified to serve” is the key phrase. What’s your list of categories of citizenry who aren’t qualified, or, if you prefer an affirmative, what’s your list of categories of citizenry who are not qualified?
Here are some of what I regard as relevant categories:
* Age
* Citizenship
* Number of Dependents
* Credit and Finances
* Single Parents
* Applicants Married to Military Members
* Education
* Drug/Alcohol Involvement
* Criminal History
* Height/Weight Standards
* Medical Physical
* Miscellaneous
What’s yours?
Answer #2 to the question “Why do you think that gays should be allowed to serve openly?”:
Define “gay,” please. What standard or test should be applied to determine if someone is “gay” and should be prohibited from serving?
Answer #3: Why should “gays” not be allowed to serve openly?
Three answers should be sufficient, so over to you now.
1. Because there’s no evidence that “gays” in the military have harmed any of the armed forces I’ve previously named. If you have such evidence, please present it, as I have presented information, with citations and links. Up to you. Either there’s evidence, or there isn’t. If there’s evidence, please provide it; thanks.
Answer #2: ADM Michael Mullen, CJCS:
Colin Powell (I won’t give past titles; you’re familiar, I’m sure):
Powell:
My cite outranked your cite. If you’d like citations military leaders with further combat experience than those gentlemen, please do let me know what category of such you would regard as authorities, please. If you think those two are not, please ask, or even tell.
Why do you think there is a distinction between allowing the open practice heterosexuality and the open practice of necrophilia?
Follow-up: could you please clarify if you are implicitly asserting that necrophilaic behavior has resulted in significant numbers of serving members of the military to be discharged? If so, do you have a cite on that?
If not, are you equating homosexuality and necrophilia? What cites do you have to support such an equivalency as regards precisely what relevant nature?
Could you quote which words from those two people support your claim? Something that would, say, stand up in court?
If not that, please just quote whichever words led you to your conclusion. aobut what other people think.
Follow-up: what qualifies you to explain to other people what they believe? Do you believe this is a common human ability, or one uniquely possessed by yourself?
I’d appreciate answers to these queries, if you’d be so kind. Thanks!
Thanks.
Apply my previous response to what leads you to state that these two people “maybe” don’t like “any non-gay male culture”?
Are you stating that you know that the two people you are addressing are male? If so, why? Are you stating that you know the two people you are addressing are gay? If so, why?
Again, answers would be appreciated, since you’ve made direct claims about what other people believe. Alternatively, would you like others here to begin announcements to you of what you do and don’t like, do and don’t believe, feel and don’t feel, and details about your life that we imagine, without a citation to exactly which words of yours we have drawn such conclusions? Do you believe in the Golden Rule? Or not?
See previous response. Have you consulted psychiatric records on the people you’re responding to, or hired private investigators, or what basis do you make such claims and assertions? Would you like me to announce to you what you’re afraid of? Am I qualified? Are you qualified to make such claims about other people in ways I am not qualified? If so, please cite your credentials to do so. Thanks!
I hope I’ve managed to fulfull your description. If not, please let me know how I have failed, while please also now answering my questions as I have inquired, if you would be so kind.
Many thanks!
avedis:
There are any number of answers I could give.
Some samples:
Answer #1. Because I believe anyone qualified to serve in the U.S. armed forces, and have an MOS, and therefore who will be a benefit to the defense of our country should be able to serve, protect, and defend our country of the United States of America, and its Constitution.
Do you disagree?
“Qualified to serve” is the key phrase. What’s your list of categories of citizenry who aren’t qualified, or, if you prefer an affirmative, what’s your list of categories of citizenry who are not qualified?
Here are some of what I regard as relevant categories:
* Age
* Citizenship
* Number of Dependents
* Credit and Finances
* Single Parents
* Applicants Married to Military Members
* Education
* Drug/Alcohol Involvement
* Criminal History
* Height/Weight Standards
* Medical Physical
* Miscellaneous
What’s yours?
Answer #2 to the question “Why do you think that gays should be allowed to serve openly?”:
Define “gay,” please. What standard or test should be applied to determine if someone is “gay” and should be prohibited from serving?
Answer #3: Why should “gays” not be allowed to serve openly?
Three answers should be sufficient, so over to you now.
1. Because there’s no evidence that “gays” in the military have harmed any of the armed forces I’ve previously named. If you have such evidence, please present it, as I have presented information, with citations and links. Up to you. Either there’s evidence, or there isn’t. If there’s evidence, please provide it; thanks.
Answer #2: ADM Michael Mullen, CJCS:
Colin Powell (I won’t give past titles; you’re familiar, I’m sure):
Powell:
My cite outranked your cite. If you’d like citations military leaders with further combat experience than those gentlemen, please do let me know what category of such you would regard as authorities, please. If you think those two are not, please ask, or even tell.
Why do you think there is a distinction between allowing the open practice heterosexuality and the open practice of necrophilia?
Follow-up: could you please clarify if you are implicitly asserting that necrophilaic behavior has resulted in significant numbers of serving members of the military to be discharged? If so, do you have a cite on that?
If not, are you equating homosexuality and necrophilia? What cites do you have to support such an equivalency as regards precisely what relevant nature?
Could you quote which words from those two people support your claim? Something that would, say, stand up in court?
If not that, please just quote whichever words led you to your conclusion. aobut what other people think.
Follow-up: what qualifies you to explain to other people what they believe? Do you believe this is a common human ability, or one uniquely possessed by yourself?
I’d appreciate answers to these queries, if you’d be so kind. Thanks!
Thanks.
Apply my previous response to what leads you to state that these two people “maybe” don’t like “any non-gay male culture”?
Are you stating that you know that the two people you are addressing are male? If so, why? Are you stating that you know the two people you are addressing are gay? If so, why?
Again, answers would be appreciated, since you’ve made direct claims about what other people believe. Alternatively, would you like others here to begin announcements to you of what you do and don’t like, do and don’t believe, feel and don’t feel, and details about your life that we imagine, without a citation to exactly which words of yours we have drawn such conclusions? Do you believe in the Golden Rule? Or not?
See previous response. Have you consulted psychiatric records on the people you’re responding to, or hired private investigators, or what basis do you make such claims and assertions? Would you like me to announce to you what you’re afraid of? Am I qualified? Are you qualified to make such claims about other people in ways I am not qualified? If so, please cite your credentials to do so. Thanks!
I hope I’ve managed to fulfull your description. If not, please let me know how I have failed, while please also now answering my questions as I have inquired, if you would be so kind.
Many thanks!
Duff Clarity, you wrote responding to Slartibartfast:
Our subsequent exchange:
Are you suggesting that Slartibartfast is not entitled to describe his views — of which I take you are fully familiar? — as “conservative” because of your “perception”?
If not, could you clarify what was and is the relevance of your response, please? I’m quite slow at times, and the fault at my lack of following what you’ve said here is entirely likely to be mine. Thanks for any clarification.
Cheers.
Duff Clarity, you wrote responding to Slartibartfast:
Our subsequent exchange:
Are you suggesting that Slartibartfast is not entitled to describe his views — of which I take you are fully familiar? — as “conservative” because of your “perception”?
If not, could you clarify what was and is the relevance of your response, please? I’m quite slow at times, and the fault at my lack of following what you’ve said here is entirely likely to be mine. Thanks for any clarification.
Cheers.
1. Why do you think that gays should be allowed to serve openly?
I think the best answer is because being forced to keep something secret leaves someone vulnerable to blackmail and can be a threat to unit cohesion. Most people (their are exceptions) tend to be unable to fulfill their duty to be honest in their professional lives while also being dishonest about their personal lives.
And, further, it’s a backwards anachronism unique to the US among modern militaries. You may celebrate this backwardness as part of a past era which has since gone by the wayside, but I do not feel we should abandon modern civilization and modern standards of professionalism simply to allay the psychological worries of people such as yourself whose attitudes are part of an era before we knew any better and where violent and irrational insults and prejudices were considered acceptable behavior. We have been asked to grow up. I suggest that you, too, learn to grow up rather than clinging to the attitudes you held as a child.
1. Why do you think that gays should be allowed to serve openly?
I think the best answer is because being forced to keep something secret leaves someone vulnerable to blackmail and can be a threat to unit cohesion. Most people (their are exceptions) tend to be unable to fulfill their duty to be honest in their professional lives while also being dishonest about their personal lives.
And, further, it’s a backwards anachronism unique to the US among modern militaries. You may celebrate this backwardness as part of a past era which has since gone by the wayside, but I do not feel we should abandon modern civilization and modern standards of professionalism simply to allay the psychological worries of people such as yourself whose attitudes are part of an era before we knew any better and where violent and irrational insults and prejudices were considered acceptable behavior. We have been asked to grow up. I suggest that you, too, learn to grow up rather than clinging to the attitudes you held as a child.
“Anyone who really wants to be a soldier with a combat MOS is fully capable of keeping his desires and his crushes to himself even if he is openly gay.”
You know, I actually agree with you – and apparently your dad – on this.
The problem gets down to where, if he can’t – and you know some won’t – he is now protected by law.
I would have prefered a don’t, don’t tell, don’t pursue policy wherein a known gay service member who was not posing a problem and serving well could continue to do so.
I am highly suspicious of government creating special protected classes of people because I have seen how these things play out in the real world. That is my main concern. As I have said repeatedly, I have no problem with gays or even gays in the service. I do have a problem with limiting the military culture’s ability to self police in formal and informal ways when individuals may attempt to make political or otherwise disruptive statements. I also have a problem with the government policy potentially making the military a safe haven for, and thus attracting, people with unusual lifestyles. This is what the Catholic Church has done and it has come back to bite it the ass.
“Anyone who really wants to be a soldier with a combat MOS is fully capable of keeping his desires and his crushes to himself even if he is openly gay.”
You know, I actually agree with you – and apparently your dad – on this.
The problem gets down to where, if he can’t – and you know some won’t – he is now protected by law.
I would have prefered a don’t, don’t tell, don’t pursue policy wherein a known gay service member who was not posing a problem and serving well could continue to do so.
I am highly suspicious of government creating special protected classes of people because I have seen how these things play out in the real world. That is my main concern. As I have said repeatedly, I have no problem with gays or even gays in the service. I do have a problem with limiting the military culture’s ability to self police in formal and informal ways when individuals may attempt to make political or otherwise disruptive statements. I also have a problem with the government policy potentially making the military a safe haven for, and thus attracting, people with unusual lifestyles. This is what the Catholic Church has done and it has come back to bite it the ass.
Duff Clarity:
I’m sorry, did somebody write “by conservative, I mean libertarian”? If so, where? If not, how is your response a sequitur?
Do you believe that your words accurately represent the actual words you’re responding to?
If so, can you point to some third parties who agree that you are correct? If not, is it possible that you’ve misunderstood what you’ve responded to?
Do you have a link to a poll on what “conservatives” think? What’s the margin of error, and sampling method?
If not, what’s your cite to what “conservatives” think? Thanks for clarifying!
Follow-up: how is this responsive to what the person you are responding to wrote? Do you believe that wj is a “conservative”? If so, cite to which words led you to such a conclusion?
Is there a label you wear by which I might examine the writings of others which accurately include and describe all people who self-identify by that label, and whose words and views you agree you should be held accountable to?
If so, which label do you prefer to use for yourself, and which writers should I regard you as being responsible for their views, other than your own?
Thanks for any clarification!
Duff Clarity:
I’m sorry, did somebody write “by conservative, I mean libertarian”? If so, where? If not, how is your response a sequitur?
Do you believe that your words accurately represent the actual words you’re responding to?
If so, can you point to some third parties who agree that you are correct? If not, is it possible that you’ve misunderstood what you’ve responded to?
Do you have a link to a poll on what “conservatives” think? What’s the margin of error, and sampling method?
If not, what’s your cite to what “conservatives” think? Thanks for clarifying!
Follow-up: how is this responsive to what the person you are responding to wrote? Do you believe that wj is a “conservative”? If so, cite to which words led you to such a conclusion?
Is there a label you wear by which I might examine the writings of others which accurately include and describe all people who self-identify by that label, and whose words and views you agree you should be held accountable to?
If so, which label do you prefer to use for yourself, and which writers should I regard you as being responsible for their views, other than your own?
Thanks for any clarification!
The problem gets down to where, if he can’t – and you know some won’t – he is now protected by law.
Evidence? Straight soldiers are subject to discipline for problematic behaviors– sexual harassment included. Gay soldiers are subject to the same rules. The difference is that they can’t be kicked out of the military simply for the mere fact that they happen to be gay, which was the case today.
Your issue appears to be primarily cultural– and I don’t mean this in the sense that this is about gays per se or “military culture,” but rather your problem seems to be that repealing DADT was, for you, an issue you perceived to be something pursued by “liberals,” along with global warming and a penchant for studying at liberal arts colleges*, so the offense of repealing it seems even more strongly unaccpetable to you because it represented a success of an “unapproved” group with whom you find yourself opposed to. And then you go on to assume that those advocating repealing DADT were just like you– that they were doing it as part of some overall anti-military, anti-conservative agenda.
* incidentally, my experience in a university environment where my peers were heavily focused on science and engineering was that there was a much more thriving gay community than at traditional universities.
The problem gets down to where, if he can’t – and you know some won’t – he is now protected by law.
Evidence? Straight soldiers are subject to discipline for problematic behaviors– sexual harassment included. Gay soldiers are subject to the same rules. The difference is that they can’t be kicked out of the military simply for the mere fact that they happen to be gay, which was the case today.
Your issue appears to be primarily cultural– and I don’t mean this in the sense that this is about gays per se or “military culture,” but rather your problem seems to be that repealing DADT was, for you, an issue you perceived to be something pursued by “liberals,” along with global warming and a penchant for studying at liberal arts colleges*, so the offense of repealing it seems even more strongly unaccpetable to you because it represented a success of an “unapproved” group with whom you find yourself opposed to. And then you go on to assume that those advocating repealing DADT were just like you– that they were doing it as part of some overall anti-military, anti-conservative agenda.
* incidentally, my experience in a university environment where my peers were heavily focused on science and engineering was that there was a much more thriving gay community than at traditional universities.
avedis:
Absolutely right, and we could detail this at tremendous length, given the literally tens of thousands of books detailing their records in excruiting detail.
wj:
Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project:
Your statement is, I’m afraid, not supported by the known facts. Do you have a cite to a more authoritative source on Lincoln that corrects the above quote? If so, I’d be very interested in seeing it, so I could learn about how the Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project, the Library of Congress, the Northern Illinois University Libraries, and as long a list of authoritative authorities on Lincoln as you would like me to provide have this incorrect. I wouldn’t wish to misinform people about this, as I may be doing if the above is incorrect. Thanks for any response!
avedis:
Yes, it’s rather unpleasant, isn’t it?
Do you believe in the Golden Rule? Thanks for any response!
avedis:
Actually, what I must address are your words that you’ve written, which I’ve responded to, and will respond to unless you are disavowing, modifying, or withdrawing them, in which case the only way I’ll know is if you write that you are so doing.
You wrote:
I responded. Are you standing by this claim, modifying it, or withdrawing it?
Thanks for any response to this question.
