Slashdot Mirror
Senate Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
An anonymous reader writes "The Senate and House have now acted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, [a decision] which President Obama will soon sign into law. While this does not permit homosexuals to openly serve, it does return control of the policy to military leaders after nearly two decades."
Now get rid of torture and death sentence and you'll upgrade from stone age to bronze age!
Good.
Instead of a blanket policy of not talking about sexuality in the military, policies toward homosexuals (of either sex) are now left to the discretion of military leaders.
This will either lead to segments of our military being strictly only for homosexuals or strictly not for homosexuals, without regard to what might be best for military purposes.
This is a lose/lose/lose/lose move.
No, really. You can read this on every other news source. Is there anything slashdot can add?
...and this has *nothing* to do with 1/20th of the military keeping secrets for their own livelihoods from their superiors for 20 years. As long as the Joint Chiefs go along with it, and make openly serving legal, (you know following that whole 14th ammendment thing) Now the only "squirly" people who are "evasive" will be suspected leakers. Bradley Manning, your service to the military was your swan song. Your service to your nation... well that's still up for debate.
A protocol with an ask request without a tell response could be considered an early form of udp.
Now how do we get Congress to work the other 11 1/2 months of the year?
Finally. Now we just have to trust our military leaders will do the right thing(s).
I hate to defend timmah, but where are you seeing opinion in this summary? Looks pretty straightforward to me.
Um... http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-27/politics/obama.gays.military_1_repeal-policy-that-bars-gays-servicemembers-legal-defense-network?_s=PM:POLITICS
I agree that he did not physically vote for this and he could have done far more but to say this is "no thanks to Obama" is just plain wrong.
where have you been? He has been achieving his goals since day one.
I don't see any opinions, though I do fail to see how this falls under "stuff that matters". The world will keep turning just the same and we'll keep fighting pointless wars just the same, regardless of whether or not you can openly say "I'm gay" while being in the military.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Until about a week ago, repeal of DADT was a dead issue because it was tied to bigger bill concerning military policy. Obama diddn't do jack squat to move the thing forward, but Senators (Rep and Dem) worked out a way to isolate this issue to move it forward, and this is the result. Google news pieces on this.
Like I wrote, Obama did squat. The guy wouldn't know leadership if it elbowed his jaw.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Given the scale of the US political system I am amazed anything gets done at all. I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities. It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Don't ask don't, give a damn even if we know.
If you're going to fight in the jungle, clash!
Let's see. Does the name Alan Turing ring a bell? The same guy who saved more lives in WW2 than anyone else by cracking the german cypher codes was also forced to take female hormones to chemically castrate him to avoid going to jail for being gay (1952).
The military owes a lot to the gays and lesbians, both civilian and military, who put up with the intolerance and ignorance to serve their country. The military is also the single biggest spender on technology. Any change in military hiring and staffing of this nature is relevant.
The summary is a bit inaccurate - the military is in fact required to implement the repeal; the actual timetable is set out in the bill, based on certain milestones. So DADT is pretty much dead.
I'd rather have the gays in the military than the homophobes. At least then they'd all believe in the freedom they're fighting for.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
That's going to make the gay sex in the military way less hot. Better get in that last super-hot gay orgy before Obama signs it in to law!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If anyone's worried about that, they can continue to choose to hide their own sexuality as long as they please. And I'm pretty sure they're more qualified to make that decision than some random blowhard on the Internet.
They are in the Military!
If they can't follow a simple order like "don't shoot/attack your fellow enlisted personnel because they are different" then I think the US has a bigger problem than a group of Elite marines scared to share a shower block with a guy guy...
Given the scale of the US political system I am amazed anything gets done at all. I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities. It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.
Um, yeah, that's the point. States and municipalities were supposed to have that finer-grained control and the federal government wasn't allowed the power it now currently wields. Population growth per se doesn't have much to do with it.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
So, is Harvard going to allow ROTC and recruiting on campus now? It's been their excuse since DADT - they of course used a different excuse before that
Let me start off by saying I often agree with the Republicans, but I have been saying DADT was a bad policy since it first came about and it has nothing to do with gays serving in the military. This policy was a side step, it was like the solution of cutting the kid in half for joint custody, no one liked it. The reality of this policy after all was not "Don't Ask Don't Tell", but was instead "If we don't find out it is ok", just look at the number of gays in the military that were outed through no action of their own, who then had to face the punishment. At least now we can move on to something that is A POLICY.
Should we not allow other minorities in the military because there are racists in it? Your argument is tired and hollow.
I realize our Elite Leaders in Washington, D.C. impact our daily lives, but /. has far too many political stories. I want techie stories, damn it!
I actually just created an account to down-vote this ignorant homophobic stupidity.
Other countries have gays and lesbians serving openly without problems. Maybe you need better leaders?
Shut the fuck up Anon bitch. No one wants to hear your trolling.
This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate gays.
True, but that doesn't mean bigotry should be tolerated.
That was to prevent being discriminated against by the people you work with in the potentially-life-endangering industry of violence and death that is the military.
But that's not what actually happened. Someone would find out who was gay, and then harass that person mercilessly because they knew their victim had no recourse without outing themselves. The record is actually pretty clear on this fact. In 17 years, DADT was an abject failure on all counts.
Wow.... you really have no idea what was actually done.
people asked, no one told, people reported, and gay men and women were removed from service while the askers and the liars continued serving.
Yeah between passing Healthcare Reform, Banking reform, a nearly $1T stimulus bill, significant student loan reform, a CC bill of rights, expanded hate crimes to include sexual orientation and restabilizing the finance and automotive industries I was wondering when he was going to finally do something.
True. You either accept gays into service, or you don't. It was a crap compromise to keep the gays in at the time, but it's long past its expiration date.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
From personal experience in the military, and from being in a war, I can tell you that you feel close to your buddies and that sexuality is almost non-existent in the sense most people thing about it, when you are in combat. After a few days under fire you just comfort each other however you can, and nobody is self conscious about showing affection to each other, man or women. You just want to do a good job and take care of each other.
Let me change one word in your first sentence (in italics):
This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate blacks.
Which was very true when the army was first integrated, and it's still true today. Many of those people were in the army then, and some of them still are.
The army survived integration, though, and it's fine. It'll survive the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and it'll still be fine
Step 1: Repeal DADT
Step 2: ???
Step 3: No more military!
Well, I wouldn't follow your elbow into battle, so your comment is worthless to me :)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Would that be the Democratic congress?
But kudos on taking the very pedantic view, and ignore that the President campaigned, and urged congress to pass the law, like EVERY PRESIDENT.
Population growth doesn't do that. The increasing centralization of power is what does that.
That's a good model for governance within a large nation as well. The Founding Fathers realized that a long time ago and they probably weren't the first. The USA has largely abandoned federalism when it comes to anything important. Even things like roads and schools that are well within the domain of states and local governments have many federal mandates attached to them.
There is one trick in particular that the feds love to use to undermine the power of states: they impose taxes on the citizens of the states and give them some of that money back only if the states follow the federal mandates. They could impose taxes only for issues that are legitimately the domain of the federal government and let the states work out what they need and how to fund it, but they'd get less power that way. This trick works so well that most of the states are deeply dependent on this federal funding and their budgets would break without it. The closest model you could use for comparison would be the drug pusher and the crackhead.
None of this happened because federalism had glaring flaws or wasn't working. It happened because politicians love power so much that they don't care about the long-term damage they do to the country while acquiring it, especially not when it is future generations who will have to live with it. Globalism in the economic sense is already here. Globalism in the one-world government sense is in the works, bit by bit, step by step, and you can imagine how much more fun that is going to be. Hypothetically, all it really needs is one gigantic international crisis, such as the financial collapse and insolvency of the USA, and it will be ushered in and presented as the golden solution to all problems. That's the way these things operate both within nations and among nations.
Consider this: if you live in one of the more nanny-state US states like Massachusetts you could move to another US state if you don't want that. If you think your country is becoming tyrannical you can move to another though it would be much more difficult. If a one-world government becomes tyrannical, what are you going to do, terraform Mars?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Funniest post ever.
Before "don't ask don't tell" the military could endeavor to find out if you were homosexual and kick you out if they thought you were. :(
"Don't ask don't tell" made it so they could only target those that openly professed to be homosexual.
I've seen nothing saying the military was not allowed to discriminate based on sexual preference.
The repealing of this means the homophobes just got their hunting license back.
as a soldier. I would file for a discharge at the first possible opportunity and choose not to renew any enlistment. You should not have to cover your ass as well as your ass..
Nice homophobic rant. You might look at the rules about fraternization among soldiers. They will still apply. So your virgin butt hole is safe.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate gays. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy wasn't about discrimination by their superiors, it was about discrimination by their peers. You're not allowed to ask someone if they're gay, and you're not allowed to tell someone if you're gay, and if you do either you will be met with disciplinary action. That was to prevent being discriminated against by the people you work with in the potentially-life-endangering industry of violence and death that is the military.
There are also people in the military that hate females serving in the military. The military tells them to shut up and learn to be more accepting and caring while killing the rest of us with POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) and EO (Equal Opportunity) training sessions. The people that violate this are subject to UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) action. In the case of hatred of homosexuals, the guidelines established in EO and POSH can apply just as well, so there is no real reason for Don't Ask Don't Tell to exist.
So you're assuming that there are no gay nerds who might have interest in discussing this story with their fellow nerds? Or maybe there's no nerds in the military who might? Or even that there might be no gay nerds in the military?
Here's a better idea for you. Shut the fuck up.
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
You must never have served. There have always been gays in the service, usually left alone if they do their jobs.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
There wasn't much "telling" going on, but there was a lot "asking", more like outing going on. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was just a mechanism to run witch hunts.
Whether you agree with DADT or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority. Shut down Guantanamo Bay, get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and do something about the economy and deficit. Then I won't view this debate as an utter waste of congress' time. In the meantime, this is just a wedge issue that Republicans can use to gain midwestern support, much like gay marriage was for Bush in '04. I doubt Obama even personally cares about this issue -- he just cares about the money he gets from the homosexual interest groups. This hardly changes anything. Now gay service members can talk about being gay. Whoop-di-do. I'd rather they be safe at home and not be allowed to talk about their sexuality than serving in hostile territory allowed to talk about it. It just doesn't matter if DADT is right or wrong, it's nowhere near as wrong as putting these soldiers in harm's way unnecessarily. Obama pretended to be outraged by these wars and Guantanamo Bay on the campaign trail, what happened to that?
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
It really would be good for California to form it's own country. We would be much better off socially, financially, etc. California's economy as a nation would be about 9th in the world.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Any votes on how long the policy lasts after someone 'transgendered' files a lawsuit requesting permission to live in the opposite-sex barracks and wear the opposite-sex uniform?
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
DADT doesn't change that at all.
The military as a whole would be better off, and you'd be free to explore your insecurities. Win-Win!
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Hey lets be honest.. I can't go shower with the female soldiers.. why should the gay ones be allowed to shower with people they are sexually attracted to..
I'd rather have the gays in the military than the homophobes. At least then they'd all believe in the freedom they're fighting for.
But if you get rid of every homophobic soldier, will you have enough gay/non-homophobic volunteers to replace them? I doubt it.
Furthermore, is being uncomfortable around gays while naked really homophobic? Why don't men and women shower together in the military? The same reason most straight men would feel uncomfortable showering with another man they knew to be gay.
The Bigoted White Men party would never have passed this if this'd had to wait until January or later. I mean, as it is only six GOP senators voted for the thing, out of forty-one, and only about what, twenty? in the House did.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Out with "An Army of One" and in with "We're Fabulous!"
Conservative, mod down for violating
There are also some people who hate dark-skinned people, some people who hate poor people, some people who hate women, some people who hate foreigners...
Lets put on a SUPER don't ask don't tell policy - then we could have everyone operating in 1 man teams - so everyone gets along with everyone.
I don't see any opinions, though I do fail to see how this falls under "stuff that matters". The world will keep turning just the same and we'll keep fighting pointless wars just the same, regardless of whether or not you can openly say "I'm gay" while being in the military.
Taking a long view, you might notice that non-issues like "flag-burning" and "gays in the military" and "embryonic stem cells" always come up whenever a distraction is needed. You can make any non-issue seem like a big deal worthy of national attention if you let the media run with it and repeat it ad nauseum.
Usually this happens when we're in the middle of the pointless wars that you mention. It doesn't usually happen in the beginning of the pointless war. In the beginning of those, the politicians and media beat the drums of patriotism and nationalism, for at that moment this is the party line. They pretend like they are accountable and need to justify the actions they're going to take anyway, that way the voters feel like they matter. The truth is they don't; the military-industrial complex is a hungry beast that demands to be fed. In the middle is where those justifications are found to be either total bullshit or questionable at best (WMDs in Iraq) and the given reason is suddenly changed (we wanted to liberate them all along!). At that point a distraction is needed to pacify the masses. It's a really sophisticated, polished, professional way of saying "shut up and look over here!"
With Bush Sr. the flag-burning issue came up close to the same time as Desert Storm and Desert Shield. With Clinton, gays in the military came up about when he sent all those cruise missiles to Afghanistan and the Sudan. Now that same issue comes up again during this latest pointless war, and coincidentally enough Clinton makes a reappearance with Obama.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Err? How's some sort of Christian video with unclear objectives gay?
Wait, did I miss the joke?
That's what you get for letting religious fundamentalists make the laws. Things are the same as they were 100 years ago, just less public.
My friend once said that there's no one in the army who likes war, but someone has to be part of it and those people are who we call heroes, whether friend or foe (because it's subjective). On the battlefield, it doesn't matter who the person is, they are your brother/sister unless they are pointing their gun at you. We are all different and we should all be able to respect that and this is coming from someone who believes that republicans are the closest thing to good politics in a capitalist country. =/
Heterosexual men actually rape more men than homosexual men, but don't let facts mess with your homophobic views!
Dilbert RSS feed
California's problems are in large part because of its absurd constitution which created one of the most worthless political systems in the democratic world.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Whether a person loves or hates "freedom" depends on who is defining freedom and how they choose to define it.
After all "homophobe" is a pejorative label given to one group by their detractors.
"The conduct of neither [party], if strictly examined, will be irreproachable." -Elizabeth Bennet
You and me both. I'm starting to wish the Confederates won. The US covers such a huge geographical and political area that it just seems that everything turns into stagnation. Why should we force California and Maine to abide by something that the Deep South thinks is their moral right and vice versa?
Let things be managed on a state and local level. Not only will you have more of a chance for your voice to be heard, you may actually listen to the other side. If me and my neighbor have a disagreement I'm going to care more about it than if me and someone 3000 miles away disagree on something.
I had a chance to meet some Europeans and the topic turned to politics and they asked me what I would do to fix the US and I gave them the local powers speech. They had never heard of it before. The EU has some laws, but quite a bit is left up to the individual countries. (Well, compared to the US vs States). I asked them how they would feel if Germany and France shoved through litigation to ban something that they (being from Norway) cared absolutely nothing about.
California wouldn't have nearly as big of a budget deficit(about half if projections are right) if the federal government would man up and either control illegal immigration or would have allowed Prop 187 to stand.
The Sharia punishment for sodomy is death by stoning. We are fighting enemies who are deep believers in Sharia law in Afghanistan and Iraq. What will happen to the first openly gay US soldiers who gets kidnapped by the enemy in Afghanistan? I predict beheading videos. I think it's not wise to be openly gay when fighting wars in the middle East.
Which is why he called the mid-term elections a "shellacking" and also why Congress' approval rating is at the lowest it has ever been.
OMG slashdot is approaching two million accounts.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Are you kidding? What we need is better citizens.
You must admit that this is not about equal rights, but about about getting more bodies to help blow shit up.
America is headed toward a state of perpetual war, but still has an all-volunteer force. Nobody would support or comply with another draft.
And how much of that is due to the fact that California has completely free and unencumbered trade with the rest of the US, along with the full benefit of whatever programs the federal government provides and the treaties/status that the federal government is due? Many times these claims completely ignore that, while there are costs associated with being a part of the union, there are also massive benefits to state economies.