If you respond, we can then move on to other, different, statements you’ve made, or I have made.
For instance:
This supports your previous statement in what way? I apologize, but I’m not following how it does. I often misread, so if you could clarify for me, I’d appreciate it.
That is the issue you must address. Let’s take care of one claim you make at a time, please. Thanks!
avedis:
Absolutely right, and we could detail this at tremendous length, given the literally tens of thousands of books detailing their records in excruiting detail.
wj:
Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project:
Your statement is, I’m afraid, not supported by the known facts. Do you have a cite to a more authoritative source on Lincoln that corrects the above quote? If so, I’d be very interested in seeing it, so I could learn about how the Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project, the Library of Congress, the Northern Illinois University Libraries, and as long a list of authoritative authorities on Lincoln as you would like me to provide have this incorrect. I wouldn’t wish to misinform people about this, as I may be doing if the above is incorrect. Thanks for any response!
avedis:
Yes, it’s rather unpleasant, isn’t it?
Do you believe in the Golden Rule? Thanks for any response!
avedis:
Actually, what I must address are your words that you’ve written, which I’ve responded to, and will respond to unless you are disavowing, modifying, or withdrawing them, in which case the only way I’ll know is if you write that you are so doing.
You wrote:
I responded. Are you standing by this claim, modifying it, or withdrawing it?
Thanks for any response to this question.
If you respond, we can then move on to other, different, statements you’ve made, or I have made.
For instance:
This supports your previous statement in what way? I apologize, but I’m not following how it does. I often misread, so if you could clarify for me, I’d appreciate it.
That is the issue you must address. Let’s take care of one claim you make at a time, please. Thanks!
Tyro,
I can’t deny that you have a point there.
I live in a college town and all I hear when I go out for a cup of coffee is the endless chatter from women studies types about evil male dominated this and that and the imperial dominator American Empire and the stupidity of jar headed service men…blah blah blah….I remember shipping out to the first Iraq war and the protesters with “no war for oil” bumber stickers on their cars (ah the irony)…….they look to me like the same idiots you see shouting slogans at gay rights rallies. The same college prof.s that get scared of me when they learn….oh my god….I own guns and I would shoot someone who was posing an immediate threat to me or my family instead of hide in the bathroom desperately calling 911 and praying the cops get there in time. The same fools that get their panties in a not about global warming and other environmental issues while driving around in cars with no war for oil bumber stickers and consuming all sorts of garbage producing junk on their plastic cards.
Yes, these are the sorts of silly people that see getting all excited about the repeal of DADT. Mindless libertine parrots.
However, I can see that some here are more thoughtful.
At bottom, time will tell who was right about this new policy. I sincerely hope for the sake of the young men and women out their fighting the wars the civilians wanted, that I am wrong.
Good day and happy holidays to all.
Tyro,
I can’t deny that you have a point there.
I live in a college town and all I hear when I go out for a cup of coffee is the endless chatter from women studies types about evil male dominated this and that and the imperial dominator American Empire and the stupidity of jar headed service men…blah blah blah….I remember shipping out to the first Iraq war and the protesters with “no war for oil” bumber stickers on their cars (ah the irony)…….they look to me like the same idiots you see shouting slogans at gay rights rallies. The same college prof.s that get scared of me when they learn….oh my god….I own guns and I would shoot someone who was posing an immediate threat to me or my family instead of hide in the bathroom desperately calling 911 and praying the cops get there in time. The same fools that get their panties in a not about global warming and other environmental issues while driving around in cars with no war for oil bumber stickers and consuming all sorts of garbage producing junk on their plastic cards.
Yes, these are the sorts of silly people that see getting all excited about the repeal of DADT. Mindless libertine parrots.
However, I can see that some here are more thoughtful.
At bottom, time will tell who was right about this new policy. I sincerely hope for the sake of the young men and women out their fighting the wars the civilians wanted, that I am wrong.
Good day and happy holidays to all.
“Gary, take a look at some of the historical quotes. It is clear that homosexual relationships in the ancient Greek military led to potentially mission compromising behaviors (e.g. special preference for lovers, jealousy over lovers among the ranks, needless self sacrifice for a lover’s sake).
That is the issue you must address.
Actually, what I must address are your words that you’ve written, which I’ve responded to,”
Fine….I was going to quit this, but, ok, I withdraw my sweeping statement and change it to be a general statement.
Now, I would like you to address the quotes (referred to in the quote above re; mission compromise by love relationships.
“Gary, take a look at some of the historical quotes. It is clear that homosexual relationships in the ancient Greek military led to potentially mission compromising behaviors (e.g. special preference for lovers, jealousy over lovers among the ranks, needless self sacrifice for a lover’s sake).
That is the issue you must address.
Actually, what I must address are your words that you’ve written, which I’ve responded to,”
Fine….I was going to quit this, but, ok, I withdraw my sweeping statement and change it to be a general statement.
Now, I would like you to address the quotes (referred to in the quote above re; mission compromise by love relationships.
avedis
How do Marine males and females work together in contemporary combat? Let’s stick to the past five years, please.
I have cites. I’ll provide them upon request. You?
But since we’re discussing military service, not just one branch, if you might answer the same question as regards the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard, I might be better informed.
Perhaps.
Thanks!
avedis:
You’re communicating in writing; all we have are your words.
Ditto, that’s all you have to respond to.
Using words carefully is useful, but, of course, I write tons of stuff that’s careless, full of typos, ill-considered thoughts, and stuff that I realize almost instantly that I wish to revise, reword, take back, clarify, disavow, and so on.
When further conversation takes place, I then attempt to do so.
If you’d like to inform us of which paragraphs, sentences, or words in this thread you wish to disavow, correct, modify, clarify, etc., all you have to do is write down words telling us, and hit “post.”
Though “preview” is useful, but personally I find it difficult to proofread in a tiny scrolling box, and, of course, as I just said, I rarely proofread, and commonly engage in solecisms, mistatements, and so on.
Do clarify as you think desirable, or necessary.
Avedis:
avedis, December 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM:
avedis: you just don’t like male warrior – maybe any non-gay male – culture.
Now, I apparently have not implied that you are gay, and I have made a statement identical to your own, on the same basis of of knowledge I have of you as you have of LJ an Phil.
Now, is “you just don’t like male warrior – maybe any non-gay male – culture” an accurate description of you?
My guess is that you would not regard this as accurate, and my guess is that it is indeed not accurate, so please do let me know where I may be going wrong.
If so, if you could explain your logic or basis for my statement being in error, I’d find that very educational. You may be better with logic and words than I am, and I would very much like to learn where I may be faulty in these areas.
Thanks for any help or clarification.
avedis
How do Marine males and females work together in contemporary combat? Let’s stick to the past five years, please.
I have cites. I’ll provide them upon request. You?
But since we’re discussing military service, not just one branch, if you might answer the same question as regards the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard, I might be better informed.
Perhaps.
Thanks!
avedis:
You’re communicating in writing; all we have are your words.
Ditto, that’s all you have to respond to.
Using words carefully is useful, but, of course, I write tons of stuff that’s careless, full of typos, ill-considered thoughts, and stuff that I realize almost instantly that I wish to revise, reword, take back, clarify, disavow, and so on.
When further conversation takes place, I then attempt to do so.
If you’d like to inform us of which paragraphs, sentences, or words in this thread you wish to disavow, correct, modify, clarify, etc., all you have to do is write down words telling us, and hit “post.”
Though “preview” is useful, but personally I find it difficult to proofread in a tiny scrolling box, and, of course, as I just said, I rarely proofread, and commonly engage in solecisms, mistatements, and so on.
Do clarify as you think desirable, or necessary.
Avedis:
avedis, December 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM:
avedis: you just don’t like male warrior – maybe any non-gay male – culture.
Now, I apparently have not implied that you are gay, and I have made a statement identical to your own, on the same basis of of knowledge I have of you as you have of LJ an Phil.
Now, is “you just don’t like male warrior – maybe any non-gay male – culture” an accurate description of you?
My guess is that you would not regard this as accurate, and my guess is that it is indeed not accurate, so please do let me know where I may be going wrong.
If so, if you could explain your logic or basis for my statement being in error, I’d find that very educational. You may be better with logic and words than I am, and I would very much like to learn where I may be faulty in these areas.
Thanks for any help or clarification.
Gary, I have already issued my mea culpa.
I will give your pendantic lesson the consideration it deserves.
I would still like to read your response to the substative question re; lover relationships as described in the link i provided re; the ancient Greeks. Thanks.
Gary, I have already issued my mea culpa.
I will give your pendantic lesson the consideration it deserves.
I would still like to read your response to the substative question re; lover relationships as described in the link i provided re; the ancient Greeks. Thanks.
I do have a problem with limiting the military culture’s ability to self police in formal and informal ways when individuals may attempt to make political or otherwise disruptive statements.
OK, so we’ve dialed it down from “gays are like necrophiliacs” and “our young men won’t stand for having to serve with cock-suckers” to “we don’t want to interfere with the legitimate ability of the armed forces to police itself and enforce good order”.
That’s a reasonable concern.
I believe there are already rules in the UCMJ concerning fraternization. I imagine they will apply to gay as well as to straight soldiers. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?
I do have a problem with limiting the military culture’s ability to self police in formal and informal ways when individuals may attempt to make political or otherwise disruptive statements.
OK, so we’ve dialed it down from “gays are like necrophiliacs” and “our young men won’t stand for having to serve with cock-suckers” to “we don’t want to interfere with the legitimate ability of the armed forces to police itself and enforce good order”.
That’s a reasonable concern.
I believe there are already rules in the UCMJ concerning fraternization. I imagine they will apply to gay as well as to straight soldiers. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?
That’s a valid concern.
I believe you are familiar with the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. If not, there it is.
You might also find this helpful.
Which parts of 807. 7 do you believe inadequate?
I don’t recall your stating that your MOS was 44, but I may have misunderstood. Regardless, as a veteran with children serving, I’d still like to know which part of 807. ART. 7 do you find lacking?
How about 934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE ?
Are you aware that MCM, Manual For Courts Martial (2008), it is the case that:
Article 134—(Assault—with intent to commit murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, robbery, sodomy, arson, burglary, or housebreaking):
Article 93—Cruelty and maltreatment:
I trust you are.
Or is there something else lacking in the UCMJ that you could suggest make up as to what you feel is currently lacking in it?
Thanks for any clarification!
That’s a valid concern.
I believe you are familiar with the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. If not, there it is.
You might also find this helpful.
Which parts of 807. 7 do you believe inadequate?
I don’t recall your stating that your MOS was 44, but I may have misunderstood. Regardless, as a veteran with children serving, I’d still like to know which part of 807. ART. 7 do you find lacking?
How about 934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE ?
Are you aware that MCM, Manual For Courts Martial (2008), it is the case that:
Article 134—(Assault—with intent to commit murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, robbery, sodomy, arson, burglary, or housebreaking):
Article 93—Cruelty and maltreatment:
I trust you are.
Or is there something else lacking in the UCMJ that you could suggest make up as to what you feel is currently lacking in it?
Thanks for any clarification!
Apologies, but I mistated something above when I wrote:
This was an error on my part, as what I was taking issue with the statement that
It’s entirely true, however, that Lincoln saw no combat.
My apologies for my mis-statement.
Apologies, but I mistated something above when I wrote:
This was an error on my part, as what I was taking issue with the statement that
It’s entirely true, however, that Lincoln saw no combat.
My apologies for my mis-statement.
I still think that if we are going to consider the rights of gays to openly serve that other closet groups should have equal consideration; necrophiliacs included….in the interest of fairness, you know.
“…our young men won’t stand for having to serve with cock-suckers” still holds. Many will leave the service over this, IMO.
“I believe there are already rules in the UCMJ concerning fraternization. I imagine they will apply to gay as well as to straight soldiers. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?”
Yes. Sexual politics being what they are, the repeal opens whole new doors not fully considered in the UCMJ. For example, many Marines polled expressed concerns about shower arrangements. OK, what does the UCMJ say about a straight guy being in the shower with a gay guy who is getting a woody and staring at the straight guy? Perhaps making suggestive comments? What if the gay guy in this situation is a superior? Seriously. This can and will happen. Given that the Cin C wants the repeal, the politics are such that there are going to be barriers to doing anything formal about the situation.
I still think that if we are going to consider the rights of gays to openly serve that other closet groups should have equal consideration; necrophiliacs included….in the interest of fairness, you know.
“…our young men won’t stand for having to serve with cock-suckers” still holds. Many will leave the service over this, IMO.
“I believe there are already rules in the UCMJ concerning fraternization. I imagine they will apply to gay as well as to straight soldiers. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?”
Yes. Sexual politics being what they are, the repeal opens whole new doors not fully considered in the UCMJ. For example, many Marines polled expressed concerns about shower arrangements. OK, what does the UCMJ say about a straight guy being in the shower with a gay guy who is getting a woody and staring at the straight guy? Perhaps making suggestive comments? What if the gay guy in this situation is a superior? Seriously. This can and will happen. Given that the Cin C wants the repeal, the politics are such that there are going to be barriers to doing anything formal about the situation.
Many will leave the service over this, IMO.
So be it.
OK, what does the UCMJ say about a straight guy being in the shower with a gay guy who is getting a woody and staring at the straight guy? Perhaps making suggestive comments? What if the gay guy in this situation is a superior?
How is that different than a straight guy being in a briefing room with a woman, or a straight woman being in a briefing room with a guy, and making their sexual interest more than plain? What if the “interested” party is a superior?
What’s the freaking difference? They’re naked? So what? Folks in combat missions get shot at, WTF do they care about naked?
Some people in the service are going to be very uncomfortable being required to serve with openly gay people. Some of them will get over it, some won’t. Some of the latter will leave the service, others will put up with it and carry on, others will make trouble.
IMO the US military is competent to address all of the above. They deal with worse stuff every day.
The “necrophiliac” thing is your personal issue, I got no comment on it because it doesn’t deserve one.
Many will leave the service over this, IMO.
So be it.
OK, what does the UCMJ say about a straight guy being in the shower with a gay guy who is getting a woody and staring at the straight guy? Perhaps making suggestive comments? What if the gay guy in this situation is a superior?
How is that different than a straight guy being in a briefing room with a woman, or a straight woman being in a briefing room with a guy, and making their sexual interest more than plain? What if the “interested” party is a superior?
What’s the freaking difference? They’re naked? So what? Folks in combat missions get shot at, WTF do they care about naked?
Some people in the service are going to be very uncomfortable being required to serve with openly gay people. Some of them will get over it, some won’t. Some of the latter will leave the service, others will put up with it and carry on, others will make trouble.
IMO the US military is competent to address all of the above. They deal with worse stuff every day.
The “necrophiliac” thing is your personal issue, I got no comment on it because it doesn’t deserve one.
avedis:
Thank you. I’m sure that you’re a thoughtful person, as well, and since you may have now noticed that you’re not addressing some generic people you’re mad at, or think poorly of, but actual individuals with unique opinions, just like yourself, is it possible that not all people you’re actually addressing are “a bunch of academics and overly pc politicians who, overwhelmingly, never did serve or plan to serve (and probably not allow their children to either) in a combat arms MOS push a potentially detrimental social agenda on a deadly serious organization that they have no understanding of”?