...said one Anonymous Coward to another.
See how I took your land there and made it my land? Clever, ain't it?
Now you get the fuck out of MY country before I try out my fascist-killing machine on you. And it sure as fuck ain't a guitar.
cocksucker
Anti-Incumbent moods tend to affect the party that has the most incumbents in congress worse than the other party. The problem was that most Democrats sat at home, nothing more.
Congress' approval has nothing to do with who is leading congress or what they do pass, but more to do with the partisanship level and the public tolerance of the partisanship... that shows through because people still love their congress men/women far greater than the over all congressional approval.
There was a time when there were no lack of people who hated blacks in the military, and yet, in the end, they had to accept it or leave. It's a volunteer force. If you don't like the rules, don't enlist. It's also not a democracy. Soldiers do what they're civilian masters tell them, whether it's an enlisted guy or one of the Joint Chiefs.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No, a Confederate victory would have continued slavery for what, another decade or two, lead to more intervention the western hemisphere, and following slavery, how long would segregation have lasted?
Remember, southern states wanted Cuba and Haiti annexed, intervention and take over of Central America.
So you are arguing that because South Carolina wanted to keep blacks, and any whites who were even 1/32 black, as slaves or for a few third class citizens, and Maine and California thought those people should be free, that the country would have been better off with that "state's right" approach?
"States-rights" when talking about the United States from 1789 to 1865 means you support slavery of blacks.
Why in the world would you think any gay soldiers would be sexually attracted to you?
Quite frankly, given the juvenile perspective on sexuality you're displaying here, I'd be stunned if anyone would be sexually attracted to you.
glad your following along...
but that article is about english gays..I mean evereyone over there smokes fags
federalism
You're not using the word federalism correctly. It doesn't mean "centralization of everything", it means "centralization of only certain well-defined things". It means "separation of powers".
But, you're right, it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked for exactly the reasons spelled out in the Anti-Federalist Papers, that the central government would ignore any limits and grow without bound. That's the glaring flaw of federalism.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
cmon.. bootsy I am HOT.. dudes dig me.. aint my fault.
What the fuck does this have to do with tech? You can't even stretch this one.
And then the California agriculture industry would collapse.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Moving isn't always so easy. Obviously the choice is there, but our lives aren't blank slates. People can have family or relationships they won't leave or lack the resources to start somewhere new. Not criticizing, just pointing out.
Just like Starship Troopers!!!
This same bullshit happened twice already. Negroes in the Army..Oh Noes..its the end!! Women in the Army..our forces are doomed. Openly gay Gays in the Army. There will be a bit of friction and then the Army will adjust OK. Anyhow it's nice to see the bigots are now out and the gays are in.
Seriously, if somebody wants to pick up a rifle and go defend my cowardly ass, why on earth would I care who they sleep with when they're on leave.
This is an issue ONLY because its so useless.
They get to look like they're doing something. Without actually doing anything. Just invoke the word GAY and it will keep the media busy for a month or three.
Hell it even made slashdot.
Now they can get back to giving the gays dishonorable discharges like they used to. Thanks Obama!
You're starting? Better late than never, I guess. (Then again, I guess I don't know your age, maybe I'm projecting bad assumptions.)
I'm a Hoosier, and a Yankee born and raised, and I've been wishing that for five or ten years -- basically I turned eighteen, aimed to vote, and had to make up my mind on who/what to vote for, and suddenly I found that my youthful blind patriotism and acceptance of a nation as it was just wasn't adequate. The big realization that we'd be better had the CSA won took a while to come about, but in the end I can't argue with it.
Please tell me you're trying to be funny.
Why? Are you afraid that the gay guy discharges in you?
We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
I believe I used it correctly. You know the ever-growing and ever-more-powerful federal government that increasingly intrudes into intrastate affairs and the daily lives of citizens? Yeah, that's the opposite of how I would define federalism. Re-read my post please. I said that the increasing centralization of power is what constitutes the abandonment of federalism.
Two points there. One, the Founders intented the people, as in "We the People" to be the ultimate check on governmental power. We have the situation we face today precisely because we're a bunch of whimpering sheeple who just want our shiny new consumer toys and football games and have allowed politics to decay into the false dichotomy of "Left vs. Right".
Two, it was the states which created the federal government and enough states could get together and hold a new Constitutional Convention to re-create it as well. You'll never see it on the mainstream news but several states have become so fed up (no pun intended) that they are beginning to declare their sovereignty and to refuse certain federal mandates. The only reason why so few have done it and it has not been such a major issue is that the states are too dependent on federal funding, and have little power for all of the reasons that the crackhead has little power over the drug pusher.
A third point could be made, though it's an ugly one. It was the opinion of the Founding Fathers, based on their understanding of history, that "the natural progression of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" as Jefferson put it. To them, it is inevitable that even the most freedom-loving nations will eventually decay into tyrannies. It is like a form of entropy. In my opinion, they didn't view themselves as the very first group to halt this process and produce a nation of everlasting freedom. Instead, I think they viewed themselves as stacking the deck in favor of the people as much as possible.
So, to borrow a phrase, I'd say that federalism based on a representative republic is the worst form of government except for all the others we've tried. The Anti-Federalist Papers merely point out that it isn't perfect and cannot stop the inevitable progression of patterns that repeat throughout history. Still, it has worked where it has been tried and I think we can agree that usurping power away from the states and from the people is the opposite of trying it.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
No, California's economic problems stem from a number of factors:
There are probably plenty of other things that I'm not thinking of right now. Notice that none of these have much, if anything, to do with California's constitution.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Oh please. They're soldiers. If they can't follow the simple command of "treat gay soldiers the same as others", they are too weak-willed to call themselves soldiers.
Not to mention the fact that allowing gays to serve openly in other countries (Israel, Australia, and many others) has been described as "remarkable uneventful".
Gays -- yes.
Gay sex -- no.
(Also most varieties of straight sex -- no.)
An odd juxtaposition, but surely an improvement? Everyone just pretends to be a gay cleric under a Friar Tuck-ish vow of celibacy...
If one person's freedom includes anothers, that person's freedom is superior, as far as freedom goes.
Homophobes lose on that basis. They are still free to be assholes in a society that refuses to codify their bigotry, but gays are not free to determine their own destiny in a society codified with homophobia.
the two are not equal.
You could extend this argument to pedophiles and others, of course. But then you fall on the "consenting adults of sound mind" clause, so let's not bother having that conversation.
Where's it going to go? California's agriculture industry will do fine since people need food regardless. The Imperial Valley is responsible for an enormous amount of offseason produce in the US
Sorry, but the site is "news for nerds" not "news for gay nerds". If this topic is so important, why has slashdot never posted a story about this before this?
I thought so. Checkmate, I win, you lose again. You are my bitch.
if he's got a virgin butt hole, it won't be for long. The only people who rage against homosexuality are those who struggle with their own homosexuality.
it's sad, really. I hope he finds some peace before he hurts someone.
Why is this on /.?
Prior to DADT, the rule was no gays in the military, period. If this were a repeal of the policy, it would mean returning to that. This new law goes further IN THE SAME DIRECTION as DADT.
Isn't that precisely what you're afraid the gays will do?
That video is garbage, badly done and not funny. Surely you could come up with something better.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Who said anything about virgin? The guy is probably banging his favorite homophobic senators on the side.
I don't think they would be able to enlist in the first place. The US military has a pretty thorough medical examination process. They poked and prodded me all over the place- hiding a few extra body parts would have been completely out of the question.
I'm not saying that transgender rights (and rights to serve) aren't important, just that they're not the ticking timebomb you seem to think they are.
The largest percentage of illegal immigrants (most of whom don't pay taxes)
That's bogus. They pay sales tax, they pay property tax via rents and the ones who work with fake papers pay income tax via withholding and fica and they don't get refunds or social security. The ones who work under the table make so little that they would probably qualify for the tax credits and other services given to the working poor if they were legit.
Look, we all know the truth: he's a closeted queer who is overcompensating in a pathetic attempt to hide his love for the cock. All his post really is is an admission that he hopes with this repeal this his fellow soliders will ass fuck him.
I believe I used it correctly.
Ah, I see. Yes, my mistake, I glossed over part of one of your sentences. Personally, I wouldn't describe it as an "abandonment of federalism" but I can see how that makes sense.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
We don't need straight soldiers. We need soldiers who can shoot straight.
The stupid is strong with you.
Alan Turing wasn't some random gay person "working with technology." He fucking invented it.
Douchebag.
--
BMO
Hehe, at first I thought that it said "Santa Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" I think I should go get my eyes checked
China also has a large government, and it is able to move very quickly to embrace new technology and fund development. The reason for this is that it isn't the size of the system, but the way the system works. China moves unilaterally, so it can just go ahead and do whatever the government wants. The U.S. has a safer approach, but it requires deliberation, but when two parties are locked in place, and they have mutually conflicting goals, of course it's terribly inefficient. Nobody can agree on anything, so nothing gets done. It's a horrible system, and the agility of other countries like China, in developing high speed rail, for example, makes the U.S. look like a third world country. What do we expect when both parties are screeching the same slogans they were 30 years ago? The rest of the world is passing us by, because we were too dumb to look around and comprehend the actual situation. In my state, the newly-elected governor sent back federal money which would have developed high speed rail between the two largest cities in the state. He did this as a political stunt to make his point about small government, and yet this money was just sent to other states that actually were going to continue with their programs. What a joke.
Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
I'll bet in due time they will complain about not enough recruits to send to the war and they will want to wish they hadn't repealed the law. If the gays want to enlist, then let them. If they can get pass boot camp, then they are worthy of being a soldier for the military.
Any votes on how long the policy lasts after someone 'transgendered' files a lawsuit requesting permission to live in the opposite-sex barracks and wear the opposite-sex uniform?
You realize that 'gay' and 'transgendered' are unrelated categories, don't you? Policy regarding gays is a separate issue from policy regarding transgendered people.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I can find nothing in the linked article that says that homosexuals can not openly serve. In fact, the very first sentence says:
So is TFS wrong?
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Why is it up to "the military leaders" to decide whether or not to treat people with the rights they're granted under the constitution? Here's what happens. We tell our leaders that we want people's rights supported, whether it's race or sex or religion or whatever else. They tell the military to obey those, as per the entire foundation of the country they keep bragging about fighting to protect. THEY tell the troops to obey this. The troops shut the fuck up and do as they're told, like they're trained from day one through boot camp.
>> It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.
I agree. After personally witnessing the current state of 'democracy' in my home country (India), and seeing (over last eight years) how US political system is really distancing common folks from those in the Senate and the House (esp in light of Obama's inability [or something else] to go with his promises), I think success of a democracy is inversely proportional to number of people in the state/country.
Beyond certain numbers, it is impossible to limit centralization of power and hence losing the goal of democracy by removing 'common folks' from decision making.
China's 'success' may be attributed to absence of democracy. India keeps on struggling on many fronts, and the US is steadily losing it's stronghold on technology, science and other similarly important aspects.
but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate gays.
Then they should STFU, GTFO, and do something else.
There have been gays in uniform that were openly gay in Afghanistan since the first day of invasion - they're NATO troops from other countries like Canada. Do you think an American lieutenant would take shit from a lance corporal that didn't want to go on patrol with "that faggot from Holland"? Really? You think that would fly?
Sure. There are people who would have problems with it. There were also people who had problems with blacks being integrated and women in uniform. If they couldn't do their jobs because of bigotry, then they got kicked out, deservedly so. Truman certainly didn't put up with any BS once he signed the executive order.
DADT was a complete failure. It endorsed discrimination and enabled witch hunts - the exact opposite of its initial rationale.
--
BMO
I haven't been following this whole thing very closely, but out of what I have heard, there's no talk about changing the UCMJ to allow homosexuality. As of right now, homosexuality is prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice as such:
"Text.
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Explanation.
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal."
So until this restriction is removed, you may be "allowed" to "be" gay, but they can still jail you or fine you or kick you out for actually acting on it.
Yes, we call these "states". They each can have their own laws, too.
I'm a 2000 man.
Canadian Military Changes Transgender Policy
"Under the new policy, Canadian soldiers are instructed to wear the uniform of their “target” gender, regardless of their biological sex. Military personnel are also instructed to give transgender soldier privacy and respect for their decision — for example, not asking reasons when a soldier changes his or her name on military records. "
I asked them how they would feel if Germany and France shoved through litigation to ban something that they (being from Norway) cared absolutely nothing about.
That's exactly what happens. E.g. the three strikes law being forced down countires laws that don't want it and being fined for not implementing it, due to germany the uk and france pushing it through.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Where's it going to go? It's going to go and price itself right out of the market. Thanks to the global market and technology shenanigans that have been played with food, food production for export/shipment just can't function without near-slavery wages on the fields. If you really want to end illegal immigration, you should be focusing on ending food export/shipment, dismantling NAFTA, and ending the War on Drugs.
Why is that juvenile? What reason is there against coed showers if not for reasons relating to sexuality? In which case, should straight guys not have the same protection from lustful homosexual male eyes as straight women do from straight men?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
As a soldier, I hope you get shot and killed.
The fact you are a rapist makes it that much worse.
(Takes a rapist to assume everyone else around you is also a rapist, which you just stated was your major worry)
PS. Fuck you, get out of our army.
Har. Yes, let's have the fun of spending a different currency each time we cross a state border. Or of having to go through immigration when I want to take a job in another state.
Or you want to keep the same currency without a strong central government? I don't get the impression that's working out so great for Europe at the moment....
What wars have we won since that happened? Just sayin' ;)
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
Besides, what's needed to dodge draft? Just go there with a buddy and start making out, presto you're out.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So you're assuming that there are no gay nerds who might have interest in discussing this story with their fellow nerds?
Why would you need to be gay to have interest in discussing this story? It's one of the biggest events in civil rights in years. Slowly people are realizing they have friends and family that are gay and there's nothing wrong with them, it's a natural part of life. No matter what the Phelpsies and other fundamentalists that twist their religion and ignore large swaths of it in order to justify their persecution of gay people say, people are beginning to accept that being gay isn't wrong. There's a long way to go, but progress starts somewhere.
Also, don't feed the critters.
While it's granted that people who admit to doing something that sounds unusual or strange can be distracting, where, exactly, do they get the idea that people who openly admit to being homosexual is going to be any more distracting than anyone else who openly admits to doing anything that other people around them might not necessarily understand?
For example...
"I really enjoy vampire larping"
"I often wake up in the middle of the night to find I've been sleep-masturbating."
"Twilight was a good movie"
I mean, the list is endless. Who would not find any of the above remarks so alien to their own experience that they might find simply being around a person who admitted to any of the above too distracting to usefully concentrate?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Are you suggesting that each of the 50 US states should have their own military?
How's this going to end the wars?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
My guess is it isn't so virgin. Like all those Congress men who fight so hard against gays, and then turn out to be gay themselves. We hate most in others what we see in ourselves. Or perhaps the quote, "Methinks she doth protest too much!" fits better?
thank you for pausing to explain your rant. much appreciated....LOL
well played,
But gays can't follow the simple command of "don't talk about being gay"?
Not saying they shouldn't, but your argument reeks of double standard.
Somehow makes you wish one could identify a gay person by looking at him, then it would immediately become an issue.
DADT was basically a fig leaf to cover the issue and bury it. Fingers in the ears, lalala, I can't hear you, so it's no issue.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Too bad the civil rights movement and the end of DADT have nothing in common. When blacks were allowed to integrate, they went into places where they weren't allowed previously. With DADT, there are already gays in the military - there is no integration involved. The only thing that changes now is that they're allowed to be open about it.
Why is it up to "the military leaders" to decide whether or not to treat people with the rights they're granted under the constitution
No one has the right to go into the military if they are not what the military wants, or else all the differently-abled (or whatever the current term for "halt, deaf, or dumb" is) would volunteer, just for the free medical care. That is why my one-time office mate could not get into Air Force pilot training, due to less than 20/20 vision uncorrected.
Also, the Constitution doesn't grant rights, merely withholds them from the Federal Government, but that is just being picky.
Anyway, the logical thing would be to return to the rules from the time of that notoriously bisexual general, Gaius Julius Caesar, and ignore any supposed or claimed homosexual tendencies and execute those convicted of homosexual actions (and camping it up like Liberace doesn't count, unless there was buggering as well).
The only people who rage against homosexuality are those who struggle with their own homosexuality.
Do the only people who rage against blacks struggle with their own blackness too?
Men who hate women are actually women?
Obviously not, so why would it be true for people against homosexuality?
Then how come just about every gay rights group is some variation of a "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered" rights group?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Not for long. The ultimate goal is that the military will eventually be acclimated to homosexuals openly serving in their ranks. Kissing your homie would probably only lead to a PDA(public display of affection) slap on the wrist, if done in uniform, if even that. The logical extension of your suggestion would be to admit being a zoophile and have a small stash of bizarre but harmless cartoon furry porn in case they want proof.
There was a recent military poll across all branches that indicates that 59% of Marines who served in combat oppose homosexuals serving. The commandant has hinted that as much as 95% of marines either oppose or feel uncomfortable with homosexuals serving. So the Devil-Dogs are the toughest, craziest, most macho force on the face of the earth and they're skeered of OMG TEH GAY?!
FYI, heh, I know a guy who was married and wanted out so he told his commander that he was bisexual. Worked like a charm, no harm, no foul.
I love the way that as long as you tack the word "reform" onto something, it can automatically be considered good by so many people even if you're actually making things worse. Gotta love that word. It is on one hand meaningless, and on the other politically expedient, for what kind of horrible person would be against "reforming" something?
So you're saying you're attracting gays? Have you ever heard of gaydar?
Makes one wonder...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's against my principles to reply to an old troll (check his comment history if you don't believe me), but it seems there are people who actually agree with you.
Turing has nothing to do with this policy. He wasn't in the military. That Turing saved more lives than anyone else in WW2 is certainly a claim strong enough to require evidence, but you didn't even bother to provide an explanation. By showing a connection to the outcome of the war, you're trying to imply that this policy would have affected him or has affected others like him. Obviously, DADT is not a policy that directly affects civilians.
Of course, the worst part of your argument is that Turing had a very productive life despite the laws and cultural prohibitions against homosexuality of his time. You might suppose that he would have been more productive in a more free society, but that's not a conclusion that you can draw from Turing's life. We learn from him that it's possible to excel and even found new scientific disciplines in the face of policies like these.
You then try again to imply that a policy specifically for military personnel will effect civilians. Yes, the military spends vast amounts on research, but it's research performed by civilians. You haven't shown any connection between research or researchers and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
There are real reasons to be sympathetic to homosexuals in the military. There is no reason to resort to idiocy in the defense of a perfectly reasonable position.
Not too mention what he's alluding to is rape. Maybe he should be worried if the military history on addressing rape cases is taken into account.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I think you have a good point. The Federal government should leave the states to do more. The situation in California is particularly dire. We have fairly progressive government but the budget is seriously constrained. The Federal government takes much more in taxes from California than it returns (to the tune of about 30 billion dollars a year). If California could keep this money, we would have a state budget surplus and could fully fund education, roads, health care, etc.
There are two criticisms to make here. First, I see the problem being too much spending rather than not enough revenue. California spends money on a lot more things than the necessary. Like most governments, if their revenue expanded, then I see them expanding spending and maintaining their deficit in the process. Not that I care. I wrote off the state long ago.
Second, if California can't use its political power to get a bigger share of the federal pie, then that's California's fault for being poor bargainers. I don't think it's fair to the other states to allow California that money without some display of competence.
I don't know why it is this way. All I know is it is freakishly common for ardent anti-homosexuals to end up being exposed as homosexuals. Probably because it's possible to hide being a homosexual.
I suppose they may also be incredibly insecure, small minded morons like woman haters, or black haters too. Flip a coin, then.
I agree with you, regarding population sizes. Even Canada, which is a village compared the US, should be smaller. We could still work together, but people need more political space, so that it is easier to do stuff.
testing out my trending skills
Alan Turing was NOT a soldier, nor should he have been (since soldiers are potentially cannon fodder). There are almost certainly gay civilian employees in the DoD outside of the 5 services. Unit cohesion is not necessary on the civilian side of things (barring a repeat of the Pentagon attack of 9/11) even though vital for combat units.
I know how you feel. I'm starting to wish Hitler had won, too.
Actually I'd say slavery would have continued maybe another 20 years, because the machines of the north would have made slaves worthless since you don't have to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care for the machine which also doesn't need rest. For an example look at how nearly all work required the use of a horse and then suddenly almost overnight horses simply weren't needed, or how much of the jobs on assembly lines are being taken by robots. As for what happened afterward I really wouldn't have been surprised if without the animosity that came from losing a war if the south would have supported one of the "freedmen for Africa" movements which were quite popular at the turn of the 20th century, and one could argue whether or not the blacks of America would have been better off in their own country but one can't argue it could have been worse than Jim Crow or even life in the slums today. How sad that MLK has his name attached to a street that even the cops won't go down in most cities.
As for TFA as someone with a gay child I was actually for DADT, simply because it gave at least one (the other is in med school and should be there for quite awhile) from being possibly drafted. Anybody who thinks this will actually give gays any real rights like civil unions is delusional, this is simply a way for the corporation....errr...I mean the government, to help deal with losses thanks to two wars the public doesn't support. I have friends in the military and some are looking at 6th and 7th deployments. Whereas before if you got hit it was a purple heart and a trip home they now have soldiers with artificial limbs still on active duty. They can talk about recruitment during a recession but the local recruiters are hitting the streets every damned day and offering every incentive short of hookers and blow and simply can't make their numbers. This and the talk of allowing illegals in in return for citizenship is nothing but a way to deal with depleted manpower thanks to Bush giving us Viet Nam x2 and Obama being more wishy washy than Carter.
But if you think this gets us even a millimeter closer to allowing civil unions or anything else that would actually benefit gay people I have a really nice bridge to sell you. As long as the evangelicals stand on their pulpits and spew hate for anyone that isn't like them you can give that up. Funny how that is THE SAME PLACE where we saw so much "God made us better than the nigger!" speech against civil rights, huh?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
What a goddamn pussy!
The military would be much better off without a weak-willed douche like you. If you can't handle gay people, you have no business protecting the nation.
You know, as much as I find homophobia to be disturbing, I really don't like that argument. I don't mean to pick on you in particular, but the broader oft-repeated argument that you've given here. I think it demonstrates a more subtle homophobia among those who purport to be the allies (or at the very least, neutral associates) of gay people. I mean, it boils down to saying: "Homophobia is just so gay. That's why I'm not a homophobe: I wouldn't want anyone thinking I'm gay, after all. Because being gay would be ba...oooooh, you nearly caught me". It also has an odd form of no-true-Scotsman-ship to it, where "true" straight people are never dicks about others' sexuality.
And yes, I know it does sometimes happen. But really, he probably isn't gay. He's just a giant asshole* who thinks what other people do is any of his business, and seems to believe that all men are likely rapists, or at least, all men who are attracted to him. And people act surprised when women are on their guard -- yikes, they have to deal with ten times as many men attracted to their sex, men who naturally span the range of human morality from saint to actual rapists.
* I really have to resist making the obvious joke here that would undermine my point :)
You a'int going to have better citizens if retards are running you. If you meant you needed better voters, that would have been correct, as you have truly stupid voters who vote in imbecile and corrupt leaders.
I'm not sure. I've got experience with some very very corrupt local authorities. I get to thinking that government is fractal. As above, so below. It's people that are the problem.
I think of someone like the ultra-corrupt Joe Arpaio. I'm glad there's a federal justice department to kick his sorry ass.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate gays. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy wasn't about discrimination by their superiors, it was about discrimination by their peers. You're not allowed to ask someone if they're gay, and you're not allowed to tell someone if you're gay, and if you do either you will be met with disciplinary action. That was to prevent being discriminated against by the people you work with in the potentially-life-endangering industry of violence and death that is the military.
This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate Catholics. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy wasn't about discrimination by their superiors, it was about discrimination by their peers. You're not allowed to ask someone if they're Catholic, and you're not allowed to tell someone if you're Catholic, and if you do either you will be met with disciplinary action. That was to prevent being discriminated against by the people you work with in the potentially-life-endangering industry of violence and death that is the military.
This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate Swedes. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy wasn't about discrimination by their superiors, it was about discrimination by their peers. You're not allowed to ask someone if they're Swedish, and you're not allowed to tell someone if you're Swedish, and if you do either you will be met with disciplinary action. That was to prevent being discriminated against by the people you work with in the potentially-life-endangering industry of violence and death that is the military.
This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate blacks....
I trust you can see where I'm going with this.
And yet California still sends tax money to bail out shit holes like South Carolina or Alaska.
First you trumpet "states' rights" and then you suggest California should secede. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either you have a republic or you don't.
Personally, I think all the blue states like California should secede. I'm tired of sending my tax money to the crackers in red states. They're bringing down the average. Let Texas, Arizona, Louisiana (post-Katrina), South Carolina, etc go. I'll get a passport if I should ever want to go there. But I guess having one third world country on our southern border is plenty. We don't need a half dozen more.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sex Discrimination Laws are not based on sexual PREFERENCE. Being Gay is not a protected class, that I know of.
I am not a homophobe, and even if I am so what... I do not want to see two mentally abnormal people in public displays of affection. Where are all the evolutionists? Homosexuals cannot be acceptable in an evolutionary sense as they could not procreate and pass along their genes. And thats a good thing.. homosexuals serve NO PURPOSE in nature. Its a mental defect that only lasts the life of the individual.
As a former servicemember I cannot think of anyone who was a mo. They all had wives or girlfriends. So if they were in the closet (due to their abnormal mental need to have homosexual relations) then they lied and deserve all the punishment the get for enlisting and lying about it.
A very small percentage of the population has ever served, and of the small percentage and even TINIER percentage will ever see combat. Of all the stresses and turmoils of war, the last thing and soldier should have to think about is sexual orientation of the guy in the fox hole with him.
I stand by my statement that homosexuals are mentally abnormal, and fit for service.
It's already done. At the produce store this week, I bought oranges from South Africa, grapefruit from Chile, etc etc.
We need to just tear up any treaty that has the words "free trade" in it. It's just code for feudalism.
You are welcome on my lawn.
They not only pay taxes, but since they're excluded from collecting social security, medicaid, medicare or welfare, they get very little back for their money.
Illegal immigrants do a lot more for this country than we do for them.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If one person's freedom includes anothers, that person's freedom is superior, as far as freedom goes
This depends on one's definition of "freedom" and "superior" which is my entire point.
To say that group A believes in freedom while group B does not is entirely dependent on who gets to define what freedom actually is.
"The conduct of neither [party], if strictly examined, will be irreproachable." -Elizabeth Bennet
It's not too late to let them secede. The union states would be a lot better off without all the dead weight.
You are welcome on my lawn.
California's problem is not that it is giving too much away to the federal government.
California's problem is that it is so horribly, impossibly mismanaged that it makes the Feds look as well-run as the government of Iceland. "Washington" is a fairly dirty word. "Sacramento" is an even dirtier word than that.
The BIGGEST problem in California?
Proposition 13. The idiots voted to not really pay property taxes anymore, and so state revenues are thoroughly dependent on sales tax; and guess what happens to sales tax when the economy tanks and everybody stops buying anything?
And, of course, outside the Wal-Mart in Orange right before I fled the state before it could destroy me, there's a guy marching around with a poster talking about how Californians pay too much property tax...
Some say you get the government you deserve...
Dammit, what kind of sexual pervert do I have to be now to dodge the draft? Ain't it enough that I had a cluster fuck with the CO's cluster fig?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hate to derail a good rant, but that was 60 years ago in a different country and not under DADT. Wildly irrelevant.
And yes, this is not a story that should be on slashdot. Interesting and relevant? Of course! But how many other sites cover this? Oh, I dunno, all of them? When Slashdot becomes CNN jr, it's time to close up shop.
Given the scale of the US political system I am amazed anything gets done at all.
Congress was "compelled" to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell because there is more than one lawsuit in federal courts and it was thought the courts would rule the policy unconstitutional. Both military brass and politicians believed that if the courts did rule that way it could cause more harm than if politicians ended the policy.
I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities. It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.
I want as little government as possible, and most of the government is best at the local level. Regional, "national", and international courts would decide on disputes between different areas then.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
There are probably plenty of other things that I'm not thinking of right now. Notice that none of these have much, if anything, to do with California's constitution.
As a proud and native Californian I'll tell you this right off the bat: Too many skilled and a much more disproportionately huge amount of unskilled douches from other states and countries with bartender and actress fantasies are watching too much MTV Spring Break specials and moving here and overcrowding us, driving up property costs of housing big and small while polluting our culture.
They're kinda like illegal immigrants, except that illegal immigrants are in touch with reality because they have felt some pain in their lives.
As for the housing bubble? Good. No way in hell I'm paying half a mil for a modest house. In the November 11th issue of the San Diego reader, the cover story caption was, "IN 8 years, home prices went from $320,000 to $750,000 and back." Good. It sucks here. Let that be a lesson to you all: Don't move to California if you're not accepting a job from Google or Oracle.
We need to just tear up any treaty that has the words "free trade" in it. It's just code for feudalism.
On that, we can definitely agree.
Gays did follow that command for a long time. I have trouble seeing how you could possibly construe this is a "double standard". What is it gays can do that straight people cannot?
That guy doesn't have a virgin butt hole. Any guy who's that upset about homosexuality has at least had his finger up his butt while masturbating, or maybe more, and the secret shame is driving him crazy. He probably tries not to look at the dicks in porn, too, but fails at that, as well.
Men don't shower together in the military! This "shower together" meme is stupid, yet rich with homoerotic subtext. Is that what people think of the military? All day, a bunch of guys getting wet and soapy under a stream of hot water? I was in the Marines and the only time there was a group shower was the 3 months of boot camp, where you are so sick and exhausted, EVERY DAY, that you don't even wake up with a morning boner, much less have the energy to perv on guys in the shower. Everywhere else there are individual showers. I was on a tiny FOB in northern Iraq, living in tents and we built a shower stall, rather than some sort of group shower. Why are straight men afraid to shower with gay guys anyway? Women have good reason to be leery of showering with guys. Aren't 99% of rapist men? Combine that statistic with the physical shape a man is required to be in while in the military and women don't stand a huge chance of resisting, do they? I found on Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, that 15% of the women coming back from the current wars and going to the hospital have been doing so because of "sexual trauma." Sounds like women have a good reason to be afraid of straight men. What good reason do straight men have to be afraid of the gays?
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
If this topic is so important, why has slashdot never posted a story about this before this?
It must be under the control of repressed homosexuals.
You are *VERY* wrong. This policy was a half-way marker. It essentially allowed gays to serve as long as they weren't officially vocal about it. The result was, gays were open with their colleagues, which imparted to members of the military what it was actually like to have gay service members; not just people you *think* are gay. DADT was a "technicallly no, practically go ahead and do it" policy. The end result is the military for the most part doesn't give a fuck. I'm pretty pissed at the rabid gay activists too short sighted to see what was being done for them.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The Federal government takes much more in taxes from California than it returns
While that may be true California would be in better shape if the government there hadn't increased spending as much as it did in the 1990's while the economy was booming. The state budget [pdf] in 1990-91 was $51,445.5 million, 2000-01 it was $96,381.5 million, and in 2010-11 it's $125,254.9 million.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I haven't heard a single resonant argument since gays in the military became an issue.
The opposition's arguments are the same arguments used to oppose desegregation in the military. The pro-segregation arguments have been trashed by sixty years experience.
When you think about it, the whole brouhaha is really stupid. Back in the sixties, during Vietnam, homosexuality was still a powerful taboo to almost all of male Americans (even the gay ones). Men went to Canada, when all they had to do to legally get out of going to war is express sexual orientation towards other men.
Time has passed this nonsense by. It would be seriously fucked if a young man could avoid the draft just by bringing a sex video of himself doing a sex act with another man. People would certainly avail themselves of that nowadays if the war was unpopular.