If not, could you name which of us are such people? Thanks, if so.
Is it possible, do you think, that not all of the people you have addressed here are “graduates of liberal arts programs”?
If not, could you name which of us are such people? Thanks, if so.
Reminder: I have had three months of college; might I ask if you have greater educational achievements than I, a college dropout, have?
If not, I happen to believe that brightness, intellectual curiosity, and openness to new ideas aren’t particularly related to formal education, which can either help or hinder, depending upon the individual and their specific circumstances.
If so, I congratulate you, and wonder why it is that you might be under the impression that you’re addressing someone, me, who is neither an academic, nor possess a college degree, by explaining to me that only “graduates of liberal arts programs,” people who are “gay,” and other categories of people are the people who hold the opinions that I do?
Do keep in mind that I’m an individual, a person, whose picture I can show you, and life you can read all about, nine years’ worth, right here.
It’s useful, in life, I find, to address individuals as individuals, and to attempt to avoid making assumptions about them. I also find it useful to not make unpleasant assumptions, and declarations about people, without sufficient basis, justification, or citable reason.
Would you agree or disagree that these are useful approaches? If they’re not useful approaches, could you advise me on a better approach, which you’ve used more successfully in engaging with people respectfully?
I also seek to improve my ability to address people without offense. As anyone here will tell you, I’m not very good at it.
That should be obvious, perhaps, since many will happily tell you so, and it’s quite true all too often.
And thus I’m always trying to learn better approaches, and then keep to them, which I’m quite poor at, being a very moody person whose tone, writing, coherency, feelings, and thoughts, are overly affected by his irrelevant personal circumstances much of the time.
Apologies in advance if you happen to encounter me in such circumstances, and I’m ruder.
Have a great 2011, and hope you had a lovely time with friends and family this weekend.
I hope to see more of you. We could use more military and former military.
Some of us here have had various or many friends who have died in service.
We care.
It’s been mentioned to you, but I think it’s within the realm of possiblility if you read the final words of one of the bloggers here, you might, conceivably, find them worth reading.
It’s possible you might even be moved on them. I offer you that possibility.
MAJ Andrew Olmsted.
This guy.
My friend. Whose funeral I attended, and whom I introduced to the person who induced him to begin blogging here, first under his own name, and later under a thinly-disguised pseudonym.
I’d consider it a personal favor, not that you owe me one, but then I’ll owe you one, if you read some of those two links, and then consider that, perhaps, some people have been a bit patient with you, despite what might be major emotional provocation and good reason not to be.
Thanks, if you’ll do me that favor. I’d really really really appreciate it. I have strong feelings about this, not that you have any reason to respect that, or care, other than, perhaps, being a gentleman, who might, perhaps, not wish to be discourteous.
It might be helpful if you looked into the notion that we’re all individuals more closely. We all have written records here.
You can use the search box on the right sidebar, or you can google, or you can use:
and
to do a search on what the actual individuals you are actually speaking/writing to/engaging with have actually said/written/stated they believed at the time, as you like.
Or you can make assumptions, and decide that one buncha people is just like another, and it doesn’t matter who you’re speaking with, or perhaps go with some other methodology of talking with other people that works better for you.
But I’m sure you don’t want to do that, and were merely writing hastily. We all do that at times, and we all have tempers, and a need to vent.
Appropriateness is a good value, though.
We all have feelings. You, too, I’m pretty sure.
The rest of us, too.
Thanks for any consideration of these thoughts, which you’re under no obligation to do.
And with that, I may have used up much more of my ObWi time today than I should have, when I really should have been writing a couple of posts.
But I believe in addressing individuals, as individuals, myself, as best I can, if I think there’s a reasonable possibility they might respond reasonably. My policy is to treat people as if they will, until they prove me wrong.
As we say on the internet, Your Mileage May Vary, but I’m going to go with the assumption that yours does not.
Thanks again for your service, and that of your children, for which I am most grateful, since my highest rank was Boy Scout, Second Class, Assistant Patrol Leader.
I don’t count that as military service, nor any of my second-hand knowledge, of course. It’s simply all I have to work with, and I do the best I can with it.
Thanks again.
avedis:
Thank you. I’m sure that you’re a thoughtful person, as well, and since you may have now noticed that you’re not addressing some generic people you’re mad at, or think poorly of, but actual individuals with unique opinions, just like yourself, is it possible that not all people you’re actually addressing are “a bunch of academics and overly pc politicians who, overwhelmingly, never did serve or plan to serve (and probably not allow their children to either) in a combat arms MOS push a potentially detrimental social agenda on a deadly serious organization that they have no understanding of”?
If not, could you name which of us are such people? Thanks, if so.
Is it possible, do you think, that not all of the people you have addressed here are “graduates of liberal arts programs”?
If not, could you name which of us are such people? Thanks, if so.
Reminder: I have had three months of college; might I ask if you have greater educational achievements than I, a college dropout, have?
If not, I happen to believe that brightness, intellectual curiosity, and openness to new ideas aren’t particularly related to formal education, which can either help or hinder, depending upon the individual and their specific circumstances.
If so, I congratulate you, and wonder why it is that you might be under the impression that you’re addressing someone, me, who is neither an academic, nor possess a college degree, by explaining to me that only “graduates of liberal arts programs,” people who are “gay,” and other categories of people are the people who hold the opinions that I do?
Do keep in mind that I’m an individual, a person, whose picture I can show you, and life you can read all about, nine years’ worth, right here.
It’s useful, in life, I find, to address individuals as individuals, and to attempt to avoid making assumptions about them. I also find it useful to not make unpleasant assumptions, and declarations about people, without sufficient basis, justification, or citable reason.
Would you agree or disagree that these are useful approaches? If they’re not useful approaches, could you advise me on a better approach, which you’ve used more successfully in engaging with people respectfully?
I also seek to improve my ability to address people without offense. As anyone here will tell you, I’m not very good at it.
That should be obvious, perhaps, since many will happily tell you so, and it’s quite true all too often.
And thus I’m always trying to learn better approaches, and then keep to them, which I’m quite poor at, being a very moody person whose tone, writing, coherency, feelings, and thoughts, are overly affected by his irrelevant personal circumstances much of the time.
Apologies in advance if you happen to encounter me in such circumstances, and I’m ruder.
Have a great 2011, and hope you had a lovely time with friends and family this weekend.
I hope to see more of you. We could use more military and former military.
Some of us here have had various or many friends who have died in service.
We care.
It’s been mentioned to you, but I think it’s within the realm of possiblility if you read the final words of one of the bloggers here, you might, conceivably, find them worth reading.
It’s possible you might even be moved on them. I offer you that possibility.
MAJ Andrew Olmsted.
This guy.
My friend. Whose funeral I attended, and whom I introduced to the person who induced him to begin blogging here, first under his own name, and later under a thinly-disguised pseudonym.
I’d consider it a personal favor, not that you owe me one, but then I’ll owe you one, if you read some of those two links, and then consider that, perhaps, some people have been a bit patient with you, despite what might be major emotional provocation and good reason not to be.
Thanks, if you’ll do me that favor. I’d really really really appreciate it. I have strong feelings about this, not that you have any reason to respect that, or care, other than, perhaps, being a gentleman, who might, perhaps, not wish to be discourteous.
It might be helpful if you looked into the notion that we’re all individuals more closely. We all have written records here.
You can use the search box on the right sidebar, or you can google, or you can use:
and
to do a search on what the actual individuals you are actually speaking/writing to/engaging with have actually said/written/stated they believed at the time, as you like.
Or you can make assumptions, and decide that one buncha people is just like another, and it doesn’t matter who you’re speaking with, or perhaps go with some other methodology of talking with other people that works better for you.
But I’m sure you don’t want to do that, and were merely writing hastily. We all do that at times, and we all have tempers, and a need to vent.
Appropriateness is a good value, though.
We all have feelings. You, too, I’m pretty sure.
The rest of us, too.
Thanks for any consideration of these thoughts, which you’re under no obligation to do.
And with that, I may have used up much more of my ObWi time today than I should have, when I really should have been writing a couple of posts.
But I believe in addressing individuals, as individuals, myself, as best I can, if I think there’s a reasonable possibility they might respond reasonably. My policy is to treat people as if they will, until they prove me wrong.
As we say on the internet, Your Mileage May Vary, but I’m going to go with the assumption that yours does not.
Thanks again for your service, and that of your children, for which I am most grateful, since my highest rank was Boy Scout, Second Class, Assistant Patrol Leader.
I don’t count that as military service, nor any of my second-hand knowledge, of course. It’s simply all I have to work with, and I do the best I can with it.
Thanks again.
Indeed. And many others were forced out.
Since 1994: 13,389 so far.
Not incidentally, the cost to the U.S. budget of that is estimated to be:
You might or might not want some actual figures on military opinion:
I’m not including the many links you’ll find if you click the one previous link I gave.
People like LT Daniel Choi.
People like this.
Please consider reading about these fellow veterans.
Merry Christmas to you, and/or Happy Boxing Day.
Indeed. And many others were forced out.
Since 1994: 13,389 so far.
Not incidentally, the cost to the U.S. budget of that is estimated to be:
You might or might not want some actual figures on military opinion:
I’m not including the many links you’ll find if you click the one previous link I gave.
People like LT Daniel Choi.
People like this.
Please consider reading about these fellow veterans.
Merry Christmas to you, and/or Happy Boxing Day.
The “necrophiliac” thing is your personal issue, I got no comment on it because it doesn’t deserve one.
Only if they’re both consenting adults. Under-age or non-consensual necrophilia would go too far, no? At any rate I think the analysis of avedis’ repressed nature is a bit off — I think this could be a case of the much more rare and clinically more interesting repressed zombie love.
Seriously avedis seems worried that men may encounter other men in the shower with an erection and love in their eyes, and that somehow the super manly 18-24 year old men can’t figure out how to just turn their backs and finish their showers. Granted matters could be pressed further, but at that point you are running into sexual assault and harassment issues for which there should be adequate avenues established to take care of his concerns.
The “necrophiliac” thing is your personal issue, I got no comment on it because it doesn’t deserve one.
Only if they’re both consenting adults. Under-age or non-consensual necrophilia would go too far, no? At any rate I think the analysis of avedis’ repressed nature is a bit off — I think this could be a case of the much more rare and clinically more interesting repressed zombie love.
Seriously avedis seems worried that men may encounter other men in the shower with an erection and love in their eyes, and that somehow the super manly 18-24 year old men can’t figure out how to just turn their backs and finish their showers. Granted matters could be pressed further, but at that point you are running into sexual assault and harassment issues for which there should be adequate avenues established to take care of his concerns.
I was going to mention zoophilia as well…..
anyhow 243, it wasn’t my personal concern (the shower scene). It was one of the expressed concerns of many of marines polled.
And just when this was turning into a big love fest, russel takes me back to where I started this thread with, “‘Many will leave the service over this, IMO.’
So be it.”
There you have it. A military stretched thin, stop loss in effect, multiple combat tours, and russel is happy to lose good troops because they won’t buy into his world view concerning gays.
Some of you people really don’t care. You just want to push an agenda.
I was going to mention zoophilia as well…..
anyhow 243, it wasn’t my personal concern (the shower scene). It was one of the expressed concerns of many of marines polled.
And just when this was turning into a big love fest, russel takes me back to where I started this thread with, “‘Many will leave the service over this, IMO.’
So be it.”
There you have it. A military stretched thin, stop loss in effect, multiple combat tours, and russel is happy to lose good troops because they won’t buy into his world view concerning gays.
Some of you people really don’t care. You just want to push an agenda.
morning Avedis,
having read Phil’s words here, I am pretty sure that he really really doesn’t like people dissing his relatives. Accusations of being gay don’t really enter into that.
As for me, I’d be flattered if you thought I was gay, because it would mean that I was able to, at least for this conversation, avoid assuming that being heterosexual was the normal case. However, it doesn’t seem you were commenting on that because I don’t think you were responding to my words, it appears that you were just trying to return what you perceived as an insult. Sorry if you felt it was an insult, it was an observation about threatening your masculinity, and wasn’t implying that you were gay, it was simply suggesting that this was an emotional argument for you and as such, it would serve for you to take a step back.
You were also confused about my point about homosexuality being as much about being the initiator as the recipient. Your image of homosexuality seems to be solely that the homosexual is the recipient. It takes two to tango.
Finally, I’m not sure what I said that suggested I supported a culture of rape. My point is that the US Armed forces (currently the largest in the world) is not simply a group of people who need to exhibit high aggressiveness at all times. In fact, in the future asymmetrical conflicts, we are going to need people who are not driven by the need to exhibit aggressiveness at the expense of patience and forethought. How this is suggesting that our Armed Forces is some sort of ‘rape culture’, I really don’t understand.
As far as pushing an agenda, perhaps that is true, but you might want to reflect what agenda that is. I think my agenda is that we would do well to have an armed forces that reflects the population and rejecting homosexuals doesn’t really do that.
morning Avedis,
having read Phil’s words here, I am pretty sure that he really really doesn’t like people dissing his relatives. Accusations of being gay don’t really enter into that.
As for me, I’d be flattered if you thought I was gay, because it would mean that I was able to, at least for this conversation, avoid assuming that being heterosexual was the normal case. However, it doesn’t seem you were commenting on that because I don’t think you were responding to my words, it appears that you were just trying to return what you perceived as an insult. Sorry if you felt it was an insult, it was an observation about threatening your masculinity, and wasn’t implying that you were gay, it was simply suggesting that this was an emotional argument for you and as such, it would serve for you to take a step back.
You were also confused about my point about homosexuality being as much about being the initiator as the recipient. Your image of homosexuality seems to be solely that the homosexual is the recipient. It takes two to tango.
Finally, I’m not sure what I said that suggested I supported a culture of rape. My point is that the US Armed forces (currently the largest in the world) is not simply a group of people who need to exhibit high aggressiveness at all times. In fact, in the future asymmetrical conflicts, we are going to need people who are not driven by the need to exhibit aggressiveness at the expense of patience and forethought. How this is suggesting that our Armed Forces is some sort of ‘rape culture’, I really don’t understand.
As far as pushing an agenda, perhaps that is true, but you might want to reflect what agenda that is. I think my agenda is that we would do well to have an armed forces that reflects the population and rejecting homosexuals doesn’t really do that.
It is a glorious sign of the seasonal spirit of good will – I was going to say “Christian spirit,” but I don’t want to imply anything about others’ belief systems – that so many of you are willing to engage at length with “avedis” as if he were actually an intelligent person arguing in good faith, instead of a rote purveyor of incoherent anti-gay prejudices.
Virtually every argument he has made could be made – and was made, IIRC – against the integration of blacks within the US military more than half a century ago. “Some of the men don’t like it! They don’t want to shower with Negroes!! They might even quit, and then where would the US be?!? OMG, OMG, OMG!!!!” To which the appropriate answer was, then as now, that soldiers should shut up and follow orders. As they did. And, I trust, will.
The rest of you are more full of charity than I.
It is a glorious sign of the seasonal spirit of good will – I was going to say “Christian spirit,” but I don’t want to imply anything about others’ belief systems – that so many of you are willing to engage at length with “avedis” as if he were actually an intelligent person arguing in good faith, instead of a rote purveyor of incoherent anti-gay prejudices.
Virtually every argument he has made could be made – and was made, IIRC – against the integration of blacks within the US military more than half a century ago. “Some of the men don’t like it! They don’t want to shower with Negroes!! They might even quit, and then where would the US be?!? OMG, OMG, OMG!!!!” To which the appropriate answer was, then as now, that soldiers should shut up and follow orders. As they did. And, I trust, will.
The rest of you are more full of charity than I.
Are you suggesting that Slartibartfast is not entitled to describe his views — of which I take you are fully familiar? — as “conservative” because of your “perception”
No I am not suggesting that Slartibartfast is not entitled to describe his views as conservative.
I am suggesting that all libertarians and most liberals share his views in this particular instance, and that relatively few people who describe themselves as conservative, or that other people describe as conservative, or that I would describe as conservative, share those views.
Which makes me wonder why he would say what he said: he defines himself as a conservative “in some sense” and then gives as a reason for this definition a belief in a principle that libertarians and liberals both share, but that most conservatives don’t.
I agree with Slartibartfast that what people do in their private, spare time with other consenting adults is none of my business, nor should it be. This is what liberals and libertarians have been arguing for decades.
What groups have been opposing Slartibartfast and me?
Are you suggesting that Slartibartfast is not entitled to describe his views — of which I take you are fully familiar? — as “conservative” because of your “perception”
No I am not suggesting that Slartibartfast is not entitled to describe his views as conservative.
I am suggesting that all libertarians and most liberals share his views in this particular instance, and that relatively few people who describe themselves as conservative, or that other people describe as conservative, or that I would describe as conservative, share those views.
Which makes me wonder why he would say what he said: he defines himself as a conservative “in some sense” and then gives as a reason for this definition a belief in a principle that libertarians and liberals both share, but that most conservatives don’t.
I agree with Slartibartfast that what people do in their private, spare time with other consenting adults is none of my business, nor should it be. This is what liberals and libertarians have been arguing for decades.
What groups have been opposing Slartibartfast and me?
Oops. For “Christian” in my previous screed, read “Christmas.” Same point (actually pretty pointless?), but marginally more elegantly expressed.
Oops. For “Christian” in my previous screed, read “Christmas.” Same point (actually pretty pointless?), but marginally more elegantly expressed.
There you have it. A military stretched thin, stop loss in effect, multiple combat tours, and russel is happy to lose good troops because they won’t buy into his world view concerning gays.
There is no evidence that the loss of homophobic good troops will not be balanced by the retention of gay good troops. Since other nations have dealt with the same issue, then perhaps there would be some evidence pointing to the lack of combat readiness due to the admission of openly gay/lesbian troops. But lacking some evidence of this your worries lack substance. Look a lot of liberals, after Bush was ‘elected’ for the second time talked about moving to Canada or some other more civilised society. That didn’t happen. You need to establish that the homophobia you describe is more than just talk and will result in significant degradation to our military.
Some of you people really don’t care. You just want to push an agenda.
I think that people that comment here care a lot, and that most, despite my teasing, have been trying to treat you with respect, and have been giving you a chance to support your position. If I have an agenda, its that my gay friends, who for the most part are too old for military service, should enjoy the same rights as I. Barring some sort of real evidence that the repeal of DADT will hurt overall combat readiness, which you have yet to provide, I would hope you would support this.
There you have it. A military stretched thin, stop loss in effect, multiple combat tours, and russel is happy to lose good troops because they won’t buy into his world view concerning gays.
There is no evidence that the loss of homophobic good troops will not be balanced by the retention of gay good troops. Since other nations have dealt with the same issue, then perhaps there would be some evidence pointing to the lack of combat readiness due to the admission of openly gay/lesbian troops. But lacking some evidence of this your worries lack substance. Look a lot of liberals, after Bush was ‘elected’ for the second time talked about moving to Canada or some other more civilised society. That didn’t happen. You need to establish that the homophobia you describe is more than just talk and will result in significant degradation to our military.
Some of you people really don’t care. You just want to push an agenda.
I think that people that comment here care a lot, and that most, despite my teasing, have been trying to treat you with respect, and have been giving you a chance to support your position. If I have an agenda, its that my gay friends, who for the most part are too old for military service, should enjoy the same rights as I. Barring some sort of real evidence that the repeal of DADT will hurt overall combat readiness, which you have yet to provide, I would hope you would support this.
LJ, ” ..think my agenda is that we would do well to have an armed forces that reflects the population” I think you are wrong. There is no rationale for this other than your ilk’s concept of all inclusiveness and societal acceptance of homosexuality.
If phil doesn’t like people discussing his relatives, then he shouldn’t introduce them to the conversation. As far as I can see, he should be proud of the ones he mentioned.
“To which the appropriate answer was, then as now, that soldiers should shut up and follow orders.”
You are wrong as well, dr ngo. Soldiers are not your slaves. Why should they “shut up”? But, if that’s your attitude, then why don’t the gays just shut up and follow orders under DADT? They won’t be discharged unless they are openly practicing homosexuality and getting caught doing it. They knew that when they signed up. You, as well, are merely interested in pushing a social agenda and have no real concern for the military as an institution. That is clear.
Also, fyi, there were some serious issues with integration of african americans into the service. It did not go smoothly. The issues persisted for many years; well after the VN war. However, the issues were foreseen and the costs were, correctly, deemed worth the benefits. With gays, there is little if any reason to take the risk. The number of gay personnel is miniscule compared to the potential loss of straight personnel and other command problems arising from their open presence. The only benefit is to the gays themselves and their liberal – and mostly non-serving – supporters.
LJ, ” ..think my agenda is that we would do well to have an armed forces that reflects the population” I think you are wrong. There is no rationale for this other than your ilk’s concept of all inclusiveness and societal acceptance of homosexuality.
If phil doesn’t like people discussing his relatives, then he shouldn’t introduce them to the conversation. As far as I can see, he should be proud of the ones he mentioned.
“To which the appropriate answer was, then as now, that soldiers should shut up and follow orders.”
You are wrong as well, dr ngo. Soldiers are not your slaves. Why should they “shut up”? But, if that’s your attitude, then why don’t the gays just shut up and follow orders under DADT? They won’t be discharged unless they are openly practicing homosexuality and getting caught doing it. They knew that when they signed up. You, as well, are merely interested in pushing a social agenda and have no real concern for the military as an institution. That is clear.
Also, fyi, there were some serious issues with integration of african americans into the service. It did not go smoothly. The issues persisted for many years; well after the VN war. However, the issues were foreseen and the costs were, correctly, deemed worth the benefits. With gays, there is little if any reason to take the risk. The number of gay personnel is miniscule compared to the potential loss of straight personnel and other command problems arising from their open presence. The only benefit is to the gays themselves and their liberal – and mostly non-serving – supporters.
@avedis
As for your point about upholding the Constitution and civilian control, well, it just doesn’t hold water. I am saying that the civilians in control made a bad decision.
Nope. You’re arguing that the fact that we have civilian leaders who lack military experience is unacceptable. You’re arguing that there are decisions regarding the regulation and operations of the military that should be left to the military, or prior service members. You’re arguing for limits on the civilian control of the military.
There you have it. A military stretched thin, stop loss in effect, multiple combat tours, and russel is happy to lose good troops because they won’t buy into his world view concerning gays.
If those troops were not willing or able to serve effectively despite personal prejudices, they’re not good troops. QED.
It’s not that complicated. You’ve argued that “good” troops are going to quit or get CM’d because they can’t control themselves and will assault or kill their openly gay peers. I would humbly argue that you are not, in fact, describing good troops. How is this different from arguing that we’re losing “good” troops by keeping Article 128 in the code? Or, hell, Article 120, to bring up an article unfortunately rather relevant to another “protected” class of troops? I mean, how many good troops do we lose because we try to prevent them from harassing and assaulting their female peers (who of course, not being straight white Christian males, can be underperforming dirtbags, but hide behind their protected status(es) and avoid being removed for the good order and discipline of the military)?
Seriously, your paper-thin arguments that good order and discipline cannot survive the introduction of another EO category is rich. It’s not like adding sexual orientation as a protected category suddenly changes everything and creates protected categories where none existed before. It’s adding another category. It’s not creating the concept of ’em out of whole cloth.
Fear of exploitation of the EO complaint system does not constitute a serious objection to the repeal. It has “frivolous” written all over it.
@avedis
As for your point about upholding the Constitution and civilian control, well, it just doesn’t hold water. I am saying that the civilians in control made a bad decision.
Nope. You’re arguing that the fact that we have civilian leaders who lack military experience is unacceptable. You’re arguing that there are decisions regarding the regulation and operations of the military that should be left to the military, or prior service members. You’re arguing for limits on the civilian control of the military.
There you have it. A military stretched thin, stop loss in effect, multiple combat tours, and russel is happy to lose good troops because they won’t buy into his world view concerning gays.
If those troops were not willing or able to serve effectively despite personal prejudices, they’re not good troops. QED.
It’s not that complicated. You’ve argued that “good” troops are going to quit or get CM’d because they can’t control themselves and will assault or kill their openly gay peers. I would humbly argue that you are not, in fact, describing good troops. How is this different from arguing that we’re losing “good” troops by keeping Article 128 in the code? Or, hell, Article 120, to bring up an article unfortunately rather relevant to another “protected” class of troops? I mean, how many good troops do we lose because we try to prevent them from harassing and assaulting their female peers (who of course, not being straight white Christian males, can be underperforming dirtbags, but hide behind their protected status(es) and avoid being removed for the good order and discipline of the military)?
Seriously, your paper-thin arguments that good order and discipline cannot survive the introduction of another EO category is rich. It’s not like adding sexual orientation as a protected category suddenly changes everything and creates protected categories where none existed before. It’s adding another category. It’s not creating the concept of ’em out of whole cloth.
Fear of exploitation of the EO complaint system does not constitute a serious objection to the repeal. It has “frivolous” written all over it.
Envy, I am opposed to females in the military as well. Their service isn’t worth the trouble. This is especially true in the Navy were they are given preference for shore positions and the men have to spend longer and more time on floats. They get pregnant to avoid deployment. And then there is everything that you mention.
How often do you think unpopular officers and NCOs get fragged? What about good old fashioned blanket parties? Do these still occur despite the article concerning assault, etc?
Should good troops shut the fuck up and follow oders regardless of what they of the orders and who is issuing them? Yes, of course. I have to agree, but there is a point at which morale starts breaking down and otherwise good soldiers go off the res.
Does that help?
Envy, I am opposed to females in the military as well. Their service isn’t worth the trouble. This is especially true in the Navy were they are given preference for shore positions and the men have to spend longer and more time on floats. They get pregnant to avoid deployment. And then there is everything that you mention.
How often do you think unpopular officers and NCOs get fragged? What about good old fashioned blanket parties? Do these still occur despite the article concerning assault, etc?
Should good troops shut the fuck up and follow oders regardless of what they of the orders and who is issuing them? Yes, of course. I have to agree, but there is a point at which morale starts breaking down and otherwise good soldiers go off the res.
Does that help?
If phil doesn’t like people discussing his relatives, then he shouldn’t introduce them to the conversation. As far as I can see, he should be proud of the ones he mentioned.
you were the one that said
the typical 18 to 24 year old who is out there doing that kind of work sees sexually conquering females as an important aspect of the personna.
which Phil took as a slight to the reasons his father and grandfather served. You brought it up a notch when you suggested that they were draftees rather than volunteers. So you really don’t have much place to complain about this.
You also mentioned that you have two children in the service. Have you asked them what they think of the ban? It might surprise you.
If phil doesn’t like people discussing his relatives, then he shouldn’t introduce them to the conversation. As far as I can see, he should be proud of the ones he mentioned.
you were the one that said
the typical 18 to 24 year old who is out there doing that kind of work sees sexually conquering females as an important aspect of the personna.
which Phil took as a slight to the reasons his father and grandfather served. You brought it up a notch when you suggested that they were draftees rather than volunteers. So you really don’t have much place to complain about this.
You also mentioned that you have two children in the service. Have you asked them what they think of the ban? It might surprise you.
avedis:
You’re back to mind-reading and making claims about other people’s beliefs.
Enjoy that, and may it serve you as well as it can.
avedis:
You’re back to mind-reading and making claims about other people’s beliefs.
Enjoy that, and may it serve you as well as it can.
dr ngo:
There are limits for all of us.
And then there are those of us who need no patience whatever to deal with, because they know what they’re talking about, and how to read, write, understand what they read, care about facts, and understand that they’re writing back and forth to real people. Very very very patient real people.
Up to a point.
Of course, dr ngo is a well-known homosexual with no military experience, or knowledge of the military, or its history, so you’re just in league with me in pushing our gay agenda, because we’re all just sissyboy leftist commie egghead faggots and dykes around here.
But I do like to believe that, sometimes, no matter the immediate response, which is usually emotionally driven, rather than by rationality, some rationality, in some cases, will eventually kick in, perhaps only weeks, months, years, later, and someone will realize that maybe something they once said or did was foolish, and something someone else may have said or written to them wasn’t quite as moronic and wrong as they once thought.
I’ve seen it happen, and I have to believe in a positive world. That’s the world I choose to live in.
I don’t like the alternatives.
I’ve lived in those worlds too much, and still do.
God bless you, professor egghead academic ngo, with your egghead doctorate and textbooks on “history” and “wars” and all that other impractical stuff, and your total lack of military experience.
And that’s enough ObWi commenting from me for this minute.
dr ngo:
There are limits for all of us.
And then there are those of us who need no patience whatever to deal with, because they know what they’re talking about, and how to read, write, understand what they read, care about facts, and understand that they’re writing back and forth to real people. Very very very patient real people.
Up to a point.
Of course, dr ngo is a well-known homosexual with no military experience, or knowledge of the military, or its history, so you’re just in league with me in pushing our gay agenda, because we’re all just sissyboy leftist commie egghead faggots and dykes around here.
But I do like to believe that, sometimes, no matter the immediate response, which is usually emotionally driven, rather than by rationality, some rationality, in some cases, will eventually kick in, perhaps only weeks, months, years, later, and someone will realize that maybe something they once said or did was foolish, and something someone else may have said or written to them wasn’t quite as moronic and wrong as they once thought.
I’ve seen it happen, and I have to believe in a positive world. That’s the world I choose to live in.
I don’t like the alternatives.
I’ve lived in those worlds too much, and still do.
God bless you, professor egghead academic ngo, with your egghead doctorate and textbooks on “history” and “wars” and all that other impractical stuff, and your total lack of military experience.
And that’s enough ObWi commenting from me for this minute.
Duff Clarity:
I wouldn’t know.
But since you think that’s interesting and relevant, may I ask what groups have been opposing Slartibartfast and me?
No need to rush to answer.
If it strikes you as a non-sequitur, or not an interesting question to you: huh.
But perhaps you’ll find it interesting. I wouldn’t know.
Merry new year.
Duff Clarity:
I wouldn’t know.
But since you think that’s interesting and relevant, may I ask what groups have been opposing Slartibartfast and me?