Those in power who want to send men into the meatgrinder of war surely have this on their mind. They don't want their manpower (cannon fodder) pool compromised by an easy way to avoid the draft.
There is no way around this if you want to have a fair draft that hits every man evenly. (And don't get me started on upper middle class deferments).
factors:
The largest percentage of illegal immigrants (most of whom don't pay taxes) of any state in the U.S.
Immigrants do pay taxes. They shop and pay sales tax. And they either own or rent property so they pay property tax. Illegal immigrants even pay income tax. Overall illegal immigrants pay more taxes than the cost of the benefits they get. And if all immigrants were to pay into Social Security without being able to collect it then Social Security would be solvent, have plenty of money for retiring Baby Boomers.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And yet California still sends tax money to bail out shit holes like South Carolina or Alaska
For your information: 1) California has a lover per capita GDP than Alaska and it's the California that is bankrupt and needs a bail out. 2) Of course coastal states with large population and major cities like LA or New York will have more trade and create more wealth overall than middle of nowhere states like Mississippi. It simple geography that makes California create more wealth, not anything special about "Californians". 3) California is a blue state mainly because of the large immigrant population and block voting by unions. More productive and more educated people are in California, the more likely they are to vote Republican (look at the exit polls for the last election, I think they are still up on CNN).
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
You're considered "talking" if someone snitches on you. Straight soldiers don't also live in fear of the army finding out they have girlfriends, as if the army is a jealous bitch.
You mean the regional governors would have direct control over their territories and fear will keep the local areas in line.... Fear of this...........battle.........station..... ?
All those apply to Texas and yet Texas is not bankrupt and is doing far better than California. Here is a reason you forgot to add to your list:
- High taxes that are driving businesses and productive individuals out of the state (and attracting leechers who don't pay taxes) and still don't bring enough income to cover the reckless spending that's been going on for decades
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
15% of the women in VA hospitals coming back from the wars are there from rape. I think women have a pretty good reason to not want coed showers.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
ALL the stories on the front page today are originated by "Timothy." Favorites much?
All those make things worse though. What has he done to make things better?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Alan Turing was gay. Therefore all news to do with gays, even if they have nothing to do with technology, belong in a technology forum. Is that your point?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
They can talk about recruitment during a recession but the local recruiters are hitting the streets every damned day and offering every incentive short of hookers and blow and simply can't make their numbers.
Recruiters certainly are not hitting the streets where I am. About a year ago I went to an Army recruitment office and asked them about enlisting, well because I already served, reenlisting. But I was too old.
This and the talk of allowing illegals in in return for citizenship is nothing but a way to deal with depleted manpower
Except that does not explain the Dream act. Yes it does allow illegal aliens to gain a pathway to citizenship by serving in the military, but it does the same for those who go to college for 2 years.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
We have citizens? I thought we're consumers.
>>execute those convicted of homosexual actions (and camping it up like Liberace doesn't count, unless there was buggering as well).
Uh, I think it should be the marines dressing like Liberace that should be punted out. Gay or not.
better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities
Yes, we call these "states". They each can have their own laws, too.
And if those states don't do what the feds want they may lose. Look at what the feds did with the REAL ID Act, the feds told the states that if they did not create new IDs that met the new national standards they would lose federal dollars.
Going on 6 years since it was passed and signed, it may be repealed soon. Twenty five states "approved either resolutions or binding legislation not to participate in the program".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
"Nobody would support or comply with another draft."???? Nobody except those who wanted a job, drivers license, school ID, loan, passport or pretty much anything that requires a SS#. Guess we'd also have a reverse immigration problem in both Mexico and Canada. Really just a waste of time, as I see the military cutting their numbers in the coming years making a draft highly unlikely unless global war breaks out.
Are you suggesting that each of the 50 US states should have their own military?
The states already do, they're called the National Guard and militias.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Men and women were pretty heroic in World War II and the Korean War, just to name two. DADT wasn't in effect back then. I bet that GLBT and everything else were serving in the military back then, too. Hard to believe, I know... But I guess we are somehow more professional because we don't allow gay people to serve?
Speaking of professional... You know what would happen if you did this in a business? You'd get your ass sued right off, and rightly so.
Love sees no species.
And I'd rather have the soldiers, leaders and politicians that want to put bullets in the enemy more than the enemy wants to put bullets in us. At least then we'd win a war for once. But that's not considered nice anymore so we have our leaders and politicians trying way hard "not to kill the enemy" and wondering why things are going bad on the battlefield.
I've seen those militaries overseas and I'm not impressed. I'd prefer we not become like those militaries.
"States' rights" when you're talking about the United States from after the Civil War to only a few decades ago also meant that, or at least that ou support segregation. "States' rights" has been a "dog whistle" term for decades for racism and segregation.
I'm inclined to agree, but if what you suggest is true, then why is said sorry-ass still seated in a position of power?
Unit cohesion is not necessary on the civilian side of things (barring a repeat of the Pentagon attack of 9/11) even though vital for combat units.
In combat sexual orientation doesn't matter much either. What does matter is if your left and your right is covered. What matters are the bullets whizzing overhead. The members of a fire team are like the fingers of a hand, they cover each other, a Band of the Hand. Though I didn't serve in combat, I did serve in the US Army. As a Small Arms Specialist, most commonly known as the infantry. My unit trained cadet officers and Rangers and trained with the Special Forces.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes, this includes gay people. The more liberated they feel, the more they will act on their instincts in inapproprate places.
I've been stuck with such a roomate, and it grows severely irritating that I just stopped staying at home or stayed in my room.
You may think me horrible, but I agree with the principle of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' from it.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
To say sex between an Adult and a child is wrong only because the child can't consent makes circumcision equally deplorable (I am aware that there are some that have the view it is evil/bad, I take no opinion) Really it also would be equal to piercing ears of a minor or cutting a kid's hair, they can't 'consent' to what is done to their bodies.
So you're referring to the U.S. recruiting non-citizens and giving them the prospect of citizenship if they serve an x-year tour of duty.
I dunno, is it really worth it? Foreigners don't have to worry about immigration paperwork or being blown to bits if they work on cruise ships.
As far as the U.S. military cutting their numbers goes, it's clear that the U.S. is planning a perpetual war state. Doesn't matter with who or when. The military is a business, businesses run the United States, and the latest business model is to recycle out those who have been there and now know better and put in their place naive and desperate foreigners. The DREAM act is yet another indication that the people running the country will outsource your position to a desperate immigrant who is still willing to do your job for 50% of your salary.
Except for the fact that the US no longer has a draft and no one in the DoD wants a draft since we've gone to a professional army.
But I support the elimination of the DADT and fully support integration of LGB soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. I'm also a registered Republican, I think elimination of DADT is a good thing and it'll move gay rights forward just like integration of the military in the late 40s did.
Yeah between giving me opportunities to trade health insurance companies, banks, giving me a tax cut last week, (sorry, no benefit on student loans), (oops, I didn't know the decision in advance, so only my Congressmen and Seantors profited in Thursday's moves in V and MA either by selling them short or by buying out-of-the-money put options), and I've missed out on a lot of opportunities by tinfoil-hatting my way out of the banking sector, although I've banked some pretty egregious coin in the automotive sector. So I'm willing to give the guy credit where credit's due. It's about the money for me; I didn't really give a damn either way about the social issues, and he just gave the 'Pubs two things to run on in 2012. It's been a profitable year.
Don't take that as a partisan rant; I'm nonpartisan, and I think both parties did a long-overdue right thing for the country today. But I don't for an attosecond think either of them did it because it was the right thing to do. The Dems did it because they had to save face for relenting on taxes. The Pubs let them do it because it was a fair tradeoff for the tax deal.
It's still a system of "Two parties, one cup," but for all its faults, sometimes it works. (But even that's OK - that's the point; warts and all, it was designed as a fault-tolerant system.)
As a former servicemember, please do file for a discharge, asshole. I don't want you in my military. Why the fuck did you sign up, anyway? Obviously it wasn't to protect this country. So get the fuck out of my armed forces.
You should probably beg to get released from your obligation sooner than later. Otherwise you're going to do something fucking stupid and get a dishonorable. And while I would laugh my ass off if you did, you may have someone depending on you such that getting a dishonorable would harm them. So at least do a favor for ONE person in your insignificant little life and TRY to keep your fucking mouth shut long enough to get a general discharge.
Did you even read the whole article? It specifically says that most male-male rapes are by gay men, but gang rapes are mostly done by heterosexual men with a serious ego problem. See paragraph 4 of said article. Was your comprehension that bad, or do you have an agenda other than the truth.
Breaking up the US would be stupid. We'd be throwing ourselves at the mercy of the rest of the world, to be pushed around by the great powers like all little states.
Play Command HQ online
Awesome use of scare quotes, but repealing DADT still leaves trans people in the dust. Ignoring the fact that (as someone mentioned below) trans people and gay people aren't the same thing (it's a Venn diagram with some overlap, just like straight and trans have some overlap) the US military will still be discriminating against trans people. Don't worry.
(How preventing a trans person like myself, with a tech background and a desire to serve her country, from entering military service helps keep our country safe is a whole different issue.),
PS - Is anyone else having trouble with the comment box? I wasn't able to paste properly,
And while I hate to mention Manning in the same breath as Turing (becuase the UK betrayed Turing; Manning betrayed the US: Turing stayed true to his oaths until his death, and Manning broke his oaths flagrantly, deliberately citing the chaos that's ensued as one of his motivations for leaking the data to Assange.)
But I can't shake the idea that if that farkwit Manning hadn't been so pissed about crap like DADT, maybe - just maybe - he wouldn't have been a security risk in the first place, much less the risk that gave rise to the second-place infowar story of 2010.
Thanks, Congress, for giving the military permission to close the door 6 months after 250,000 horses had already left the barn :(
California has had money problems no matter who has been running it. Idiots just have to get it through their heads that you can't collectively get something for nothing. Somebody has to pay the taxes somewhere. If not enough tax money comes in you get things like the internationally known joke which is the California electricity system.
Instead of actually doing something about it you get surprisingly well respected idiots blaming all the money problems on prison officers demanding higher wages. Unions are being blamed for destroying something which was broken before they got there. Actually taxing Hollywood would be a good start and there is nothing to lose because it's on the path to self-destruction anyway.
It is easy to see how you can make this mistake, but the issue is not so much that the military service members have adapted, it is that the current military service members were always more comfortable around openly gay colleagues. One must remember that the military force as a whole (excluding the upper leadership which accounts for a fraction of a percent of the total troops) are relatively young, 60% of most branches are under the age of 30, 80% of Marines are under the age of 30. This means that they have grown up in a culture that is more gay tolerant than the average member of the general population, a culture that embraces the gay lifestyle on television, in schools, etc. (at least embraces it compared to any time in the modern past). Much the same happened to the post school desegregation generation that I belong to (I started 1st grade just a handful of years after the local southern fairly small school district I grew up in was fully integrated), we grew up with less attention to the color of a persons skin, and more attention to who they were as individuals, sure there were still racial issues among my peers, but that were a pale shadow of the views from those just a decade older than us.
While I do agree with the idea that we are currently heading into a state of perpetual war (which will end, however, once the US is no longer the 800-pound hegemon in the room) I will point out that a sovereign nation-state does have a legitimate right and need for a defense force. Weather the current size of the US Armed Forces is appropriate for said defense force, is besides this specific point. Social change has to come from *somewhere* and the repeal of DADT, allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, will go a long way to allowing homosexuality be allowed in our society in general, outside of the military.
That the US military is currently involved in a pair of imbroglios that it shouldn't be, and being used in ways that it shouldn't be, and is being wielded as a policy tool in ways that it shouldn't be, is a separate (but on it's own, valid and worthy of discussion) issue
You'd think that would be so, since it's only fair. If homosexuals aren't allowed to serve, then they shouldn't be allowed to be drafted, right? Sadly, this wasn't the case. Expelling homosexuals from the military was suspended all the time when there were personnel shortages.
So, if you are openly gay, they would draft you anyway, send you to the front lines, and if you somehow survived, saved 10 lives, were a model soldier for years, got promoted up through the ranks, it didn't matter. They'd give you a dishonorable discharge as soon as you got back home.
Thanks for your service.
yea that was England dude, don't try to dump that shit on the US. I'm thinking you knew this and just conveniently left it out, because it didn't fit your message.
And Hitler was bisexual...
It doesn't matter. I think that the OP was trying to make the point that this isn't "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that matters".
I agree.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities.
Since about the middle of the Bush administration, I've come to the conclusion that we need decent and competent people in power.
Let's assume for a moment that yes, obtuse useless boobs vastly outnumber anyone with an ounce of brain power.
Decentalizing power will mean that more morons will be running things and those who should be running things are less able to do what's right.
Fuck that noise.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
well if other countries military does it, we should to right? extrapolate that out a second and think about why that's a retarded reason to do something.
You can't tell me I should be REQUIRED to shower with someone who finds my gender sexually attractive?? by that reason women should have to shower with men in the military. And don't even start on you're calling everyone a homophobe with me, very far off the mark.
When I was outside the wire in iraq I didn't give a shit. I'll take a good TC gay dude over a shitty homophobe TC any day of the week, and vice versa. And to say just because someone is a homophobe they don't believe in freedom, nor would they fight for it, fucking retarded. I was probably one of the most "gay friendly" dudes in my unit. I'd say at least 20% were about the same. There were however a good share (mostly older) people you would call homophobes. Didn't affect a fucking thing, and it won't when DADT is really over. It will however cause more paperwork, more people getting their walking papers for behavioral problems (both gay and straight). I've had around 4-5 gay friends in the military, and only one was even remotely the "flaming" type. The problem would be if tons of that type join up and want to act a way that is not military in manner. They won't be bounced for being gay - they will be bounced for not conforming.
I am sorry to pick on your particular post here, but enough is enough, What is it with people that think that if someone has a problem with a gay person or even the gay life style that they must be a homophobe, or alternatively a closet homosexual? Why can't people have opinions about the issues, morality , practicality, etc.
Now before you go labelling me one of the above let me state my stance on a few issues:
I am against legalized gay marriage, I have several reasons, but I am also against legalized straight marriage, I think marriage should be in the domain of the churches, government should have nothing to do with it (other than perhaps, and only perhaps to act as a registration agent), let people manage their own interpersonal relationships, form their own contracts signed or not, with their own choice of exit clauses. Get government out of the whole marriage/divorce treadmill.
I can see where there could be issues with openly gay members of the armed forces, and these issues could effect the combat effectiveness of the group. I think it is an issue that should be studied in detail then policies should be put in place based on reason, not political motives. I think in time this will be a moot point, and historians will try to grasp why this was a big deal.
On a final note, I am straight, and married for the second time, over the years I have had gay friends and associates (in fact one of them was even a witness that signed my first marriage license), I don't consider myself a homophobe
You sound like a monarchist
http://michaelsmith.id.au
You missed a choice. Just open our borders.
When are illegals a drain? When they use services more than they pay for them. It would stand to reason that eliminating the underground and getting the income taxed would fix the problem as well. So the fix isn't just to kick them all out or such, but could also be to just legalize them and integrate them. You don't have to always pick the racist xenophobic option.
Learn to love Alaska
So the states without sales tax?? duh.. and property tax via rents is almost as weak.
People keep forgetting that DADT was created under the Clinton administration.
For Obama's civilian military force. You can't have two military's when one is still functioning. Expect sensitivity training and awards for surrendering to the enemy next.
For the most part, gays are ignorable. If you don't like them, they mostly don't exist in your world at all. This can be done by locality, association, or mental blocks.
Women and black people by contrast are not ignorable really in any way. When you see them, you know (mostly) that they are black, or women, or black women.
This means that people who don't like gays in some relatively normal parental-taught or society-influenced way, they mostly don't think about them much at all. So more typically those who rage about it are those who are obsessed with it, they have a constant reminder of the issue: themselves.
Now, claiming this is a hard and fast rule is a bit silly. However, it proves true often enough for people to assume it in other cases.