No need to rush to answer.
If it strikes you as a non-sequitur, or not an interesting question to you: huh.
But perhaps you’ll find it interesting. I wouldn’t know.
Merry new year.
avedis:
Anyone here enjoy a nice game of bingo?
I don’t really care for it, myself. Predictablity is boring. True consistency is a virtue.
And yet they’re two different things. Interesting, isn’t it?
“True” is a crucial modifier. Always is.
avedis:
Anyone here enjoy a nice game of bingo?
I don’t really care for it, myself. Predictablity is boring. True consistency is a virtue.
And yet they’re two different things. Interesting, isn’t it?
“True” is a crucial modifier. Always is.
russel is happy to lose good troops because they won’t buy into his world view concerning gays.
And you’re happy to lose good troops because they are gay.
Also, two ‘l’s in russell. Thanks.
Your substantive argument here is that letting gays serve openly as gays will damage military effectiveness, either because gay soldiers are going to inflict their sex mojo on straight troops, or because straight troops are going to freak out.
Your evidence for this is basically your own aversion for gay people, and that of folks you talk to.
Other people talk with other folks, and they report back that most folks don’t really give a crap.
We’ll all get to find out whose personal contacts in the military are the most representative.
Personally, my experience with folks in the military is that they are really into getting their mission done, and the rest is noise. Some of them are just not going to be able to deal with openly gay fellow soldiers, some of them are, and we’ll all sort it out.
Next problem, please.
In the meantime, substantive issues aside, nobody here is all that interested in your personal issues with and/or opinions of gay people. Take that crap elsewhere, if you don’t mind.
russel is happy to lose good troops because they won’t buy into his world view concerning gays.
And you’re happy to lose good troops because they are gay.
Also, two ‘l’s in russell. Thanks.
Your substantive argument here is that letting gays serve openly as gays will damage military effectiveness, either because gay soldiers are going to inflict their sex mojo on straight troops, or because straight troops are going to freak out.
Your evidence for this is basically your own aversion for gay people, and that of folks you talk to.
Other people talk with other folks, and they report back that most folks don’t really give a crap.
We’ll all get to find out whose personal contacts in the military are the most representative.
Personally, my experience with folks in the military is that they are really into getting their mission done, and the rest is noise. Some of them are just not going to be able to deal with openly gay fellow soldiers, some of them are, and we’ll all sort it out.
Next problem, please.
In the meantime, substantive issues aside, nobody here is all that interested in your personal issues with and/or opinions of gay people. Take that crap elsewhere, if you don’t mind.
Avedis: may I ask you which were your years of service?
Thanks if you care to respond.
Feel free to give any further detail you’d like to. Or not.
It’s the end of the year, and it’s always useful to have a reminder
Avedis: may I ask you which were your years of service?
Thanks if you care to respond.
Feel free to give any further detail you’d like to. Or not.
It’s the end of the year, and it’s always useful to have a reminder
Envy, I am opposed to females in the military as well.
But earlier, he noted his daughter was in the Armed Forces. While it is possible that both things are true, it becomes more and more likely that cleek was correct
Envy, I am opposed to females in the military as well.
But earlier, he noted his daughter was in the Armed Forces. While it is possible that both things are true, it becomes more and more likely that cleek was correct
Every so often it’s useful to remind everyone that we do have very loose, but nonetheless there, Posting Rules.
No particular reason. It’s just good to mention that now and again, for future reference, to make sure everyone is reminded they exist.
One wouldn’t want anyone to not be aware of the Posting Rules, or to forget about them, or accidently stray across them.
Everyone carry on.
Every so often it’s useful to remind everyone that we do have very loose, but nonetheless there, Posting Rules.
No particular reason. It’s just good to mention that now and again, for future reference, to make sure everyone is reminded they exist.
One wouldn’t want anyone to not be aware of the Posting Rules, or to forget about them, or accidently stray across them.
Everyone carry on.
LJ:
Consider the evolution of someone whose handle started with “OC,” or “Sl,” or “Mc” or “Ma,” or many others.
One never knows, and innocent until proven guilty, and since we don’t have laws here, just posting rules, there’s no such thing as a conviction.
(Although the matter of how the posting rules should stand, and whether the banning procedures are satisfactory, and consistently enforced, and fair, and how these questions might be answered, are all separate questions, unfortunately.)
But you may be correct. I have a sudden need to vacuum the cats, myself. And even deal with yet more urgent tasks, as well as less urgent tasks.
I do intend to respond to your email; I’ve been distracted, and I’m not claiming I’ve made the best use of much of my day. And I’ve otherwise had an extremely busy past few days, other than choosing to, as usual, invest probably too much time in comments here, so apologies for my not prioritizing better; you deserve better from me.
I’ll try to get to it as I can.
LJ:
Consider the evolution of someone whose handle started with “OC,” or “Sl,” or “Mc” or “Ma,” or many others.
One never knows, and innocent until proven guilty, and since we don’t have laws here, just posting rules, there’s no such thing as a conviction.
(Although the matter of how the posting rules should stand, and whether the banning procedures are satisfactory, and consistently enforced, and fair, and how these questions might be answered, are all separate questions, unfortunately.)
But you may be correct. I have a sudden need to vacuum the cats, myself. And even deal with yet more urgent tasks, as well as less urgent tasks.
I do intend to respond to your email; I’ve been distracted, and I’m not claiming I’ve made the best use of much of my day. And I’ve otherwise had an extremely busy past few days, other than choosing to, as usual, invest probably too much time in comments here, so apologies for my not prioritizing better; you deserve better from me.
I’ll try to get to it as I can.
I do hope Sebastian will feel like commenting on some of the comments his good post has stimulating.
I’d like to read what he has to say. I imagine I’ll find it interesting, and I suspect I’ll agree with much of it, at the very least.
Despite his fame as a well-known leftist.
I do hope Sebastian will feel like commenting on some of the comments his good post has stimulating.
I’d like to read what he has to say. I imagine I’ll find it interesting, and I suspect I’ll agree with much of it, at the very least.
Despite his fame as a well-known leftist.
Consider the evolution of someone whose handle started with “OC,” or “Sl,” or “Mc” or “Ma,” or many others.
That’s cool, but if your starting point is “gays are analogous to folks who f*ck dead people and/or animals” you have a pretty big hole to dig yourself out of.
I’m not talking about posting rules, or anything of the like. I’m talking about credibility, and whether or not a given person’s contributions, as it were, are worth consideration and/or the effort of a response.
None of that is anyone’s problem but avedis’.
Consider the evolution of someone whose handle started with “OC,” or “Sl,” or “Mc” or “Ma,” or many others.
That’s cool, but if your starting point is “gays are analogous to folks who f*ck dead people and/or animals” you have a pretty big hole to dig yourself out of.
I’m not talking about posting rules, or anything of the like. I’m talking about credibility, and whether or not a given person’s contributions, as it were, are worth consideration and/or the effort of a response.
None of that is anyone’s problem but avedis’.
My daughter is an adult. I didn’t tell her to enlist. She decided on her own. There are women in the service that do a good job. I’d like to think she is one of them. I am saying that overall, there are problems and the costs need to be weighed against the benefits.
I was in the Marines from 1986 to 1992 (before DADT).
I read this blog because I have appreciated Eric Martin for several years; even before he came here. I think he has had some very intelligent things to say about Iraq and Afghanistan as well as some other topics. I generally don’t comment here (though I used to on Eric’s blog) because I do not wish to engage with a bunch of liberal idealogs as I know we will only end up talking past each other. I was curious to see if my perceptions concerning the liberal position on the DADT repeal were accurate. Confirmed.
While I am making friends and influencing folks on this blog, I would add that I work in the healthcare insurance industry – have since earning a masters in economics 14 years ago – and that posts on that subject here are dismally off base. I am all for universal single payer socialized coverage, but you guys just can’t get the facts straight. Clueless. Well maybe I’ll see you again when that comes up.
Cheers.
My daughter is an adult. I didn’t tell her to enlist. She decided on her own. There are women in the service that do a good job. I’d like to think she is one of them. I am saying that overall, there are problems and the costs need to be weighed against the benefits.
I was in the Marines from 1986 to 1992 (before DADT).
I read this blog because I have appreciated Eric Martin for several years; even before he came here. I think he has had some very intelligent things to say about Iraq and Afghanistan as well as some other topics. I generally don’t comment here (though I used to on Eric’s blog) because I do not wish to engage with a bunch of liberal idealogs as I know we will only end up talking past each other. I was curious to see if my perceptions concerning the liberal position on the DADT repeal were accurate. Confirmed.
While I am making friends and influencing folks on this blog, I would add that I work in the healthcare insurance industry – have since earning a masters in economics 14 years ago – and that posts on that subject here are dismally off base. I am all for universal single payer socialized coverage, but you guys just can’t get the facts straight. Clueless. Well maybe I’ll see you again when that comes up.
Cheers.
Russell:
Notice I’m not arguing with you.
On another thread, I’m not arguing with CMatt.
And now cats and music and other things. May we all enjoy music, the beautiful outdoors, and all that brings each of us happiness.
Say, did you know that in — I forget if it was third or fourth grade, though someone on Facebook could remind me, if I weren’t currently Not Playing On Facebook — I was, as the smallest kid in the class (as always, save for when we had someone with specific growth syndromes), cast as Tiny Tim in our production of “A Christmas Carol”?
I can still recall my major line: “God bless us all! God bless us, everyone!”
Even though I’m a commie faggot egghead academic who hates the military and those who put their life on the line to protect even morons, idiots, and people like me, which are not exclusive categories.
And even though I’m a Jewish atheist, who has such a long record of speaking disrespectfully of religion. (Or perhaps not so much on that second clause, but it’s not for me to say, and my memory is quite poor.)
Russell:
Notice I’m not arguing with you.
On another thread, I’m not arguing with CMatt.
And now cats and music and other things. May we all enjoy music, the beautiful outdoors, and all that brings each of us happiness.
Say, did you know that in — I forget if it was third or fourth grade, though someone on Facebook could remind me, if I weren’t currently Not Playing On Facebook — I was, as the smallest kid in the class (as always, save for when we had someone with specific growth syndromes), cast as Tiny Tim in our production of “A Christmas Carol”?
I can still recall my major line: “God bless us all! God bless us, everyone!”
Even though I’m a commie faggot egghead academic who hates the military and those who put their life on the line to protect even morons, idiots, and people like me, which are not exclusive categories.
And even though I’m a Jewish atheist, who has such a long record of speaking disrespectfully of religion. (Or perhaps not so much on that second clause, but it’s not for me to say, and my memory is quite poor.)
No worries, Gary about hurrying with the reply, I am the last person to say anything about prioritization.
And avedis, apologies for bringing up the mismatch between your opinions and what your daughter chooses to do, I did acknowledge that it was possible to have both co-exist. However, I do find it strange that you are still expressing the opinion that women shouldn’t serve even after confronted with the example of your daughter’s service. I do think that you might want to talk to your daughter about her experiences and opinions.
No worries, Gary about hurrying with the reply, I am the last person to say anything about prioritization.
And avedis, apologies for bringing up the mismatch between your opinions and what your daughter chooses to do, I did acknowledge that it was possible to have both co-exist. However, I do find it strange that you are still expressing the opinion that women shouldn’t serve even after confronted with the example of your daughter’s service. I do think that you might want to talk to your daughter about her experiences and opinions.
[…] What groups have been opposing Slartibartfast and me?
I wouldn’t know.
You’re interested in history, right?
[…] What groups have been opposing Slartibartfast and me?
I wouldn’t know.
You’re interested in history, right?
How often do you think unpopular officers and NCOs get fragged? What about good old fashioned blanket parties? Do these still occur despite the article concerning assault, etc?
Should good troops shut the fuck up and follow oders regardless of what they of the orders and who is issuing them? Yes, of course. I have to agree, but there is a point at which morale starts breaking down and otherwise good soldiers go off the res.
So you support good order and discipline and troops following the lawful orders of the superiors appointed over them… but…
The difference – the only difference – between an army and an armed band is discipline. Glad to see how important it really is to you when it conflicts with your personal prejudices.
If troops cannot or will not obey lawful orders and regulations, they are not good troops. It’s not that they are otherwise good troops; they’re flat-out not good troops. You can sit there and claim that no, infantrymen need to be able to violate orders and regulations and laws as they choose to preserve their morale. I’ll stand on the side of good order, discipline, the chain of command, loyalty, duty, honor, and integrity. Keep your armed band. I’ll keep my army.
How often do you think unpopular officers and NCOs get fragged? What about good old fashioned blanket parties? Do these still occur despite the article concerning assault, etc?
Should good troops shut the fuck up and follow oders regardless of what they of the orders and who is issuing them? Yes, of course. I have to agree, but there is a point at which morale starts breaking down and otherwise good soldiers go off the res.
So you support good order and discipline and troops following the lawful orders of the superiors appointed over them… but…
The difference – the only difference – between an army and an armed band is discipline. Glad to see how important it really is to you when it conflicts with your personal prejudices.
If troops cannot or will not obey lawful orders and regulations, they are not good troops. It’s not that they are otherwise good troops; they’re flat-out not good troops. You can sit there and claim that no, infantrymen need to be able to violate orders and regulations and laws as they choose to preserve their morale. I’ll stand on the side of good order, discipline, the chain of command, loyalty, duty, honor, and integrity. Keep your armed band. I’ll keep my army.
One of my stupid, ill-informed, anti-military, shallow, posts, in two parts: Hey, Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand? Pt. I., and Hey, Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand? Pt. II.
Just mentioning to the air. It’s entirely out of date now, and the specifics aren’t relevant, and I doubt many, if any, read all of it, because I tend to be prolix.
But I have fifteen years of public record on my views on the military, which anyone who can google can read.
For the record.
One of my stupid, ill-informed, anti-military, shallow, posts, in two parts: Hey, Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand? Pt. I., and Hey, Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand? Pt. II.
Just mentioning to the air. It’s entirely out of date now, and the specifics aren’t relevant, and I doubt many, if any, read all of it, because I tend to be prolix.
But I have fifteen years of public record on my views on the military, which anyone who can google can read.
For the record.
Duff Clarity:
Considerably.
Duff Clarity:
Considerably.
@dr ngo The rest of you are more full of charity than I.
I think it may be more that we are enjoying the novelty of having all of the regulars, from the very conservative (for this site) to the very liberal (also for this site), on the same side of an issue. It doesn’t happen very often.
@dr ngo The rest of you are more full of charity than I.
I think it may be more that we are enjoying the novelty of having all of the regulars, from the very conservative (for this site) to the very liberal (also for this site), on the same side of an issue. It doesn’t happen very often.
2002 and to a lessor degree of 2003, which degenerated further with each month, were different.
The same is true of 2004, and that’s when things finally fell apart completely, and politics truly fully emerged with insanity in the blogosphere running rampant.
Nutshell generalization, full of a gazillion exceptions.
But, still the history of blogs as those of us participating as much or more than, than now, lived through.
I’m counting down the days to my blogiversary on December 30th. Much more important day for me, but no one else, than New Year’s Day, because that was my own New Decade’s Day.
My life changed drastically for the better on December 30th, 2001. Just as it did on November 11th and November 16th, 2010. In different ways, of course.
Good morning.
2002 and to a lessor degree of 2003, which degenerated further with each month, were different.
The same is true of 2004, and that’s when things finally fell apart completely, and politics truly fully emerged with insanity in the blogosphere running rampant.
Nutshell generalization, full of a gazillion exceptions.
But, still the history of blogs as those of us participating as much or more than, than now, lived through.
I’m counting down the days to my blogiversary on December 30th. Much more important day for me, but no one else, than New Year’s Day, because that was my own New Decade’s Day.
My life changed drastically for the better on December 30th, 2001. Just as it did on November 11th and November 16th, 2010. In different ways, of course.
Good morning.
avedis:
Thanks. I was born November 5th, 1958. You know my real name. I’ve shown you a picture of me — I’ll email you links to photo albums of mine, if you’d like, which seems unlikely. I’ve given you pointers to at least nine years of writing by me in two different places, and could give a third major one, amounting to well over a million words.
I hope you won’t mind, but you needn’t answer, if I ask your approximate age, what state you live in, and what type of community.
I ask only to get a bit more sense of who you are and where you are, literally, coming from.
No obligation whatever to answer. Hope you don’t mind my asking, but if so, consider the question withdrawn, and your privacy respected, please. Thanks.
avedis:
Thanks. I was born November 5th, 1958. You know my real name. I’ve shown you a picture of me — I’ll email you links to photo albums of mine, if you’d like, which seems unlikely. I’ve given you pointers to at least nine years of writing by me in two different places, and could give a third major one, amounting to well over a million words.
I hope you won’t mind, but you needn’t answer, if I ask your approximate age, what state you live in, and what type of community.
I ask only to get a bit more sense of who you are and where you are, literally, coming from.
No obligation whatever to answer. Hope you don’t mind my asking, but if so, consider the question withdrawn, and your privacy respected, please. Thanks.
Gary,
I have finally had some rest. I was up for two days – hence the heavy posting – with severe back pain.
I only release personal information on the internet when it is germane to the discussion; though I suppose over the course of enough conversations one gets a pretty good personal profile of me.
I live in a rural community. I own a horse farm. I breed, train race horses (thoroughbreds) with my wife. I also work a day job in corporate world to which I have an approximate 30- to 40 minute communte (all freeway).
I am in my late 40s.
I smoke and drink and enjoy cannabis (legalize it!) while I do farm work in my time away from the office, but I also exercise daily with the farm work and also still practice martial arts. I am all about physical fitness, meditation and spirituality – not the new age type, but more like the shaolin monks. i will still kill bad guys that need killing (though I have never done that in civilian life). I think men should be able to do that if necessary. Mostly I like to have a good time, hang with friends and pick a little guitar on the back porch.
My research during professional hours is on healthcare economics. Off hours is on race horse industry related topics and, in my precious little private time I am into mystical experiences, NDEs….that sort of thing.
Politics don’t interest me that much because I know they are all crooks. Some just tell lies that happen to be more appealing. That being said, I did think the Bush years were the worst this country has ever faced I have become sincerely concerned about its direction both domestically and with regards to foriegn policy.
In the Marines I was in Intel and, cliched as it sounds, there is not much I can talk about concerning my billets, activities, etc.
Does that help?
On this thread I allowed myself to become distracted by some tangential arguments. I also expressed myself poorly.
My key points – which I think were verified – are that 1. we don’t know what the results of the repeal will be – Gen Amos says bad. 2. With the military stretched thin this is not a time to start social experiments 3. the people pushing this agenda are not familiar with military culture and thus are not qualified to comment that the effect will be positive 4. many people pushing the agenda do not really care about the troops (e.g. they will shut up and follow orders). hey, the troops are not robots or slaves. They can and might vote with their feet. Other negative outcomes can arise.
Gary,
I have finally had some rest. I was up for two days – hence the heavy posting – with severe back pain.
I only release personal information on the internet when it is germane to the discussion; though I suppose over the course of enough conversations one gets a pretty good personal profile of me.
I live in a rural community. I own a horse farm. I breed, train race horses (thoroughbreds) with my wife. I also work a day job in corporate world to which I have an approximate 30- to 40 minute communte (all freeway).
I am in my late 40s.
I smoke and drink and enjoy cannabis (legalize it!) while I do farm work in my time away from the office, but I also exercise daily with the farm work and also still practice martial arts. I am all about physical fitness, meditation and spirituality – not the new age type, but more like the shaolin monks. i will still kill bad guys that need killing (though I have never done that in civilian life). I think men should be able to do that if necessary. Mostly I like to have a good time, hang with friends and pick a little guitar on the back porch.
My research during professional hours is on healthcare economics. Off hours is on race horse industry related topics and, in my precious little private time I am into mystical experiences, NDEs….that sort of thing.
Politics don’t interest me that much because I know they are all crooks. Some just tell lies that happen to be more appealing. That being said, I did think the Bush years were the worst this country has ever faced I have become sincerely concerned about its direction both domestically and with regards to foriegn policy.
In the Marines I was in Intel and, cliched as it sounds, there is not much I can talk about concerning my billets, activities, etc.
Does that help?
On this thread I allowed myself to become distracted by some tangential arguments. I also expressed myself poorly.
My key points – which I think were verified – are that 1. we don’t know what the results of the repeal will be – Gen Amos says bad. 2. With the military stretched thin this is not a time to start social experiments 3. the people pushing this agenda are not familiar with military culture and thus are not qualified to comment that the effect will be positive 4. many people pushing the agenda do not really care about the troops (e.g. they will shut up and follow orders). hey, the troops are not robots or slaves. They can and might vote with their feet. Other negative outcomes can arise.
2. With the military stretched thin this is not a time to start social experiments
As someone currently on active duty in the Army, not really feeling this. Yeah, I know bloody well we don’t have anywhere near enough troops deployed to do what we’re claiming to want to do (nor can I imagine this changing), but the attitude I encounter everywhere here is that we’re gonna contract, hard, over the next couple of years. Talk is generally about how re-enlistment needs to be viewed as a privilege to earn, not a right we all have. By the numbers, we’re overstrength. By the numbers. FWIW.
2. With the military stretched thin this is not a time to start social experiments
As someone currently on active duty in the Army, not really feeling this. Yeah, I know bloody well we don’t have anywhere near enough troops deployed to do what we’re claiming to want to do (nor can I imagine this changing), but the attitude I encounter everywhere here is that we’re gonna contract, hard, over the next couple of years. Talk is generally about how re-enlistment needs to be viewed as a privilege to earn, not a right we all have. By the numbers, we’re overstrength. By the numbers. FWIW.
What, then, is all this talk of troops worn out from multiple deployments?
Where will new recruits come from if they know they will be facing multiple deployments, stop loss, etc?
Will standards drop?
What, then, is all this talk of troops worn out from multiple deployments?
Where will new recruits come from if they know they will be facing multiple deployments, stop loss, etc?
Will standards drop?
I’m not arguing that. But what my superiors hammer again and again is the idea that withdrawal from Iraq is one year away, and a tentative withdrawal from Afghanistan is at least on the radar. The former, I see no reason to doubt. The latter, not so much. But we are fairly heavily scaling back our commitments from where they have been these past few years, and where they are now.
As to standards, they’re actually up these past few years… or rather, back up, as they’d taken a fairly hard dip to keep numbers up. If anything, though, if things go as projected (or even somewhat as projected), I’m still expecting higher standards in the next few years rather than lower. Happily.
I’m not arguing that. But what my superiors hammer again and again is the idea that withdrawal from Iraq is one year away, and a tentative withdrawal from Afghanistan is at least on the radar. The former, I see no reason to doubt. The latter, not so much. But we are fairly heavily scaling back our commitments from where they have been these past few years, and where they are now.
As to standards, they’re actually up these past few years… or rather, back up, as they’d taken a fairly hard dip to keep numbers up. If anything, though, if things go as projected (or even somewhat as projected), I’m still expecting higher standards in the next few years rather than lower. Happily.
Avedis at 9:16 last night:
“To which the appropriate answer was, then as now, that soldiers should shut up and follow orders.”
You are wrong as well, dr ngo. Soldiers are not your slaves. Why should they “shut up”?
Avedis at 10:03:
Should good troops shut the fuck up and follow oders regardless of what they of the orders and who is issuing them? Yes, of course.
And some of you still seem to believe that he’s arguing in good faith. Sheesh.
(Not to mention his claiming that only the opinions of combat troops matters, *unless* like Jefferson and Lincoln they wind up as president, in which case “military experience” in non-combat roles is plenty.) (Double sheesh.)
Finally, FWIW, I was in the Army about the time Avedis was born. I was nobody’s “slave,” but I was told more than once to shut up, and I followed that order. Avedis’s mind-reading: Fail, yet again.
Avedis at 9:16 last night:
“To which the appropriate answer was, then as now, that soldiers should shut up and follow orders.”
You are wrong as well, dr ngo. Soldiers are not your slaves. Why should they “shut up”?
Avedis at 10:03:
Should good troops shut the fuck up and follow oders regardless of what they of the orders and who is issuing them? Yes, of course.
And some of you still seem to believe that he’s arguing in good faith. Sheesh.
(Not to mention his claiming that only the opinions of combat troops matters, *unless* like Jefferson and Lincoln they wind up as president, in which case “military experience” in non-combat roles is plenty.) (Double sheesh.)
Finally, FWIW, I was in the Army about the time Avedis was born. I was nobody’s “slave,” but I was told more than once to shut up, and I followed that order. Avedis’s mind-reading: Fail, yet again.
ngo, context. Having followed stupid fucking orders they can leave/not re-enlist.
They will follow orders arising from the repeal (mostly) because that is what good soldiers do.
Or maybe not.
My point is that they are not your slaves/robots for you to impose whatever ill-fitting circumstances you want on them for your own civilian agenda; which is what your comment and attitude implies.
You think you’re clever. You are merely interested in winning an argument even if that means smearing those who oppose your opinion; not understanding yourself or another.
ngo, context. Having followed stupid fucking orders they can leave/not re-enlist.
They will follow orders arising from the repeal (mostly) because that is what good soldiers do.
Or maybe not.
My point is that they are not your slaves/robots for you to impose whatever ill-fitting circumstances you want on them for your own civilian agenda; which is what your comment and attitude implies.
You think you’re clever. You are merely interested in winning an argument even if that means smearing those who oppose your opinion; not understanding yourself or another.
avedis, thank you kindly for your response and background. I appreciate it. We all tend to do better the more context we have about other people, while, of course, most people on the internet understandably desire or need to maintain high standards of privacy.
I’m a rare exception, relatively speaking, and as I am in many things, an outlier.
Thanks again. I don’t know when I’ll be around much for commenting in the next few days, including today, but one never knows when one might fit what one intends to be a few minutes in, and then find some hours have passed.
I don’t always know, at least. Too often.
I’m sorry about your back pain, and sleep problems. They both suck. Sympathies.
avedis, thank you kindly for your response and background. I appreciate it. We all tend to do better the more context we have about other people, while, of course, most people on the internet understandably desire or need to maintain high standards of privacy.
I’m a rare exception, relatively speaking, and as I am in many things, an outlier.
Thanks again. I don’t know when I’ll be around much for commenting in the next few days, including today, but one never knows when one might fit what one intends to be a few minutes in, and then find some hours have passed.
I don’t always know, at least. Too often.
I’m sorry about your back pain, and sleep problems. They both suck. Sympathies.
But, inevitably, I can’t resist a couple of other comments/questions:
Not a cliche, save that cliches are often true. Of course you couldn’t talk about it; that’s fine. How could it be otherwise?
“Does that help?”
Overall, very much; thank you.
We never know the future. I agree with your statement.
Absolutely true.
Incidentally, from that:
Back to your comment:
When, specifically, do you think would be a good time? Which year? Never? 2020? 2030? I don’t want to guess, but since this is a bad time, when do you think would be a good time? Specifically, with dates?
Some peole, yes. Otherwise, people are individuals. If you’d like to specify as regards which individual statements, or statements by officially appointed spokespeople for an organization, or a poll, by all means, cites and links to facts are always informative and educational.
They’re what we like to see around here. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion; no one is entitled to their own facts. Facts can be cited and linked to.
Everyone is welcome to an express an opinion here, within the posting rules.
People don’t tend to find personal opinion persuasive. I have many which I’m quite sure mere assertion of which would not give you cause to consider, because why should you?
But I’ll provide cites to facts, and I prefer to stick to those as much as possible, as they’re less subjective, and more productive to discuss than unsupported opinion, by me, or anyone else.
In my view. Everyone else has their own view; I speak her, as usual, only for myself, and not in any way as regards any sort of “rule” about ObWi; I hope that’s clear.
Absolutely correct. Negative outcomes are always possible in future for almost anything.
Including attempts to maintain a status quo, since status is never, in fact, truly quo. And it’s possible there may have been negative outcomes in the last ten years you may not have looked into.
The same is true of me, as regards past, present, and future.
Have a great week.
But, inevitably, I can’t resist a couple of other comments/questions:
Not a cliche, save that cliches are often true. Of course you couldn’t talk about it; that’s fine. How could it be otherwise?
“Does that help?”
Overall, very much; thank you.
We never know the future. I agree with your statement.
Absolutely true.
Incidentally, from that:
Back to your comment:
When, specifically, do you think would be a good time? Which year? Never? 2020? 2030? I don’t want to guess, but since this is a bad time, when do you think would be a good time? Specifically, with dates?
Some peole, yes. Otherwise, people are individuals. If you’d like to specify as regards which individual statements, or statements by officially appointed spokespeople for an organization, or a poll, by all means, cites and links to facts are always informative and educational.
They’re what we like to see around here. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion; no one is entitled to their own facts. Facts can be cited and linked to.
Everyone is welcome to an express an opinion here, within the posting rules.
People don’t tend to find personal opinion persuasive. I have many which I’m quite sure mere assertion of which would not give you cause to consider, because why should you?
But I’ll provide cites to facts, and I prefer to stick to those as much as possible, as they’re less subjective, and more productive to discuss than unsupported opinion, by me, or anyone else.
In my view. Everyone else has their own view; I speak her, as usual, only for myself, and not in any way as regards any sort of “rule” about ObWi; I hope that’s clear.
Absolutely correct. Negative outcomes are always possible in future for almost anything.
Including attempts to maintain a status quo, since status is never, in fact, truly quo. And it’s possible there may have been negative outcomes in the last ten years you may not have looked into.
The same is true of me, as regards past, present, and future.
Have a great week.
Gary,
Unfortunately it looks as though “never” will be a good time to start because both the repubs and dems are going to have us locked into land wars in asia – always a bad thing – forever.
I would say that if the troops are ever withdrawn and the stresses of combat deployments are past, then – and only then -the experiment could begin. Start in the service/support troops. Do objective assessments, learn and then, if deemed appropriate, move onto implementation in comabt units.