-josh
this is ... about getting more bodies to help blow shit up. America is headed toward a state of perpetual war, but still has an all-volunteer force. Nobody would support or comply with another draft.
There's no need. You have a huge prison population, compared to other countries. Mostly drug-related offenses, mostly non-violent, mostly young. Offering X years off their sentence for every year served in the military to prisoners would result in an increase in enlistments. Increase X until you meet your recruitment goals.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Then how come just about every gay rights group is some variation of a "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered" rights group?
Possibly because they all are discriminated against for not being straight heterosexuals. The thing they share is their desire for equal rights.
Or, (to add to what thryllkill said) that there are no str8 nerds here who dont like their gay nerd friends being discriminated against?
My nerd friends are gay, straight, bi, and a few who are possibly entirely non-sexual... and NONE of them support discrimination against gays, while all of them are interested in such issues because gay or not, it at the least affects more than one of their friends.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Heading towards?
I'd be curious to know which year in the 20th century was the US not at war with somebody, somewhere.
What's step two? Inquiring minds want to know.
All those apply to Texas and yet Texas is not bankrupt and is doing far better than California.
Wrong. Texas is also going belly-up. And since they have a smaller budget and a smaller economy to begin with, it's going to get really ugly in Texas really fast.
A budget shortfall as high as $25 billion is projected as lawmakers head into the 2011 legislative session, according to estimates from economists and the comptroller's office.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/
America has been in a perpetual state of war since its inception.
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Evidently, Obama has done fuck-all for people who use NoScript.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
...piggybacking on militarism's unfortunate popularity, towards better ends
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
My answer to the DADT debacle has long since been for the US to do what's more militarily effective, whether it's politically correct or not - a less cynical way of saying what you just said.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
It does seem to make sense in terms of political tactics to have legislation specifically backing up the executive orders, rather than settling for just executive orders and/or court decisions. (the latter would have fueled rants about "judicial activism", and executive-only could have easily been repealed by the next guy - or gal)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The aqueduct?
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
You can't tell me I should be REQUIRED to shower with someone who finds my gender sexually attractive?? by that reason women should have to shower with men in the military. And don't even start on you're calling everyone a homophobe with me, very far off the mark.
If they exercise self-control, what the hell does it matter? 5-10% of the population is gay. You've already showered with people that find your gender sexually attractive. You know, a lot of grief and suffering is caused because we worry way to much about what other people thinking. It's what people DO that matters.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
I'd also rather have gays than have to hand out en-mass waivers to felons.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Aristophanes Clouds is a satire / theatre comedy. So some of the views shown by the characters will represent what Athenians thought was funny rather what was true so might not represent true views of the time. Don't take what's said as being the Athenian view of society. After all if you were to do that reading other Aristophanes you'd believe that all Greeks thought that rain was Zeus pissing through a sieve.
Other references from the time to cross references Aristophanes and strengthen your arguments?
Though of course there is always a grain of truth in comedy.
From my classical studies I remember reading that gay relationships were encouraged on the grounds that soldiers would fight harder for their lovers in the line next to them. This paper seems to cover some of that ground: "The Eros of Achilles: Homoerotic Bonding Among Combat Soldiers" by J Laskaris - Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 2000 - vol 10 p139 onwards.
Actually, that one seems to me like the easiest to fix. Just have a separate barrack for trans-guys and one for trans-gals.
And before the usual "OMG, but that'll make them build extra barracks and cost too much!!!!111eleventeen" idiocy pops up, let me remind you that a modern division in the USA is 17,000 to 21,000 people, not counting the civillian personnel on the base and whatnot. That'll be a lot of barracks or dorms or whatever. It's not like they have one huge hangar in which 20,000 soldiers sleep. Anyone pretending they absolutely, positively can't allocate a building or a floor, or really whatever kind of compartment they use, for a couple of trans people, is more full of shit than a sewer.
There we go. No more "OMG squick factor of someone with a penis sleeping in the women barracks" scare, is it?
That was easy, wasn't it? Just 30 seconds of using one's brains instead of mindlessly bleating canned scare quotes did it.
But if that genuinely never occurred to you on your own, just ask and I'll gladly teach you more advanced stuff like counting to 20 without taking off your shoes. And I could even refer you to a good doctor who can get you walking without bruising your knuckles in no time too ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Yes, a lot of places have restricted recruitment activities with the unfairness of DADT as the reason. Will such places indeed find another legal rationalization for their anti-military beliefs?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I have heard of the relevant Freudian psychology concept of repression, but it always seemed weird to me that homophobic behavior could always just be handwaved away with "he's really just a closet homosexual himself"
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Yes, in some ways there are bigger issues, but it's not like they're going to be fixed anytime soon anyways, so might as well clean up stuff like this rather than do *absolutely* nothing.
And maybe it will help to have the wedge issue out of the way.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
. Nobody would support or comply with another draft.
While the majority of troops surveyed said they had no problem with open-homosexuality in the ranks, the combat oriented troops... infantry, Ranger, Marine Corps, etc, were overwhelmingly against it. They guys that actually do the shooting... the hard chargers that are attracted to the units most likely to actually be in harm's way... are the most likely the leave the service. And so, ironically, this repeal may force a return to the draft just to get the numbers needed.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The biggest problem is proposition 13. It forces property taxes to be artificially low, without connection to want or need.
Essentially California has a constitutional mandate that its finances be a mess.
Did you read the post I was responding to?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Sorry, but ignorant comments like yours are a perfect example of why trans people should indeed come out of the proverbial closet and "apply".
I'll certainly grant that transsexual folks serving in the military may present a thorny issue, particularly if they're pre-op. It's the same problem that they're facing in daily life; even something as inconsequential as using a public restroom can be a big problem where neither solution is perfect. And while there's campaigns for unisex restrooms, a "unisex military" might not work out so well. (And one might also add that not every trans person actually wants to undergo SRS; some are quite happy being pre-op.)
That said, though, the solution is not to shun trans people or discriminate against them. And your comments about "opposite-sex" this-and-that are also quite bigoted; trans people merely want to be their REAL sex. If anything, YOU'D be forcing them to live in opposite-sex barracks and wear the opposite-sex uniform AGAINST their will.
Are you kidding? What we need is better citizens.
How come that sentence is modded funny???? It's the naked, ugly, truth... America needs better citizens. It needs citizens that fight for they rights, citizen that boldly go defending it's freedoms, not the current fat, lazy, cowards that allmost all americans are nowadays.
A few thousand deads in 9/11 and you are crying like babies... What the fsck ?
It begs the question, If some day war steps into your homeland, with all it's accompanying ills (civilian casualties, rapes and so on) You damn fats will raise to fight or will be saluting your new overlords...
The really sad part, is that, collectively , you still think that you are betters that the rest of the world, and that your democracy works and you have to bring freedom to other countries!!!!!
Stop smoking pot!!!! for god sake.
America used to be the land of the braves, the american dream and so on, nowadays, you just look, politically and socially (And very soon economically) to any other "american" country , south american I mean.
The good thing about Monarchy is that when it all goes wrong you know who to blame.
Part of the problem with the current government structure is accountability. The politicians CAN vote to fuck over the people at the behalf of the Mega-Corps because they know that doing so has no repercussions for them. Everything is geared to encourage the people to play the two party election game (vote Kang!), voter fraud, corruption, gerrymandering, political advertising. Its all there to ensure that even with the illusion of choice nothing will ever be done for the people.
is it in the bill? currently it is against the uniform code of military justice for any individual to engage in oral or anal sex, even if married. AKA your wife gives you a blow job and everyone finds out, you can be discharged. Did this bill actually change that? Or are soldiers allowed to be gay now, they just can't have gay sex.
The ones who work under the table make so little that they would probably qualify for the tax credits and other services given to the working poor if they were legit.
You mean like education and health care and food subsidies for their kids? Which they do get, to the tune of thousands and thousands per year per child?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The position is that recruiters can now say "So, just one more thing - did I mention that faggots can't serve? And you kind of look like you love the cock. Do you love the cock? You have to tell me."
Am I missing something?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Most of those morons complaining aren't paying any income tax.
Yes, and as a group, most would probably fall under the annual income threshold required to pay income tax in most states.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Nearly 1 in 3 women in the military say they were victims of rape or sexual assault while serving http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0m9171,1968110,00.html -- "twice the rate in the civilian population".
Once a woman is in the Army, she IS one of our forces and those statistics say that putting her in the Army *does* doom her. Or did you think the military commanders who spoke out against it were thinking only of the forces they already had?
You forgot the most important component, ending farm subsidies. That is far more important to correcting the problems with our food production than any other single factor. It provides the incentive to engage in so-called "green revolution" farming of crops that serve the fewest number of people.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You bought Oranges from South Africa? Seriously?
We need to just tear up any treaty that has the words "free trade" in it. It's just code for feudalism.
We agree on that for sure.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And look at the exit polls for the election before that.
More educated people are more likely to vote Democratic in every election. Look at the exit polls forever. In fact, the trend is for more people with graduate degrees to vote Democratic.
Only if you include the government check each Alaskan gets every year because there's oil underneath them. And yet, Alaska gets much more money from the federal government. What does that tell you, genius?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Of course. I didn't look at the little sticky labels on the side of the oranges until I got home. And man, these are some incredibly sweet oranges. Anyway, apartheid is over, I thought, but I haven't read the papers today so it might be back.
They were really cheap, too. I want to say 4 pounds for 1.99, which is cheap for a big Chicago produce store.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If property taxes are weak then it's only because of deliberate manipulation of the market. All wealth derives from the land, so all taxes not on profits should be on property. This motivates owners to own less property. Any unowned property becomes the domain of the Bureau of Land Management, or preferably a similar agency not designed to be entirely corrupt. Finally, a tax on unspent, uninvested earnings removes the incentive to sit on large piles of cash, which prevents trickle-down economics from trickling. Finally, eliminate all farm subsidies.
Tax profits, not earnings! Tax all profits the same. It's that or a graduated scale based on earnings, and applied to corporations and individuals alike.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Those male-male rapes are done by gay *couples* (domestic violence). Unless GP is romantically involved with a gay man, it hardly matters.
Gang-rapes, which is what GP could be "fearing," are mostly done by heterosexual men.
Dilbert RSS feed
For your information: 1) California has a lover per capita GDP than Alaska and it's the California that is bankrupt and needs a bail out.
Well, California is known for Lovers. But it's bullshit to say that California needs a bailout. We need back the $30B in money that we send to other states.
2) Of course coastal states with large population and major cities like LA or New York will have more trade and create more wealth overall than middle of nowhere states like Mississippi. It simple geography that makes California create more wealth, not anything special about "Californians".
Totally irrelevant, but thank you for playing. The fact is that California generates more wealth. Oh and you're totally fucking wrong about Californians not being special. California was settled first by natives who were special for living peacefully and managing their numbers here in spite of long lifespans and a general abundance of everything they needed. Then it was run over by Spanish-Mexicans (or is that Mexican-Spaniards?) with a taste for murder, rape, and pillage. Next it was settled by "Americans" more capable and intrepid than the rest. Notably, Los Angeles was made what it was on the basis of the movie industry which settled there due to cheap desert land suitable for filming westerns... and it grew to immense size in spite of geographical limitations because of what was done there. Now it's being re-settled by the most resourceful Mexicans. California is special, and it is not simply because of geography, but also because of Californians. People are attracted here today by both.
3) California is a blue state mainly because of the large immigrant population and block voting by unions. More productive and more educated people are in California, the more likely they are to vote Republican (look at the exit polls for the last election, I think they are still up on CNN).
Hilariously, the farm workers used to generally vote Republican because of their shared Anti-Abortion values — Mexicans are overwhelmingly Catholic, and even those who are not come from a Catholicized culture just as we come from a Christianized one here in Estados Unidos Norteamericanos. In the last election, however, they mostly went democrat because the Republicans ran an unelectable ticket and because they were feeling the economic pinch and the Democrats put themselves forward as the party of workers. The only real correlation is between voting and income, not by education or by output. I would hope that we could agree that the field workers have some of the highest productivity. They are doing a job that most people couldn't do as well, a job that cannot yet be effectively done by machine, that needs doing, in conditions of virtual slavery. I believe they deserve our respect.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If not enough tax money comes in you get things like the internationally known joke which is the California electricity system.
The problems in the California power system are those of infrastructure. There is plenty of power in California, but it is not being produced where it is needed, as the grid cannot handle the task of moving it from where it is to where it needs to be. The problem is probably due to half-assed deregulation, but deregulation is not what is called for in the case of a power monopoly.
There was never a time even during supposedly necessary rolling blackouts (which, BTW, were terminated without anything really changing, after a period of harassment) where we did not have available unused power production.
Actually taxing Hollywood would be a good start and there is nothing to lose because it's on the path to self-destruction anyway.
I agree that tax reform in Hollywood is an absolute necessity, but not that it's on the path to self-destruction. Unfortunately.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, a Confederate victory would have continued slavery for what, another decade or two, lead to more intervention the western hemisphere, and following slavery, how long would segregation have lasted?
Actually I'd say slavery would have continued maybe another 20 years, because the machines of the north would have made slaves worthless since you don't have to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care for the machine which also doesn't need rest.
A decade or two, or twenty years? hmm.
The machines can't do everything. Today, we have a condition of virtual slavery for field workers (they get to go home and have TV and beer... in a house with a dozen others just like them) because it is profitable; the field workers do jobs which machines cannot do as well.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Gay
On the other hand, a more clear delineation of powers would be advantageous. The federal government involves itself in much that it has no business poking its nose into, mostly its various actions taken under the ICC.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Any votes on how long the policy lasts after someone 'transgendered' files a lawsuit requesting permission to live in the opposite-sex barracks and wear the opposite-sex uniform?
Who cares? Your question is nothing but a Troll, but you get moderated +4, which is why I hardly ever come to Slashdot anymore and why I deleted the password to my account.
It's idiots like you, and the people who support and condone your actions that make this world a sick and unpleasant place to live. If a man is a man, then he will be classified as a man, whether "transgendered" or not. You sound like one of those uneducated, ignorant and prejudiced assholes who ask for money on Sunday morning TV. Do the world a favour and put a shot-gun to your mouth and blow the trigger.
I know a few soldiers, and I know a few potheads. I honestly can't imagine anyone in the latter category being any use in the former...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I guess it's about time Israeli and British armies collapse since they've been allowing gays to serve for quite some time.
By "displaying here", I meant "in this thread on Slashdot". I'm assuming you only read my post, and didn't read the numerous posts from the poster to whom I replied. If you had, you wouldn't need to ask your question.
Meanwhile, as mentioned by others who have served, this fixation on "coed showers" is hilarious because once you're out of boot camp, there aren't group showers. The fact that so many people with anti-gay views think first of group showers, of hot male bodies soaping up together, tells us multiple things about them.
I never said or implied there were group showers, simply pointing out female and male showers are still separate. I read the whole thread, and still have to conclude you have no cause to call parent juvenile.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916450&cid=34607078
You make a much better point than I did. I need to go back to not posting on /.
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
To save time when that happens, the US could always crib from the Canadian military's draft policy on transgender soldiers. The policy does specifically allow transitioning soldiers to wear the uniform of their target gender.
Dealing with non-heterosexual, non-cisgender people in the military isn't some bizarre new thing that the US is blazing new ground on. Other western militaries are well ahead of the US, as even NPR has realized.
You must never have served. There have always been gays in the service, usually left alone if they do their jobs.
Agreed. At least that was my experience. I've served with gays/lesbians in peace time and in war in a combat zone. But I've served with people that had other alternate thoughts of the world not relating to gender that also got them ousted. Like this guy that looked at his military career as a soapbox to preach on the flightline, or this other dude that thought it would be a great way to introduce people to the kkk, or this other lady that was so into Amway that she was always trying to sell on the job and couldn't get any work done. We had a guy that refused to take showers that was tossed. We had servicemen and women discharged for extra-marital affairs. If you are profoundly for heterosexuality, homosexuality, forcing your religion, or the kkk, or the black panthers or whatever I don't give a crap and I think most service members don't either. I don't want to know, I just want you to do your job. But if you want to take an unprofessional stance of letting it affect your profession and others it crosses the line.
We were weapons people on the flight line and attached for close combat support. Granted we didn't catch the hell that ground troops do. We only got missile and rocket attacks, a few suitcase bombs etc..., and we didn't lose a lot of people. I actually liked the concept of DADT in the spirit of the name but implementation was silly, and it wasn't really necessary. I think it should be an unwritten rule. Don't ask and don't tell about anything. For all I know someone could be seriously into monkey porn. Enjoy your monkeys but don't bring monkey pictures to share with the rest of your unit. Mind your own business and don't let your business affect others. There are already rules in the UCMJ covering political expression, performance, and behavior while in uniform. There are rules about public displays of affection. I never held my wife's hand or kissed her in public while in uniform because we were ordered not to. When you raise your hand and take the oath you are military property. At least that is how I understood it. You don't go to political causes in uniform, there are strict fraternization rules, and you do your job.
We had gays and lesbians going to ball games and social events and nobody really cared. They were good troops and most held up well in wartime just like most others held up well. When it became an issue it was because it affected work or affected living arrangements for other soldiers. Just like the preacher/kkk/amway/blahblahblah issues did. We did have some issues where communal facilities (like showers) were involved and some issues with dorm roommates. In the shower incident it was a guy looking at another dude's package and he got excited and made a physical advance with touching involved. In the dorm room incident it was a guy stroking his puppet while standing naked near his sleeping roommate. In my mind that is a sex crime and they would be ousted anyway. To me the shower thing is the rough one and is difficult to manage simply because of resource allocation. If some other guy is getting wood while winking and staring at your goodies that is a wee bit uncomfortable. Avert your eyes guys!
I got the impression from watching the news that the repeal of DADT will allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military.
The slashot introduction to this thread states:
And the Washington Post article linked to in the introduction states:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121801729.html?sid=ST2010121803394
What is the deal?
It is kind of silly to worry what will happen as a result of gays being in the military, since they have always been there. They just haven't been allowed to admit it.
Isn't the right to secede the ultimate state right?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
+1 to parent. I lived for quite a while in a city next to a couple of large military bases. I met people, including some who were gay and still in the military, and some who'd been kicked out. They all volunteered. It was their job. So kicking out people who have made the choice to join and are doing a job because of their sexual orientation is wrong (regardless of what you think about the military and the uses to which it is put). Now, the next thing the Congress should do is repeal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), which effectively prevents all federal employees (not just military) from receiving benefits for same-sex partners. Another Clinton-era bad idea. Challenges to this are winding their way up the court system (it has already been ruled unconstitutional at the District level), but there is no telling what will happen there.
No, just deeply federalist.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Singling out Alan Turning is ignoring the contributions by many other people who would have achieved the same results without him. If it wasn't for his dramatic life story he'd be as nameless as the others.
He did it (the code cracking) withing the time frame that it was needed. If someone else had done it 10 years later, it would have meant millions more dead.
In other words, the safest way for a gay to survive the war is to bend over for his superior officer.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A platoon of bull dykes with fixed bayonets, charging over a hill at some Islamic fundamentalist insurgents.
The nice thing about a monarch, speaking as a British citizen, is that we've already conveniently set a precedent that you can chop their head off if they do a particularly bad job. Unfortunately, no such precedent exists for prime ministers or presidents (although it does for Lord Protectors).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
As a proud and native Californian I'll tell you this right off the bat: Too many skilled and a much more disproportionately huge amount of unskilled douches from other states and countries with bartender and actress fantasies are watching too much MTV Spring Break specials and moving here and overcrowding us, driving up property costs of housing big and small while polluting our culture.
As a proud person living in a state bordering California, we have had the same opinion of Californians as you do with everyone else. Wander around in any small town anywhere close to California, and you'll hear the natives saying "damn Californians!".
I really doubt immigration is California's biggest problem. And I really don't see what the hell California's culture ever was. California should be two states, North and South, really, if we want to talk about culture. And this isn't even really that true, since there are (like everywhere else) millions of distinct "cultures" in California. Hell, it can be stated (with a fair bit of validity) that the main part of California's culture is people moving there. It seems to be the historical precedent of California. Read more history (or Steinbeck).
Don't move to California if you're not accepting a job from Google or Oracle.
You do realize that California is NOT Silicon Valley, right? Depsite the beleifs of the residents from there...
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Obama has signed legislation into law! And appointed people to positions! I take back everything I ever said about his utter failure as a president!
Actually, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Most people profess moral outrage the loudest about the things that they despise about themselves and most people believe subconsciously that everyone else is like them. Exactly the same psychological principle applies as to the RIAA executives - they would steal anything that they can get away with stealing (see any record industry contract) and so they imagine that everyone else is the same way, hence their insistence on DRM, in spite of the fact that most people actually don't think like that.
The same happens with militant homophobia. If someone is secretly fighting against their own sexual desires, they will assume that all other heterosexuals are doing the same and that exposure to homosexual ideas will make this harder, making lots of people gay. They will publicly oppose homosexuality on moral grounds - they may well have illicit homosexual relationships and hate themselves as a result.
The problem is that this doesn't work in the opposite direction. People who have this repressed tendency are likely to be militant homophobes, but not all militant homophobes are repressed homosexuals (although a surprising number are - the ones who aren't tend to be less militant, because they don't see homosexuality as a threat to their own sexual orientation).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You then try again to imply that a policy specifically for military personnel will effect civilians.
Until the military clones their soldiers, they'll come from the civilian population. Think "job opportunities". Think "educational subsidies" for university students. Think "careers."
. Yes, the military spends vast amounts on research, but it's research performed by civilians. You haven't shown any connection between research or researchers and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Aside from the obvious ones I listed above - background security checks. When people feel the need to be "in the closet", either as civilians or in the military, security is already compromised. Everything being out in the open means no more opportunities for blackmail.
-- Barbie
I'd rather have the gays in the military than the homophobes. At least then they'd all believe in the freedom they're fighting for.
Most American enlisted men, when it really comes down to it, are fighting more for each other than any abstract cause. They're not generally ideologues.
The saying goes "Lead, Follow or get the hell out of the way" so Obama takes a lot of vacations.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The "unit cohesion" argument is bunk. It's the same argument that was made against a racially integrated service. And for keeping women out of combat roles (and thus out of the higher ranks - the military version of the glass ceiling).
If someone's willing to put their life on the line for you, what should it matter who they have waiting for them back home?
Again, other countries have no problems with gays and lesbians serving - they expect their soldiers to behave with a certain level of professionalism and respect for each other.
Just like other countries have no problems with same-sex marriage. They expect their citizens to behave with a certain level of respect for each other.
DADT is institutionalized gay-bashing, nothing less. It shows a paternalistic attitude of significant parts of the military leadership, who believe their men and women can't be trusted to behave as professionals. Read the comments of those who have fought it over the last year. "Some gay guy might see my junk in the shower!" What are they afraid of? That the gay will laugh and say "I've seen better."?
If people in every other walk of life can do it, perhaps its because the military has engaged in anti-same-sex behavior for so long that the self-selection process has yielded an organization that attracts people who are out of step with the rest of society.
That can't be a good thing. Not for a military that, ultimately, is under civilian command. And certainly not for a military that serves as a representative to the rest of the world under some of the worst conditions possible. How are you supposed to have a military that is capable, during peace-keeping, of showing tolerance to other cultures, when you can't even tolerate a large segment of your own?
-- Barbie
Those are just 2 of many ways that it's relevant, but they should be enough to show that it's entirely relevant to slashdot.
Other sites might cover it, but they don't have the same mix of people commenting on it. So again, it's relevant, because many of us here either are part of the LGBT community, or know someone who is, and as a group, we come to it with a slightly different perspective than Joe Six-pack on Facebook.
It's also relevant because many tech companies are at the forefront in equal treatment for LGBT, and it's about time that the military, if it wants to be able to select the best from a wider pool of talent, stop shooting itself in the foot with artificial limitations.
-- Barbie
Lets put on a SUPER don't ask don't tell policy - then we could have everyone operating in 1 man teams - so everyone gets along with everyone.
But I hate myself too, you insensitive clod!
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Let me change one word in your first sentence (in italics):
This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate blacks.
Which was very true when the army was first integrated, and it's still true today.
Nope, integration actually worked in the military, far more than it ever did in broader society. One of the reasons I suspect liberals hate the military is that we actually did what liberals paid lip service to.
The army survived integration, though, and it's fine. It'll survive the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and it'll still be fine
The better comparison, though, would be including women in the ranks. There's never been an honest assessment of the impact, especially since all the services avoided allowing women in combat arms. In the Army, and from what I've heard it's true in other services, the non-combat arms jobs are becoming more like civilian jobs. I was attached to a support company while in Iraq, and they had constant disciplinary problems due to sex. NCOs who were combat arms and who were put in charge in support units have all said it's a nightmare dealing with all the issues that come up. 18-25 year old gay males are going to be fucking like rabbits; most gay guys consider that to be the number one selling point of being gay.
You won't hear much about it, just like you don't hear about the problems with integrating females. After all, all units have disciplinary problems, and they deal with them all the time. The difference is simply that when there are more problems, your command spends more time doing legal paperwork and less time working on training. You have more soldiers who are not pulling their weight. You lose camaraderie and get bickering and politics. I think that's been a major problem with our support units and, notably, we have been moving towards using contractors for support jobs far more than we used to. I can't see how we're going to insulate our combat units from this change.
The bottom line is that this is a social experiment being performed that will result in people dying. It's a privilege to serve, not a right, and not one that's worth a single person dying.
I'm transsexual myself and I believe I can answer this.
Most ( all ? ) countries I know of have only two legal genders.
Changing your legal gender typically requires a psychiatric diagnosis of "gender identity disorder"
or transsexualism. This is a diagnosis that is HARD to get. Psychiatrists don't like to make it on a
whim because the standard treatment involves irreversibly altering the patient's body.
Now assuming you do get diagnosed as such, I imagine the military could come up with all kinds
of reasons (good or bad ) to kick you out.
I don't agree with how we are classified as disordered by psychiatrists, but it will take a heck of a lot
more than repealing DADT before the military will have a problem with kicking us out as they please.
The National Guard is still under the federal government's control.
Not quite. Those who enlist in the National Guard are trained by the US military but they are under the command of governors. Though when needed the president can order them to active duty, as Bush did for the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars. When the Ohio National Guard went to Kent State University, where 4 students were killed and another 9 wounded, the guard unit was under the command of Jim Rhodes the governor of Ohio.
Without federal control I think we would have seen numerous wars among the states
Conflict or disputes between the several states is one of the functions of the federal government.
Without knowing it you brought issues some fear. Recall what happened in Tiananmem Square in 1989? Tiananmem Square is in Beijing and local People's Liberation Army (PLA) units, local Chinese military, refused to fire on protesters. It so concerned the Chinese leadership they thought PLA units would revolt and start a new civil war. Beijing eventually ordered the 27th Army, who was led by Yang Jianhua the nephew of President Yang Shangkun, to Beijing to put down any insurrection.
See, unlike the US Army Chinese army units are local. That is the people serving in the units come from the area where the unit is located. They don't get transferred all around China never mind the world. My Dad, who retired from the US Air Force, was stationed in 5 different states as well as Taiwan and Japan. When I was in the Army I was stationed in Georgia and Germany and I went to Alaska, Florida, Wisconsin, and Panama for training. Though I'm not sure I think my sister went to South Korea when she was in the Army. That does not happen in the PLA.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I've seen those militaries overseas and I'm not impressed. I'd prefer we not become like those militaries.
Perhaps you don't think the US should partner with most of it's NATO allies, the EU, Israel, or Russia?
The list
Do you really want to compare the last 50 years of US military successes with that of, say, Israel?
well if other countries military does it, we should to right? extrapolate that out a second and think about why that's a retarded reason to do something.
Don't be such a bunch of cowards. NATO and the EU are already there - they've proven that the fears of allowing LGBT persons to serve openly were overblown.
If you refuse to learn from and profit off of the experience of others, you have a problem. Narcissists often do. "We're different." "We're special." Yes, lambchop, you certainly are. While other countries got rid of the bogey-man long ago, you still cower at the thought that "some gay guy might see my junk in the shower." Seriously - that's one of the most frequent themes cited.
It doesn't take much to scare you, does it?
-- Barbie
Furthermore, is being uncomfortable around gays while naked really homophobic? Why don't men and women shower together in the military? The same reason most straight men would feel uncomfortable showering with another man they knew to be gay.
Men and women don't shower together because we live in a society literally built upon suppressed sexuality. I've showered in group showers with women on many occasions, from some I barely knew to some I wouldn't have minded taking to bed. If everyone is just a little bit relaxed out the naked human body, there are no issues whatsoever, even if two people who'd like to fuck are among the group, because there really is no objective difference compared to, say, standing around in clothes and having a drink.
Same reason for the gay situation. Sexual repression creates fear, uncertainty and doubt. Even though I'm not a nudist, I don't believe my dick will shrink if someone else gets a glimpse of it. And if it's a gay guy who likes what he sees - where's the damage to me? It's all in the repression and the stupid relationship we as a society have to our bodies and our sexuality.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
this is just a wedge issue that Republicans can use to gain midwestern support
This would be true if Republicans voted against repeal of Don't ask, don't tell. But some Republicans voted for the repeal.
Of course so called Conservative Christians as well as some Tea Partiers will use their vote as ammunition against them.
I'd rather they be safe at home and not be allowed to talk about their sexuality than serving in hostile territory allowed to talk about it.
And I'd prefer they had the choice. As a matter of fact everyone in the military joined voluntarily, there is no draft. No one is forced to serve in the military, not by the government.
It just doesn't matter if DADT is right or wrong, it's nowhere near as wrong as putting these soldiers in harm's way unnecessarily.
There are two separate issues here, unnecessary wars, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But you are equating them. Personally I was against both invasions and am pro repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Now let me ask you two questions. One, have you served in the military? I served in the US Army as a Small Arms Specialist, aka infantry. As such if I have been sent to Afghanistan or Iraq I would have been on the front lines. Two, do you know anyone who is in the military and has been sent to either Afghanistan or Iraq? I do, I have a nephew who went to Iraq once. His Marine Corp unit was sent back to Iraq, he didn't go back a second tyme himself because military doctors say there's something wrong with his heart.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So do you mean that the DADT should be quickly put back in place after this kind of suing? The issues are orthogonal as far I know. By the way, the summary funnily contradicts with the article referenced in that the summary says gays are not to openly serve in the military, but the Washington Post say the opposite.
I never said or implied there were group showers, simply pointing out female and male showers are still separate.
As are male and male showers, so it's irrelevant.
I read the whole thread, and still have to conclude you have no cause to call parent juvenile.
That tells me everything I need to know about continuing this conversation with you, then. Thanks for keeping me from wasting my time!
Are soldiers going to get in trouble for saying things like "that's gay" or "you fag" or "that sucks dick" now because they have to be aware and sensitive to sexuality, even amongst themselves?
Have you served in the military? I have and we had a bunch of rules about saying things some may find offensive. Say something about Blacks and you'll be dealt with. Whistle at a pretty female, or handsome male, and you could find charges filed against you. There is no difference between having these policies and having policies against harassment because of someone's sexual orientation.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
As are male and male showers, so it's irrelevant.
Incorrect. Same sex showers are separate to the extent you may get shower cubicles, but not seperate to the point of being in different buildings/levels whatever. So, no, not irrelevant.
That tells me everything I need to know about continuing this conversation with you, then. Thanks for keeping me from wasting my time!
Ahh. Someone who disagrees with you isn't worth your time. I see.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
yea that was England dude, don't try to dump that shit on the US. I'm thinking you knew this and just conveniently left it out, because it didn't fit your message.
My message is quite simple - that other countries, which in former years were unenlightened, have allowed LGBT to serve in the military, in civilian capacities connected to the military, and in training programs such as ROTC that subsidize people's education, without negative effects.