General Amos should be listening to his bosses….agreed. As I have previously stated, the fact that he isn’t, is very telling as to just how strongly he feels about this. Perhaps he is selectively extracting from the report because the selection are more important. He is emphasizing those aspects that he feels overide the non-selected passages. I don’t know. Neither of us do. Politics is hard to figure and, make no mistake, there are heavy politics involved. Obama wants this. Obama is Amos’ boss. Amos is torn between the Corps, which will survive Obama, and his oath and career. Who knows what Shalikashvili’s motivation is. Who knows who is buttering his bread. Maybe he is being objective, maybe he is not.
And that’s why this ultimately comes down to an exchange of opinions; yours, mine………we are out of the loop. We can google to find support for any whacky position we want to hold. Necrophilia is a deviance similar to homosexuality? I didn’t come up with that myself. This is the opinion of a well respected psychiatrist I found when googling around.
You have a good week too, gary. I am back to work tomorrow so probably won’t talk for awhile.
Gary,
Unfortunately it looks as though “never” will be a good time to start because both the repubs and dems are going to have us locked into land wars in asia – always a bad thing – forever.
I would say that if the troops are ever withdrawn and the stresses of combat deployments are past, then – and only then -the experiment could begin. Start in the service/support troops. Do objective assessments, learn and then, if deemed appropriate, move onto implementation in comabt units.
General Amos should be listening to his bosses….agreed. As I have previously stated, the fact that he isn’t, is very telling as to just how strongly he feels about this. Perhaps he is selectively extracting from the report because the selection are more important. He is emphasizing those aspects that he feels overide the non-selected passages. I don’t know. Neither of us do. Politics is hard to figure and, make no mistake, there are heavy politics involved. Obama wants this. Obama is Amos’ boss. Amos is torn between the Corps, which will survive Obama, and his oath and career. Who knows what Shalikashvili’s motivation is. Who knows who is buttering his bread. Maybe he is being objective, maybe he is not.
And that’s why this ultimately comes down to an exchange of opinions; yours, mine………we are out of the loop. We can google to find support for any whacky position we want to hold. Necrophilia is a deviance similar to homosexuality? I didn’t come up with that myself. This is the opinion of a well respected psychiatrist I found when googling around.
You have a good week too, gary. I am back to work tomorrow so probably won’t talk for awhile.
You think you’re clever. You are merely interested in winning an argument even if that means smearing those who oppose your opinion; not understanding yourself or another.
Can we please, please, PLEASE stop with this. Mindreading has not proven a fruitful exercise for you thus far. Why would you try it again? Why don’t you worry about your motivations, rather than trying to assign motivations to others?
You think you’re clever. You are merely interested in winning an argument even if that means smearing those who oppose your opinion; not understanding yourself or another.
Can we please, please, PLEASE stop with this. Mindreading has not proven a fruitful exercise for you thus far. Why would you try it again? Why don’t you worry about your motivations, rather than trying to assign motivations to others?
“Necrophilia is a deviance similar to homosexuality? I didn’t come up with that myself. This is the opinion of a well respected psychiatrist I found when googling around.”
Was this an article from the 1970s?
“Necrophilia is a deviance similar to homosexuality? I didn’t come up with that myself. This is the opinion of a well respected psychiatrist I found when googling around.”
Was this an article from the 1970s?
My key points – which I think were verified – are that 1. we don’t know what the results of the repeal will be – Gen Amos says bad.
Agree.
2. With the military stretched thin this is not a time to start social experiments
That’s a reasonable point.
3. the people pushing this agenda are not familiar with military culture and thus are not qualified to comment that the effect will be positive
Maybe, maybe not.
4. many people pushing the agenda do not really care about the troops
This is kind of in “sez you” territory.
Look, there are a lot of dimensions to this question. What rank and file soldiers want, or are comfortable with, is certainly one. But it’s not the only one.
I’m 100% sure that letting openly gay people serve in the military is going to make some people uncomfortable. But not letting openly gay people serve in the military makes some people uncomfortable. There is no option here that does not bug somebody.
Some people will undoubtedly leave the service because they are simply unable or unwilling to serve alongside of openly gay people. That’s a shame, on a number of levels, but it’s *not a good enough reason* to not move ahead with the policy change. That’s my opinion.
Who’s right, General Amos, or the folks (including military folks) who think it’s time to change the policy?
To answer that you need to define what “right” looks like. If “right” means openly gay people serving is not compatible with every aspect and nuance of present-day military culture, Amos is likely right. But it may well be that every aspect and nuance of present-day military culture are not something we want to preserve anyway.
It’s going to bug some people. Other people will welcome it. Still other people won’t really care either way.
Some people will leave the service. Other people, who otherwise might not join, will.
Will it break the ability of the US to defend itself? I don’t see that happening.
Last but not least, if you’re in your mid-forties, you’re a generation beyond the folks that are signing up now. Views on homosexuality have changed. It’s not likely to be the same scenario it would have been had the policy been implemented in 1985.
My key points – which I think were verified – are that 1. we don’t know what the results of the repeal will be – Gen Amos says bad.
Agree.
2. With the military stretched thin this is not a time to start social experiments
That’s a reasonable point.
3. the people pushing this agenda are not familiar with military culture and thus are not qualified to comment that the effect will be positive
Maybe, maybe not.
4. many people pushing the agenda do not really care about the troops
This is kind of in “sez you” territory.
Look, there are a lot of dimensions to this question. What rank and file soldiers want, or are comfortable with, is certainly one. But it’s not the only one.
I’m 100% sure that letting openly gay people serve in the military is going to make some people uncomfortable. But not letting openly gay people serve in the military makes some people uncomfortable. There is no option here that does not bug somebody.
Some people will undoubtedly leave the service because they are simply unable or unwilling to serve alongside of openly gay people. That’s a shame, on a number of levels, but it’s *not a good enough reason* to not move ahead with the policy change. That’s my opinion.
Who’s right, General Amos, or the folks (including military folks) who think it’s time to change the policy?
To answer that you need to define what “right” looks like. If “right” means openly gay people serving is not compatible with every aspect and nuance of present-day military culture, Amos is likely right. But it may well be that every aspect and nuance of present-day military culture are not something we want to preserve anyway.
It’s going to bug some people. Other people will welcome it. Still other people won’t really care either way.
Some people will leave the service. Other people, who otherwise might not join, will.
Will it break the ability of the US to defend itself? I don’t see that happening.
Last but not least, if you’re in your mid-forties, you’re a generation beyond the folks that are signing up now. Views on homosexuality have changed. It’s not likely to be the same scenario it would have been had the policy been implemented in 1985.
Phil, it’s not mind reading. It’s called inference. If I here quacking and the rustle of feathers in a bush by a pond, I infer (not use psychic powers) that there is a duck in the bush.
Sebastian, I don’t remember. I think it was more modern. It’s not like I saved the link or anything 🙂
Phil, it’s not mind reading. It’s called inference. If I here quacking and the rustle of feathers in a bush by a pond, I infer (not use psychic powers) that there is a duck in the bush.
Sebastian, I don’t remember. I think it was more modern. It’s not like I saved the link or anything 🙂
I posted this on the new thread, but will post here as well for posterity’s sake.
Here’s another link. I recommend that it be read to flesh out some of what I – and now Dr S – am saying. It is a reply to a USMC Captain that didn’t like Swofford’s depiction of the Corps, by a man who served with Swofford.
“Behind the facade erected to present a professional face, 95% of us were distorted, in terms of civilian or proper mores. To put it more bluntly, one of the common cadences went “We’re gonna rape/ kill/ pillage and burn – We’re gonna rape/ kill/ pillage and burn – and eat the babies!”
“…the likelihood of a gay person surviving in that environment would be slim indeed…”
http://www.grose.us/gulfdir/jhemail1.htm
do you get it now?
I posted this on the new thread, but will post here as well for posterity’s sake.
Here’s another link. I recommend that it be read to flesh out some of what I – and now Dr S – am saying. It is a reply to a USMC Captain that didn’t like Swofford’s depiction of the Corps, by a man who served with Swofford.
“Behind the facade erected to present a professional face, 95% of us were distorted, in terms of civilian or proper mores. To put it more bluntly, one of the common cadences went “We’re gonna rape/ kill/ pillage and burn – We’re gonna rape/ kill/ pillage and burn – and eat the babies!”
“…the likelihood of a gay person surviving in that environment would be slim indeed…”
http://www.grose.us/gulfdir/jhemail1.htm
do you get it now?
Oh. I should care what “most conservatives” think? That’s your argument?
Huh. I’m going to have to scratch my head a long time over that one.
Oh. I should care what “most conservatives” think? That’s your argument?
Huh. I’m going to have to scratch my head a long time over that one.
If that’s the very worst thing that ever happened to a soldier, I wouldn’t worry about it. In fact, if that were the very worst thing that happened to anyone, would that be such a bad thing?
You know, just being naked in a shower with a bunch of other guys was not such a good thing for me, in middle school. Traumatic, even. I was younger than most in my grade, and didn’t go through puberty until a bit later in age, so I was…well, not like the other guys.
Then there was this time when I went to Steamboat Springs (as an adult) and, to enjoy the hot springs, basically had to be naked in front of a bunch of complete strangers. It’s hard to keep your eyes to yourself, but there are some unspoken rules that somehow never need to be enforced.
If you’re ogling some other guy in the barracks showers, you’re going to be outcast, I think. At least, you’re going to get a talking-to. Possibly more than that, if you don’t change your ways.
I think these things have a way of working themselves out. DADT being repealed, there aren’t going to be roving packs of gay Marines out trying to convert the newer guys to their gay ways. So you needn’t fear on their account.
If that’s the very worst thing that ever happened to a soldier, I wouldn’t worry about it. In fact, if that were the very worst thing that happened to anyone, would that be such a bad thing?
You know, just being naked in a shower with a bunch of other guys was not such a good thing for me, in middle school. Traumatic, even. I was younger than most in my grade, and didn’t go through puberty until a bit later in age, so I was…well, not like the other guys.
Then there was this time when I went to Steamboat Springs (as an adult) and, to enjoy the hot springs, basically had to be naked in front of a bunch of complete strangers. It’s hard to keep your eyes to yourself, but there are some unspoken rules that somehow never need to be enforced.
If you’re ogling some other guy in the barracks showers, you’re going to be outcast, I think. At least, you’re going to get a talking-to. Possibly more than that, if you don’t change your ways.
I think these things have a way of working themselves out. DADT being repealed, there aren’t going to be roving packs of gay Marines out trying to convert the newer guys to their gay ways. So you needn’t fear on their account.
do you get it now?
I guess what’s puzzling to me is your inability to conceive of a gay person being 100% badass.
do you get it now?
I guess what’s puzzling to me is your inability to conceive of a gay person being 100% badass.
Russell, what puzzles me is your inability to conceive of the fact that some people just don’t like gays and never will.
And why should they? Because you tell them they should? Because you are the apex of truth and virtue?
Some people find homosexuality sick, weird and morally wrong. You are going to tell them to change their beliefs? really? Good luck with that. They will tell you to change your beliefs to conform with theirs. Or get fed up with your concepts of the world and break your nose.
You and people like dr ngo think you have a captive audience in the military and that can oder them to conform to your hive’s mentality.
You will fail and you will cause harm, IMO.
Russell, what puzzles me is your inability to conceive of the fact that some people just don’t like gays and never will.
And why should they? Because you tell them they should? Because you are the apex of truth and virtue?
Some people find homosexuality sick, weird and morally wrong. You are going to tell them to change their beliefs? really? Good luck with that. They will tell you to change your beliefs to conform with theirs. Or get fed up with your concepts of the world and break your nose.
You and people like dr ngo think you have a captive audience in the military and that can oder them to conform to your hive’s mentality.
You will fail and you will cause harm, IMO.
Russell, what puzzles me is your inability to conceive of the fact that some people just don’t like gays and never will.
No, I get that.
You and people like dr ngo think you have a captive audience in the military and that can oder them to conform to your hive’s mentality.
I’m not sure how much dr ngo is like me. I’m not sure you know enough about either of us to make statements about “people like us”.
Net/net, I’ll thank you to deal with what I say, and nothing more, because that’s all the information you have about what I think, feel, imagine, or want. Anything beyond that is something you’re pulling out of your ass.
I’ll help you out. I’ll tell you exactly what I think.
We either want to treat gay people the same way we treat straight people in this country, or we don’t. if we do, then they should be able to serve in the military.
Some people won’t like it. Some people don’t like having to be around gay people.
Well, some people don’t like having to be around black people, or Jews, or women, or Asians, or Muslims, or whatever.
And it’s tough shit for those people. All of them. They need to grow up and deal, or they’ll have to move along. Because all of the groups I just named, including gays, and all the other groups that people don’t like but I forgot to name, aren’t going anywhere, nor should they.
That’s what I think.
Gays bug you? Fine, whatever. I’m sure you bug them, too. You go your way, they will go theirs, everybody will be happy. You’re not in uniform anymore, you can think and do whatever you like. You got your day job, you got your horse farm. You can probably avoid gays for days at a time. Raise your horses and be happy.
The armed forces will lose some people, and they’ll gain some people. That’s what will happen. If that means some aspects of military culture will have to change, then some aspects of military culture will have to change. Won’t be the first time. We’ll live.
You, avedis, have issues with gay people. You think they suffer from some mental disorder that is comparable to necrophilia or bestiality. Well, that’s your problem. Not everybody thinks the way you do. Not everybody in the military, and not everybody anywhere else.
You’re not the only freaking guy in the world, and your point of view is not the only point of view in the world.
You will fail and you will cause harm, IMO.
You exaggerate my mighty powers.
DADT was 86’d for lots of reasons. Those reasons did not include the enormous influence of blogger russell on Obsidian Wings.
And thanks for framing that last as your opinion, because that’s what it is.
You got yours, I got mine.
Russell, what puzzles me is your inability to conceive of the fact that some people just don’t like gays and never will.
No, I get that.
You and people like dr ngo think you have a captive audience in the military and that can oder them to conform to your hive’s mentality.
I’m not sure how much dr ngo is like me. I’m not sure you know enough about either of us to make statements about “people like us”.
Net/net, I’ll thank you to deal with what I say, and nothing more, because that’s all the information you have about what I think, feel, imagine, or want. Anything beyond that is something you’re pulling out of your ass.
I’ll help you out. I’ll tell you exactly what I think.
We either want to treat gay people the same way we treat straight people in this country, or we don’t. if we do, then they should be able to serve in the military.
Some people won’t like it. Some people don’t like having to be around gay people.
Well, some people don’t like having to be around black people, or Jews, or women, or Asians, or Muslims, or whatever.
And it’s tough shit for those people. All of them. They need to grow up and deal, or they’ll have to move along. Because all of the groups I just named, including gays, and all the other groups that people don’t like but I forgot to name, aren’t going anywhere, nor should they.
That’s what I think.
Gays bug you? Fine, whatever. I’m sure you bug them, too. You go your way, they will go theirs, everybody will be happy. You’re not in uniform anymore, you can think and do whatever you like. You got your day job, you got your horse farm. You can probably avoid gays for days at a time. Raise your horses and be happy.
The armed forces will lose some people, and they’ll gain some people. That’s what will happen. If that means some aspects of military culture will have to change, then some aspects of military culture will have to change. Won’t be the first time. We’ll live.