This definitely fits in with slashdot, where we discuss not just technology, but its social implications. People in the US are denied opportunities to advance in certain areas of technology with one of the biggest employers - the US military - because of anti-LGBT sentiment.
So it's not me "dumping that s*** on the US" - it's the US "dumping that s***" on its own people.
-- Barbie
I say they've been in that state of perpetual war for a couple decades, at least. Just since the 80's the U.S. have put boots on the ground or wings in the air in El Salvador, Libya, Sinai, Lebanon, Egypt, Grenada, Honduras, Chad, Bolivia, Kuwait, Panama, Columbia, Bolivia, Peru, Philippines, Monrovia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Zaire, Turkey, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Macedonia, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Central African Republic, Albania, Congo, Gabon, Cambodia, Kenya, Afghanistan, East Timor, Yemen, Pakistan just naming a few.
*DrugCheese rants*
Haven't you seen the special registers in stores with signs saying "Illegal Immigrants Only! Pay No Sales Tax!"
Of course illegal immigrants pay no taxes!
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
where have you been? He has been achieving his goals since day one.
-People were not satisfied with GW because he sat on his ass at his ranch. :. Obama is sitting on his ass.
-People are not satisfied with Obama.
Why read the news when you can follow people on twitter?
It's not fine; the army is still having problems integrating. The media portrays the military as an integrated force, but the reality is that there is still a lot of work to be done before minorities have a fair shot at making rank in the army.
Why else would Congress need to establish the Military Leadership Diversity Commission?
I think the voters could have been been educated to realize that tax cuts for millionaires would be bad for everyone else.
Either you are naive or you want to steal, and what gives you the right to steal from the wealthy? As a matter of fact the wealthy pay more taxes in the US than others. On 14 May 2010 Roshawn Watson posted the question Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share Of Taxes? He then answers by linking to and using numbers from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculations in Spreading the Wealth Around: Reflections on Joe the Plumber [pdf]. The bottom 1/5 of the population in income, the poorest in other words, pay 4.5% of their income in taxes. The middle 1/5 pays 13.9%. And the top 1/5 pays 31.1%. If you want "fair taxes" those percentages should be the same, in other words after cost of living is deducted everyone pays the same percent of their income in income tax.
They also mention what Warren Buffet said about his secretary paying more in taxes than he pays. His income is from dividends and capital gains which is taxed at 15% whereas making $60,000 his secretary was taxed at 30%. Now if the secretary had income from dividends and capital gains, and if not then why has s/he not invested some pay as well, the secretary would pay the same percent on that income. Also what Buffet did not say is that he pays more in taxes than he let's on. When the CBO included the taxes Berkshire Hathaway, Buffet is the biggest shareholder, pays such as individual income taxes, payroll taxes, and corporate income taxes his tax burden is higher.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Health care reform? Please. I can't believe people call this guy a socialist.
Requiring everyone to buy health care insurance or fining them if they do not is socialistic.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
But he can close Guantanamo by executive order. He doesn't even need Congress for that.
I wish he would, but where will the prisoners there be taken to? Myself, I'd release them but I can easily imagine the uproar if Obama did that. He proposed bringing them to the states but there was opposition for each state proposed, and it's not something he can unilaterally decide on his own.
I once believed in Obama. Now I believe he's just a politician.
I didn't believe but I had hopes. Those hope were quickly dashed.
Will I vote for him again? Of course: I'd rather his incompetence than that of Gingrich or Palin.
The only way I would vote for Obama was if I had a gun rested on the temples of people I cared for and was ordered to vote or they would be shot and the election was between Obama and someone worse. As it was in 2008, I thought Obama was the lesser of 2 bads, him and McCain.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I think ending farm subsidies would probably be a consequence of ending the others, but if not, yeah that should be on the list too.
Any votes on how long the policy lasts after someone 'transgendered' files a lawsuit requesting permission to live in the opposite-sex barracks and wear the opposite-sex uniform?
Go for it, I don't have a problem with it.
Now what would you say if the person was an intersexual, ie someone with either Ambiguous Genitalia or with both male and female sex organs? Would you make the cut?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Are you all now happily distracted from the recently implemented tax giveaway for the rich?
Man, fuck the Braves! The Mets mop the floor with those peach-eaters!
Why is polygamy wrong here yet accepted in a rather large part of the world?
Where is polygamy, polygamy and not polygyny, accepted?
We almost had a huge hole in the US, known as Utah, due to this issue over 100 years ago.
Mormons practice polygyny NOT polygamy.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So jail innocent pot smokers and then offer them the choice of going into the military or staying in prison? That basically is a draft.
Maybe the DADT is more about DoD budget issues, than any sort of gay rights issue?
Let's suppose I need expensive medical care and I have no health insurance. All I need to do is get a single male in the Army to say I'm his significant other, and I get free medical care, right? Then there are survivor benefits and so on.
Will the military recognize same sex as being married?
Lot's more issues here than gay rights vs homophobia etc.
Good points, but I don't know if it's fair to apply them to commenters on an article about gay rights. It's not like someone minding his own business and then suddenly raging about gays, or going out of his way to go to a gay parade and heckle. This is a mainstream site and one story happens to be about gay rights and we're all invited to comment. The fact that some have negative comments shouldn't automatically make them bigots. It's just a label people use to silence others.
I mean keep in mind if it were that cut and dry, there never would have *been* a don't ask don't tell rule and gays never would have been discriminated against. Unless you're comfortable saying like 30% or more of society is "completely bigoted" then it doesn't make sense. I know there are people like that but they are in the minority and they wouldn't be happy in *any* society except the one where they are an absolute dictator.
The European Union seems to have a good distributed model, however power is increasingly being taken away from individual nations within the union. See for example the current saga over Julian Assange. It could be argued that big governments inevitably accumulate power from those below them, and that this process will continue until they are somehow cleaned out. Its hard to see that not being a violent process. The dissolution of the USSR is perhaps the most gentle scenario I an imagine, but the USSR weakened over time.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
#3 The idea that the military is better off retaining the idiots who cannot process the implicit order "don't kill, assault, or sabotage your comrades in arms just because you don't like them" is somewhat ridiculous. The threat to good oder in the keep-the-fags-silent camp is that the good-old-real-men will just be forced to act against their cohort and we cannot live without those bad actors.
Disclaimer: I am one o them fags, I was denied entry to the service in the early eighties. They wanted me bad for some classified work, but I knew I wouldn't be able to get/hold the clearance if I lied in the intake. Nice choice that. When I fessed up, they sent me to a shrink. He asked me three questions totaling about 10 words. I gave him three answers totaling 15 words. He wrote like _three_ _pages_ of notes, and I was out. This transaction failed every test of common sense.
Then in the original DADT hearings even some senior general guy with a gay kid was all saying how he would fear for his son's safety, were he allowed to serve, because his well disciplined cadre couldn't be trusted to not turn on the boy. Yes, he knew he could not _trust_ his existing _straight_ contingent.
The gay people are not the threat to cohesion and good order, its the homophones that are the threat.
Might as well say "the men under my command are perfect soldiers as long as you don't give them any orders, or ask them to confront anything more hostile than the P.X." The argument against open service has always been stupid.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I wouldn't be afraid, but I'd be jealous. How awesome would it be to shower with a bunch of women?
When we describe a social system that has collapsed into meaningless clique reenforcement we say that it has just become a "popularity contest."
The cleche of that derision makes it no less true. Our political system, with its popular media basis and its easy sound-bytes, is the very definition of a popularity contest.
Unfortunately good leaders are rarely popular _before_ they lead. Many good leaders become popular as they retire because they were "tough but fair" etc. Our cart is before our horse here.
Our disneyesque imagineers manufacture the sock-puppet most likely to attract files, and make sure there is enough excrement around to keep the flies feeding and buzzing. The the guy covered with the most fly-specks gets the job.
So Fox News was inevitable, and "democracy is the means, by which we ensure, we are governed _no_ _better_ than we deserve" (attribution lost).
In my fantasy world we would appoint people almost at random and then decide between death, sanction, retirement, cash bonus, or another term when their term is up. By definition nobody who _wants_ the job of leadership should be allowed to have it.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Sorry, they wouldnt be attracted to you, theyve seen better.
The northern states would probably be better off, on paper at least, all other things being equal.
The southern states themselves, and oh yeah, all the black people inside of them? Not so much.
Also, there would have been multiple civil wars. Do you really think the USA and CSA would have come to a nice, happy agreement on who gets to have California, Kansas, the Interior West, etc?
And, the South had plans of aggressively taking Spanish and French territories in the Caribbean that would have likely resulted in British intervention. Remember, they were rooting for the Confederates partly because they were banking on the Southern states being too fragmented to form a union, and then Britain's got colonies again. So, proto-World War opportunities there, plus an outside chance of Spain or France (especially France) grabbing some pieces of land in the South again if the wars went badly. Not good for the USA.
Finally, the slave states that remained in the Union would have had widespread rioting and private militias backed by former slaveholders, who saw slavery banned in 1863. They would have wanted to join the Confederacy. Basically, guerrilla warfare in Baltimore and St. Louis.
Still sound like a sweet deal for the Union?
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
One more thing: The Mississippi and Missouri rivers would effectively be useless for shipping anything through the Gulf because the South planned on either banning or taxing the shit out of everything coming from the North down the Mississippi. Yes, there was rail, but barges are dead simple and cheap, and getting things to New Orleans from the Midwest or Plains was a hell of a lot easier than rail to the Atlantic. So, big economic inefficiencies just as the US was starting to be a global power. (Of course, we wouldn't be a global power as easily with half the land and no cotton.)
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
And, of course, there are plenty of anecdotes where the racist joins the military, goes to war with black, white, Latino, Asian, Jewish soldiers, and realizes within a week what an ignorant ass he's been.
I'm not in the military, but I have friends and family who were/are. I can't think of a class of the US population less likely to be racist (well...maybe Islamophobic, which is, of course, bad) than those who have done active duty. I imagine the same thing would happen with gays and lesbians vs. homophobes.
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
I think you have a good point. The Federal government should leave the states to do more. The situation in California is particularly dire. We have fairly progressive government but the budget is seriously constrained. The Federal government takes much more in taxes from California than it returns (to the tune of about 30 billion dollars a year). If California could keep this money, we would have a state budget surplus and could fully fund education, roads, health care, etc.
California's problems are self induced. It has a stagnant legislature ironically dominated by a 34% intransigent minority of Republicans that oppose everything en masse. You have constitutional requirement for 2/3s vote to pass any budget and to raise any taxes. Couple this with a sacrosanct initiative system that locks up 2/3s of the budget so priorities can't be readjusted.
California needs to grow up, and raise taxes and cut budgets.
Outside of the very visible Day Laborers lined up outside the Home Depots waiting for an installation job from a home owner or a Day job from a contractor, it's very very hard to exist or work without a valid SSN and having taxes withheld from your wages; it just not likely that the valid SSN is going to be yours as it is unlikely that you'll be able to reap the benefits, fro the withholdings or to receive a refund of any excess withholdings! Approximately 18 million people in the US are using a valid SSN that is used by multiple people, people that will never receive a dime of benefits for the labors. So it's not about financial drain on the federal part, they're probably making a profit off the illegal immigrants.
Open the boarders up, yeah right, there is a war going on down there in Mexico, there are website like El Blog del Narco that report on the fighting like American websites report traffic accidents.
Time to pull your head out of the sand there cupcake; Narco-Terrorism in Mexico is far more deadly than what's going on in Afghanistan. A little waterboarding offends your sensibilities, hese will show you how the real pros do it. Right now. Ciudad Juarez, the most violent city in Mexico, is just across the Rio Grande from El Passo TX, as many as 5,000 Women have been murdered in the last 10 years. Mexican Prisons have become Safehouses for criminals who come and go as they please and to top it all off, Mexican Drones are crashing in the United States. Opening our boarders isn't an option and securing them isn't xenophobic, it's due diligence. You know things are getting bad when war correspondents who have cover wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the Orient are returning to the US after years overseas because the US SW is where the action is going to be real soon.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Those kids are often natural born US Citizens.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
While it is true that military is not always engaged in the battle field, progressive slashdotters with propensity for big talk are never engaged in it in a meaningful way. As such they shouldn't say what is good for military. Just be a good nerd and love Obama, will you?
Sure the Government will spend $100K training a hop-head to do something that he is mentally incapable of doing because he's a hophead and hope he does it for at least two years; then when he finally gets out hope he doesn't claim he's stupid because of a closed head trama when in reality it's all of the kilos of weed he smoked.and collect disability of the VA for life.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Okay, yes, illegal aliens pay sales tax. They do not, however, generally pay income tax, social security, or medicare. So they pay significantly less taxes than people operating above board, and that was the point.
BTW, renters do not pay property tax. The person who owns the rental property pays that. And no, you can't say that part of your rent goes to pay the tax; that tax would have been paid by the owner whether you were renting the property or not. The fact that the owner got reimbursed for paying it does not mean that the government has more money in its pocket than it otherwise would have (except insofar as it is income for the homeowner, and is thus taxed as income).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
They also don't generally pay into medicare or social security.
Yes, some illegal aliens lie and use somebody else's tax ID and pay taxes. A significant portion do not, and are paid entirely in cash. They pay neither income tax nor social security nor medicare.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Not going to disagree with you there. The bubble needed to burst. It's just very unfortunate that it had to do so (and thus massively cut into property tax revenue) right when the state was already hurting from reduced income tax due to unemployment and reduced sales tax due to people cutting back on spending.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Good analysis of the problems. We just passed an initiative to pass the budget by 50% . This should help. Gov Brown will set a ballot to pass tax hikes.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Well, yes, prop 13 is a disaster and is a significant part of the problem, but not for the reason you think. It doesn't really force property taxes to be artificially low on the whole. What prop 13 did was make property taxes on commercial property (which is rarely sold) artificially low, which meant that the general population had to pay a greater share of the burden. It also made selling a home and buying a new one problematic because doing so meant a substantial increase in your property tax bill. This, in turn, helped exacerbate an already depressed real estate market.
However, prop 13 is not the cause of the budget shortfall. More taxation does not cure budget shortfalls. Controlling spending cures budget shortfalls. It's the broken window fallacy. You take money away to pay for the government spending money, but with the exception of taxation on the extremely wealthy, that money is money that those people would have spent on something else, so taxes on the poor and middle class really take money almost directly out of the economy.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
It happens a lot, actually. I don't think it's odd, either. If you don't struggle with homosexual thoughts or feelings, why in the world would it bother you so much to see it in others? Anyone comfortable with their sexuality, whatever it is, has no reason to be so obsessed with other people's.
I agree the argument CAN be made in a subtley homophobic manner. which is why I was very careful to make sure my wording did not in any way construe a negative toward homosexuality, and I called out the true concern: that he deal with this issue before he hurts someone.
If HE takes it as an insult because he's a homophobe, well, so be it.
of course it's not a perfect predictor. but I bet it's better than 50/50.
you completely failed to comprehend my statement.
If my definition of freedom includes the right for you to exist as you wish, but your definition of freedom does not include that same right for me, then very simply, my definition of freedom is more free, and therefore superior, to yours.
If you wish to have LESS freedom, thinking that is superior for some reason, that's fine, but that's not more free or superior freedom. Then you have to start using other words. Because, you know, words mean stuff.
I think you are mistaken. Our borders are open. The only question is of the legality of those who freely illegally cross our border with impunity. I was merely pointing out the insanity of the assertion that kicking out all illegal aliens will improve the US.
Learn to love Alaska
what part of "consenting adults" has anything to do with physical harm? That's entirely a mental construction. it's not about physical bodies, it's about mental development.
Then what should we do with such monsters? It's easy to toss off some line like 'a human is not a dog', but you probably haven't considered the actual alternatives that have resulted from cheap bromides becoming law.
So here are your alternatives:
1) Execute someone for heinous, inhuman acts.
2) Imprison them forever. The result is supermax prisons, because monsters jailed for life entertain themselves by attacking their guards and fellow inmates.
3) Keep them dazed and drugged for the rest of their lives. Again, decades.
4) Pretend you can 'rehabilitate' them, and let them out, so they'll kill again.