You, avedis, have issues with gay people. You think they suffer from some mental disorder that is comparable to necrophilia or bestiality. Well, that’s your problem. Not everybody thinks the way you do. Not everybody in the military, and not everybody anywhere else.
You’re not the only freaking guy in the world, and your point of view is not the only point of view in the world.
You will fail and you will cause harm, IMO.
You exaggerate my mighty powers.
DADT was 86’d for lots of reasons. Those reasons did not include the enormous influence of blogger russell on Obsidian Wings.
And thanks for framing that last as your opinion, because that’s what it is.
You got yours, I got mine.
Russell, you are wrong about me. I have truthfully stated that they are gay people in my community – gay men – whose company I enjoy. They have much more interesting things to talk about and are far more perceptive/intuitive (traits I appreciate) than my straight male peers who are, quite frankly, boring. I could give a flying fuck about pro football and the other topics they want to jaw off about.The way they worship sports “heros” makes me think they are less men than the gay guys.
Now, I don’t want to discuss sex with my gay neighbors because that would make me a little uncomfortable, but mostly I think it is inappropriate, but then, frankly, I don’t want to discuss it with my straight peers either because the have a really stupid and immature concept of the whole topic.
But this has nothing to do with military service; where you will find more people resemblimbing my straight peers than my gay friends.
You really need to get past this idea that if someone doesn’t support your agenda, they are gay haters.
Russell, you are wrong about me. I have truthfully stated that they are gay people in my community – gay men – whose company I enjoy. They have much more interesting things to talk about and are far more perceptive/intuitive (traits I appreciate) than my straight male peers who are, quite frankly, boring. I could give a flying fuck about pro football and the other topics they want to jaw off about.The way they worship sports “heros” makes me think they are less men than the gay guys.
Now, I don’t want to discuss sex with my gay neighbors because that would make me a little uncomfortable, but mostly I think it is inappropriate, but then, frankly, I don’t want to discuss it with my straight peers either because the have a really stupid and immature concept of the whole topic.
But this has nothing to do with military service; where you will find more people resemblimbing my straight peers than my gay friends.
You really need to get past this idea that if someone doesn’t support your agenda, they are gay haters.
You really need to get past this idea that if someone doesn’t support your agenda, they are gay haters.
That’s not my idea.
If someone presents an argument that homosexuality is akin to necrophilia or bestiality, I do assume that they are hostile to homosexuals. It’s not an unwarranted inference. Not a huge leap, as they say.
In any case, if that’s not true of you, I mistook your point of view, in which case, my bad.
You really need to get past this idea that if someone doesn’t support your agenda, they are gay haters.
That’s not my idea.
If someone presents an argument that homosexuality is akin to necrophilia or bestiality, I do assume that they are hostile to homosexuals. It’s not an unwarranted inference. Not a huge leap, as they say.
In any case, if that’s not true of you, I mistook your point of view, in which case, my bad.
as an adendum..I only brought up the necrophilia thing because a) I have a dry and sarcastic sense of humor and b) I was using that technique …argumento ad absurdum or whatever the f*ck it’s called.
The idea being, where do we draw the line? Why do we draw it there and not somewhere else? Who makes those decisions and why?
as an adendum..I only brought up the necrophilia thing because a) I have a dry and sarcastic sense of humor and b) I was using that technique …argumento ad absurdum or whatever the f*ck it’s called.
The idea being, where do we draw the line? Why do we draw it there and not somewhere else? Who makes those decisions and why?
Phil, it’s not mind reading. It’s called inference. If I here quacking and the rustle of feathers in a bush by a pond, I infer (not use psychic powers) that there is a duck in the bush.
Right. Just like your mighty powers of inference previously led you to discern that I, along with liberal japonicus, don’t care for any non-gay-male culture. Might I suggest that inference and discernment are not the sharpest knives in your drawer?
Russell, what puzzles me is your inability to conceive of the fact that some people just don’t like gays and never will.
Nobody is asking anybody to like anybody. The list of jacktards my dad served with that he didn’t like would be too long to read in this lifetime. He merely had to serve with them, not to like them.
You really need to get past this idea that if someone doesn’t support your agenda, they are gay haters.
If I hear quacking and the rustle of feathers . . .
BTW, bad news for you and all who think like you: If you’ve ever showered in a school locker room, or a gym, it’s a near-certainty that you’ve showered with a gay man. And it’s a statistical likelihood that one of them later jerked off while fantasizing about you. Deal with it.
Phil, it’s not mind reading. It’s called inference. If I here quacking and the rustle of feathers in a bush by a pond, I infer (not use psychic powers) that there is a duck in the bush.
Right. Just like your mighty powers of inference previously led you to discern that I, along with liberal japonicus, don’t care for any non-gay-male culture. Might I suggest that inference and discernment are not the sharpest knives in your drawer?
Russell, what puzzles me is your inability to conceive of the fact that some people just don’t like gays and never will.
Nobody is asking anybody to like anybody. The list of jacktards my dad served with that he didn’t like would be too long to read in this lifetime. He merely had to serve with them, not to like them.
You really need to get past this idea that if someone doesn’t support your agenda, they are gay haters.
If I hear quacking and the rustle of feathers . . .
BTW, bad news for you and all who think like you: If you’ve ever showered in a school locker room, or a gym, it’s a near-certainty that you’ve showered with a gay man. And it’s a statistical likelihood that one of them later jerked off while fantasizing about you. Deal with it.
b) I was using that technique …argumento ad absurdum or whatever the f*ck it’s called.
Uh, that’s not what reductio ad absurdum is, but thanks for playing anyway.
b) I was using that technique …argumento ad absurdum or whatever the f*ck it’s called.
Uh, that’s not what reductio ad absurdum is, but thanks for playing anyway.
Phil, There are a lot of ball-less wonders wandering around corporate amerika. By their names (Bill, Pete, Mike…) and the fact that they use the same toilet facilities that I do, I infer (there I go again) that they are biologically male. They are very pc if they have an opinion at all. I wasn’t saying you only liked gays, i was saying that maybe you prefered this sort of male as opposed to something more along the lines of what is portrayed in the link I provided a few comments back.
If a guy has jerked off while fantasizing about me then at least I have made someone happy that day. I hope the earth moved. Having a good time and being happy is what life is all about, IMO.
Phil, There are a lot of ball-less wonders wandering around corporate amerika. By their names (Bill, Pete, Mike…) and the fact that they use the same toilet facilities that I do, I infer (there I go again) that they are biologically male. They are very pc if they have an opinion at all. I wasn’t saying you only liked gays, i was saying that maybe you prefered this sort of male as opposed to something more along the lines of what is portrayed in the link I provided a few comments back.
If a guy has jerked off while fantasizing about me then at least I have made someone happy that day. I hope the earth moved. Having a good time and being happy is what life is all about, IMO.
Whatever you were trying to say about me, you still got it wrong, so again, maybe inference isn’t your strong suit.
Whatever you were trying to say about me, you still got it wrong, so again, maybe inference isn’t your strong suit.
“Uh, that’s not what reductio ad absurdum”
yeah, that one, score one for the grammar/philosophy teacher. There seems to be an abundance of those around here. but what do you mean it’s not an example of that? I think it is.
maybe I was was wrong about you….maybe not. Nothing has convinced me that I was wrong. You seem like the Dr Phil type to me.
Who cares. This isn’t about you or me. I tire of your silly argumentative games.
did you read the link?
what this is about is could you hang with what is described in the link I supplied? Could someone like you stick a bayonette in another man’s guts? could you look over the sights of a rifle and calmly and cooly take aim and blow another human’s brains out the back of their head? Could you call in an airstrike and watch people fry? Could you? I doubt it. And neither could the vast majority of those arguing blah blah blah about how Marines and soldiers will just have to learn to take gay integration.
Maybe gay integration will work out without too much trouble; maybe it won’t.
But if you can’t do the above then you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about and you have no business supporting – let alone pushing – a policy whose impact you cannot even begin to fathom. You guys may run this blog like marcus of queensbury in mr roger’s neighborhood, but the corps and most army combat units are not like that at all.
Active duty personnel really can’t speak out against what the C in C wants, but I’ll bet that the majority of them would want you to stay the hell out of their lives. You have a lot of gall. you think i’m a schmuck for making a crack about some fat greasy womens studies prof with sad theories of victimization? but you think you have the right to dictate policy to a bunch of guys whose job you can’t even comprehend?
Your world must be turned upside down and inside out. where the hell do you live?
Gosh…i’m starting to feel like col jessup (sp?) in that movie…the one that weasel tom cruise (few good men?)…..you abhor my existance, but…….
That is all.
PS, I’m a lot better looking that Brummel
“Uh, that’s not what reductio ad absurdum”
yeah, that one, score one for the grammar/philosophy teacher. There seems to be an abundance of those around here. but what do you mean it’s not an example of that? I think it is.
maybe I was was wrong about you….maybe not. Nothing has convinced me that I was wrong. You seem like the Dr Phil type to me.
Who cares. This isn’t about you or me. I tire of your silly argumentative games.
did you read the link?
what this is about is could you hang with what is described in the link I supplied? Could someone like you stick a bayonette in another man’s guts? could you look over the sights of a rifle and calmly and cooly take aim and blow another human’s brains out the back of their head? Could you call in an airstrike and watch people fry? Could you? I doubt it. And neither could the vast majority of those arguing blah blah blah about how Marines and soldiers will just have to learn to take gay integration.
Maybe gay integration will work out without too much trouble; maybe it won’t.
But if you can’t do the above then you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about and you have no business supporting – let alone pushing – a policy whose impact you cannot even begin to fathom. You guys may run this blog like marcus of queensbury in mr roger’s neighborhood, but the corps and most army combat units are not like that at all.
Active duty personnel really can’t speak out against what the C in C wants, but I’ll bet that the majority of them would want you to stay the hell out of their lives. You have a lot of gall. you think i’m a schmuck for making a crack about some fat greasy womens studies prof with sad theories of victimization? but you think you have the right to dictate policy to a bunch of guys whose job you can’t even comprehend?
Your world must be turned upside down and inside out. where the hell do you live?
Gosh…i’m starting to feel like col jessup (sp?) in that movie…the one that weasel tom cruise (few good men?)…..you abhor my existance, but…….
That is all.
PS, I’m a lot better looking that Brummel
Jesus wept — what are y’all, a bunch o’ (lib’ral arts-educated, limp-wristed, homo-pansy) n00bs?
DNFTT.
(avedis, I tip my cap — haven’t seen trolling this +6 since my days modding at a rave board circa 2001.)
Jesus wept — what are y’all, a bunch o’ (lib’ral arts-educated, limp-wristed, homo-pansy) n00bs?
DNFTT.
(avedis, I tip my cap — haven’t seen trolling this +6 since my days modding at a rave board circa 2001.)
That is all.
Glad to hear it.
That is all.
Glad to hear it.
This is one approach.
When it harms the security of the United States of America, by forcing out key personnel.
CJCS:
As well, I’m given to understand that we have an Army, an Air Force (not mentioned by the U.S. Constitution, but let’s not be picky), a Navy, and a Coast Guard, along with other federally armed forces, the merchant marine, etc.
The Marine Corps, with the greatest of respect for jarheads, is not the only service. Neither does it get to run itself independently.
One can’t make people read linked material, or any writing, or watch any video. One can only keep trying.
Who would you enlist?
Because it’s harming the security of the United States by forcing out thousands of vitally needed Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and other serving and fighting men and women who have taken an oath to protect our Constitution and our country, and put their life on the line to do so.
The elected representatives of the citizenry of the United States: the Congress and President; additionally, the third branch of our government, the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the people of the United States of America. It’s explained here. A useful document to be familiar with.
This is one approach.
When it harms the security of the United States of America, by forcing out key personnel.
CJCS:
As well, I’m given to understand that we have an Army, an Air Force (not mentioned by the U.S. Constitution, but let’s not be picky), a Navy, and a Coast Guard, along with other federally armed forces, the merchant marine, etc.
The Marine Corps, with the greatest of respect for jarheads, is not the only service. Neither does it get to run itself independently.
One can’t make people read linked material, or any writing, or watch any video. One can only keep trying.
Who would you enlist?
Because it’s harming the security of the United States by forcing out thousands of vitally needed Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and other serving and fighting men and women who have taken an oath to protect our Constitution and our country, and put their life on the line to do so.
The elected representatives of the citizenry of the United States: the Congress and President; additionally, the third branch of our government, the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the people of the United States of America. It’s explained here. A useful document to be familiar with.
avedis:
You just want to push an agenda.
Some people will tell you to change your beliefs to conform with theirs. Or get fed up with your concepts of the world and break your nose.
You think you have a captive audience in the military and that can order them to conform to your hive’s mentality.
You are wrong about me.
Reductio ad absurdum:
A fallacy:
Fallacies.
And yet you are wrong. Factually. And you’re unaware of it. You’re ignorant of that which you speak.
I’ve provided many links: did you read the links?
When you do, prove it.
Until then, yes, DNFTT.
Grow up, or not. It’s a free country, I hear. Cheers, and happy new year, avedis.
Comment away as you like. That’s what we’re here for: exchange of ideas.
As people choose to respond.
Or not.
avedis:
You just want to push an agenda.
Some people will tell you to change your beliefs to conform with theirs. Or get fed up with your concepts of the world and break your nose.
You think you have a captive audience in the military and that can order them to conform to your hive’s mentality.
You are wrong about me.
Reductio ad absurdum:
A fallacy:
Fallacies.
And yet you are wrong. Factually. And you’re unaware of it. You’re ignorant of that which you speak.
I’ve provided many links: did you read the links?
When you do, prove it.
Until then, yes, DNFTT.
Grow up, or not. It’s a free country, I hear. Cheers, and happy new year, avedis.
Comment away as you like. That’s what we’re here for: exchange of ideas.
As people choose to respond.
Or not.
For the record, it wasn’t Pelosi’s choice to do a standalone bill. There was a standalone bill in the House long before this but it was thought to be harder to pass before the election (Barney Frank in 09: “like hate crimes, [the repeal] will have to be done … in the context of the defense authorization. You can’t do the standalone bill).
The standalone bill came because the Republicans in the Senate refused to allow a vote on the appropriations bill — a status that had previously prevented such purely strategic filibusters — prior to the tax deal passage. Lieberman then arranged introduced the standalone bill as the culmination a role he had been appointed with since 2009: rounding up the needed Republican votes for passage by any means necessary. This method would not have been possible before the election, when those same Senators were under strict orders to prevent any such victories.
For the record, it wasn’t Pelosi’s choice to do a standalone bill. There was a standalone bill in the House long before this but it was thought to be harder to pass before the election (Barney Frank in 09: “like hate crimes, [the repeal] will have to be done … in the context of the defense authorization. You can’t do the standalone bill).
The standalone bill came because the Republicans in the Senate refused to allow a vote on the appropriations bill — a status that had previously prevented such purely strategic filibusters — prior to the tax deal passage. Lieberman then arranged introduced the standalone bill as the culmination a role he had been appointed with since 2009: rounding up the needed Republican votes for passage by any means necessary. This method would not have been possible before the election, when those same Senators were under strict orders to prevent any such victories.