Which one of those options puts your conscience most at ease?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
the vast majority of poor people (illegal or legal) on net receive money from the government. Illegals are far cheaper than legal poor people in that while they do no pay taxes (very similar situation) they don't receive transfers (which net make the legal poor receivers of money from the general population).
to name several very expensive programs that far outweight a minimum wager's contribution to fica and income taxes:
child tax credit
earned income tax credit
medicaid
chips
and on and on.
so actually, you shoudl be cheering the high illegal population because if you just replaced them with uneducated americans (you know, the ones who would take the jobs the illegals are doing now) you end up FAR WORSE OFF.
so you really want the agriculture industry back in the US? I can't such low expectations for americans. the best world I can think of us a country almost completely filled with educate professionals rather than attracting americans to wasting time picking strawberries and oranges by inflating the wages. I really want those jobs exported to other countries because frankly, we should be striving for better. And if we import labor to do these menial jobs in exchange for educating their children and further strengthening the US, then it's pretty good as well.
granted, my view espouses people embracing trade and the competition it brings and then rising up to meet the challenges of other highly educated countries (S. Korea, Singapore, India, China, Japan, Finland) rather than wanting to wallow in mediocrity cashing in on royalty payments from when we used to be the economy with the strongest foundation in the world. silly me.
I thought turing worked directly for the war effort (HUT-8 in bletchley park) and was considered the single biggest reason that group broke so many german ciphers so early. I'm not saying the fact that gay engineers have contributed to the war effort means that don't ask, don't tell is purely a technological matter, but rather your point about a gay guy working with technology and teh military buying it doesn't follow from a comment about turing's massive contributions to the war effort.
or was yoru comment directed at the second paragraph? at which point, it is relevant to all the gay engineers that would like to enlist to contribute to the war effort, especially as technology is so important to the war effort now. but that effect isn't unique to tech, it probably coudl be said about several other "nerdy" specialties, so I think it satisfies the news for nerds.
More taxation does not cure budget shortfalls. Controlling spending cures budget shortfalls.
Actually either one of the above two work. It is just a matter of what is your level of preference when it comes to government services.
that money is money that those people would have spent on something else, so taxes on the poor and middle class really take money almost directly out of the economy.
This is BS. Government doesn't burn your tax dollars, it spends thems, so tax dollars stay in the economy. Really, you need to rethink that one.
More taxation does not cure budget shortfalls. Controlling spending cures budget shortfalls.
Actually either one of the above two work. It is just a matter of what is your level of preference when it comes to government services.
that money is money that those people would have spent on something else, so taxes on the poor and middle class really take money almost directly out of the economy.
This is BS. The government doesn't burn your tax dollars, it spends them, so tax dollars stay in the economy. Really, you need to rethink that one.
weren't his contributions the most significant? early on, he basically single-handedly cracked enigma. while other may have figured it out, they didn't. I don't get the nobel prize for the discovery of of penicillin even though I "could" have done it later. Why would we honor those who didn't make the achievement? Are we going back to 3rd grade where everyone was a "winner"?
You misunderstand. The point was not that the government is not spending the dollars, but rather that for money taken from the poor and (at least the lower) middle class citizens, every dollar that the government spends comes at the expense of a dollar that the individuals would otherwise have spent on something else had they not paid it to the government. Thus as far as the amount of money being spent, it's at best break-even unless the government either:
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Only to a point. Once taxes exceed a certain point, they actually start to inhibit economic productivity, at which point you actually start to see a decrease in income from taxes. For example, if you increase sales tax beyond the point at which bartering starts to make sense, people stop buying things. If you increase property tax beyond the point where buying property makes sense, you start to see people defaulting en masse. When the cost of employing a worker gets too high due to payroll taxes, businesses can close down. And so on. And beyond any doubt, once taxes exceed 100% of income, no further increase of the tax rate can feasibly bring in more income no matter how good it might look on paper....
There are really only two ways that are guaranteed to resolve a budget shortfall. One is to decrease spending. The other is to invade another country and plunder its resources. I think we're too evolved for the latter at this point. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Only to a point. Once taxes exceed a certain point, they actually start to inhibit economic productivity, at which point you actually start to see a decrease in income from taxes.
The so called Laffer curve, which indicates there is an optimal level of taxation between 0% at which income is obviously zero, and 100% at which all economic activity is sent underground and income is also zero.
What most people forget is that all data indicates that the US is in the part of the curve of too low a level of taxation well below the point in which an increase in taxation reduces income from taxes.
For example, Clinton's tax increase lead to a balanced budget, Bush Jr's tax cuts lead to a record deficit.
There, got rid of some unnecessary specificity for you.
This is bullshit. Sure, it's significantly easier as a MSM to find a partner willing to skip the pretense of dinner times whatever number is currently socially acceptable, but the idea that most gay guys are having sex with multiple partners a night is pure fantasy. Hell, as far as I know it was hetero kids that came up with FWB.
If you actually observed for a minute instead of just dismissing homosexually, you'd find that most homos are just like most heteros. We all like to sleep around when we're young but we also want to find a stable relationship with a partner. Of course, when your society discourages you from forming or keeping those relationships, yeah you kind of are just left with cheap sex to fill the void.
No you probably won't hear much about it, but because it won't be that big of a deal (or at least, it doesn't have to be--I don't doubt the homo-haters will try). This is not a "social experiment." As always with social progress, we've let others do the hard experimentation for us so all we have to do is take the empirical evidence. Yes, such human rights pioneers such as China and South Africa allow homosexuals to serve in the military.
Even the Israeli army (who few would dispute that operate in an extremely stressful and hostile environment) can manage it:
Interestingly, they also seem to realize that the real security threat is not from openly gay service men and women, but the closeted ones:
So, it would seem that gays serving openly will result in fewer people dying.
For a continent that was full of totalitarian regimes, military dictatorships, ethnic conflicts, and religious conflicts until recently, that murdered many millions at home and abroad out of blind hatred and for profit throughout the 20th century, that leads the world in weapons exports, and that is starting to lead the world in invasion of privacy, surveillance, and government control, Europeans sure complain a lot (if you're from South America or one of the other continents, things don't look much better).
Here's a suggestions, Europe: start defending yourself and let the US troops go home. Everybody will be happier, and then you will see yourself what it takes to keep Russia out of Europe, to keep Germany from expanding again, and to ensure a steady and stable suppy of raw materials.
Yes, and better soldiers. When your soldiers don't reflect the composition and values of your society then its time to do some house-cleaning. Let's start with Marine Corps General Amos, and then maybe the Marine Corps itself if he accurately reflects its views.
Are you just baiting me? Of course they pay into medicare or social security.
I'm guessing you don't live in a state that has a lot of illegals, or you'd know this already. A minority of working illegal immigrants are "paid in cash".
You are welcome on my lawn.
So, I guess the next hurdle would be to get queer people refusing to classify themselves in binary genders accepted?
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
Okay, yes, illegal aliens pay sales tax. They do not, however, generally pay income tax, social security, or medicare. So they pay significantly less taxes than people operating above board, and that was the point.
Given that they'll never receive a pension, or disability, or unemployment benefit, and can not use medicare - the only "net benefit" to the the illegal alien would be from the income tax that they are not paying. I'm now trying to work out what benefits the illegal alien would get from that non-paid income tax, that a vacationer from another country would not also benefit from. Any ideas?
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
We'd be throwing ourselves at the mercy of the rest of the world
I'm sure it'd be fine. It's not like you've ever done anything to piss off the rest of the world, right?
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
They are related but not the same. They are related simply because it has to do with the sexuality and gender identity of the person. In fact, most of the groups for "gay rights" are in fact variations of "gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgendered and transexual" rights groups.
Also, considering that in order to get a sex change, it is required to live as the opposite sex for a long time. I welcome the first lawsuit of a transgendered person to live in the barracks of their target gender, and hope the lawsuit isn't required to get them to be allowed.
Chad? Yemen? You're just making countries up, admit it.
Did you read the post I replied to? That poster stated that "gay" and "transgendered" are unrelated categories. You say they are related, therefore you are not addressing the reason I posted.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Yes, I did read the post. I was making the point that I disagree with his statement of being unrelated, while simultaneously explaining how the relatedness is thin enough that it's easy to see how they are unrelated since they are related only by virtue of both being about sexuality. At the same time I was responding to the original post on the thread regarding the statement about lawsuits.
Are you really being so pedantic that you think that my post was only tangentially related to yours and thus I should have replied to the post you replied to rather than yours? Wait....of course you are, this is slashdot.
Ugh.
Did you just equate genital mutilation with a hair cut?
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
OK, why should someone who is mentally disturbed be allowed in the armed forces? Please explain how someone who wants to mutilate their body because their perception of their sexuality is at odds with their physical reality is not mentally disturbed.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Okay, yes, illegal aliens pay sales tax. They do not, however, generally pay income tax, social security, or medicare.
Why, oh why, do I post links when people won't read them?
renters do not pay property tax. The person who owns the rental property pays that. And no, you can't say that part of your rent goes to pay the tax; that tax would have been paid by the owner whether you were renting the property or not.
Renters do pay taxes. I as a rental property owner, not really, will consider how much I can charge for rent by what my expenses, which includes property taxes, are going to be. If my expenses are high then I will want high rent. People like Donald Trump don't get rich off of rental property by ignoring the taxes they will have to pay, they will lose their property if they do not pay it. How stupid can a person be?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
you shoudl be cheering the high illegal population
I don't cheer so called "illegal immigrants", I actually oppose laws that make immigration illegal. I totally support open borders.
the ones who would take the jobs the illegals are doing now
Except many of those here legally, citizens and immigrants, don't willing work at jobs taken by "illegals". How many citizens will work as a garbage collector? Unless pay is high, which then raises taxes, not many are willing to do the work. I have done the work. Agriculture is where a lot of immigrants work, again because Americans are unwilling to work for the pay, or because it's too hard. The same with construction. And again I've worked in construction.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Another person who doesn't read articles links are provided to.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
How is a desire to have a legal, ethical, and medically approved surgery "mutilating their body"? Does this mean that anyone who has plastic surgery of any kind is also "mutilating" their body?
Many people who serve in the military are "mentally disturbed" in various ways. The question is not whether someone who is mentally disturbed be allowed in the armed forces, the question is whether or not this causes a problem for the individual to follow orders and be capable of meeting all the requirements necessary to serve. There are plenty of sociopaths, anti-social, borderline, etc. in the military. As long as these do not prevent them in any way from carrying out their tasks, performing the duties assigned to them, and do not present a danger to others, they are allowed to serve, usually without even knowing they have these disorders, or caring.
That said, the only argument you can make is that transgendered falls under the problem of "gender identity disorder" where one's perception of their gender is at odds with their biological sex. Note, transgendered is not always about sexuality, but it is always about gender identity. Granted we're only talking about a section of people who are transgendered, the ones who desire to have a sex change. Not all transgendered individuals desire this. However, how is a male-to-female transexual, after the operation, different from someone who was born female? With the exception of the ability to become pregnant. Sure there is a social stigma attached but otherwise there is no difference. As long as they are able to follow orders and serve, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
However, how is a male-to-female transexual, after the operation, different from someone who was born female?
Perhaps you should study some biology. I am not going to go into all of the ways that biological science shows that physical and mental characteristics are determined by biological gender starting in the womb. Once these variations have occurred most of them are irreversible.
Being a woman or a man is not a social construct. Woman is word we use to refer to an adult female human. Man is a word we use to refer to an adult male human. Whether one is male or female is almost always determined at conception. I have nothing but sympathy for those few individuals whose biology is so messed up as to result in ambiguous gender (ambiguous gender is obvious at birth). I feel sorry for those people whose physical gender is not ambiguous who have been lead to believe that somehow they can actually change it.
I believe that men who surgically make themselves appear to be women are no less mutilating themselves than people who amputate their limbs for no medically necessary reason.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Perhaps you should do some studying as well. There are several theories behind the biological causes of gender identity disorder, but no universally accepted one. Generally all of those physical and mental characteristics are caused by various hormones or lack thereof. Thus, while a gender reassignment operation is not entirely perfect, nor is it faultless, it provides what the person needs. That their biological sexual characteristics match the chemically determined gender in their mind.
Yes, man and woman are what we use to refer to males and females based on biological sex. This is not the problem and has very little to do with gender, which is a social construct. When someone has a baby boy, they generally paint the room blue and buy toy trucks and little sporting equipment, things society has associated with males. By contrast, when someone has a baby girl they generally paint the room pink and buy them dolls, dresses, etc. things that society has associated with females.
The idea that women desire to cook, play with dolls, go shopping, etc. is a gender identity that is formed by society. By the same token, the idea that males should all focus on things like cars and sports, is also a gender identity formed by society. It's why people look strangely at a young boy who likes to play with dolls or call a girl who likes sports a "tomboy". It's why people generally frown upon males wearing dresses.
Biological science has reached the point where combinations of physical surgery and hormone therapy effectively does change the biological sex of an individual, even to the point where they can physically have sex properly as the desired sex. It's obviously not perfect, but it is enough that it solves the problem for these individuals.
Those who surgically make themselves appear to be female and those who surgically make themselves to appear to be male have a medical need for the surgery as much as someone else who needs any kind of treatment for their mental health. These are individuals who take hormone therapy and live as the opposite sex for a long time before actually having the operation. You may frown upon it or not understand it, but it is very real. They haven't been "led to believe", they have been informed. Most gender reassignment surgeries result in an outward appearance that is indistinguishable from someone who has been born of that sex, save maybe for a couple scars. So effectively, there is no difference.
Getting back to the topic at hand, you have not responded to my answer as to why they should be allowed to serve in the military. As long as they are capable of following orders, getting through basic training, and carrying out their duties, why should they not be allowed to serve? If they find a guy who can bench press 400lbs, run a mile in under 4 minutes, is a marksmen with a gun, and is completely willing and able to follow orders, should they not allow him to enlist because he was original born female? If he had a sex reassignment surgery and then trained for years to be in the military, why should he not be allowed in?
I'm sorry, "gender reassignment" surgery is no different than elective amputations. I don't believe that someone should have surgery because of their mental problems, they should have counseling.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No disagreement here. The Bush II era tax cuts were pretty clearly harmful to our Federal government and to our state governments that had to make up the difference when the Federal government started giving them less money.
To play devil's advocate, though, it is possible that some aspects of the economic meltdown might have been worse had there been higher taxation, in which case we might have ended up in the same shape or worse. It's not clear. Nor is it necessarily clear that the government spending less money would have reduced the deficit because that, too might have caused the meltdown to be worse. Any time when things have the potential to snowball, even the most basic assumptions about economics start to break down. In the long term, cutting spending or raising taxes (so long as you remain below that optimal point in the curve) tends to reduce the deficit on the average. In the short term, it usually reduces the deficit, too, but this is not always the case, depending on what else is going on. At best, economics is a pile of contradictory theories that are all correct some of the time and wrong most of the time.... :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I see where you fall on the issue. I said I take no opinion.
To play along though, (and I am talking about male circumcision, not female, which I do have an issue with) both irrevocably change the future of the child, and no pain is remembered. And they both make life a little less dangerous (long hair gets caught in stuff and uncircumcised men get more STDs)
To be honest, my first comment was hyperbole.
I have always understood sex (even consensual)to be mentally, emotionally, and physically dangerous. (Not that all sex is necessarily damaging) That is why I always understood pedophilia is viewed as wrong, to protect kids from danger they don't understand. Not that sex is mysteriously no longer dangerous at 18.
So to say 'you can't have sex with kids because it's dangerous for them' doesn't mean the rough converse, 'sex with adults is safe' is true. But it seems to be Conventional Wisdom...
They do have counseling. A lot of counseling. A helluva lot of counseling. In fact, most doctors (I say most because some are unscrupulous enough to allow this) won't allow someone to have the gender reassignment surgery without having spent years living as the target gender complete with hormone therapy. In addition, that isn't started until it's been determined that they are mentally stable enough to make this decision for themselves and have not rushed into it. There are many who start down the path of this idea, and then decide not to or are disallowed by their doctor due to mitigating factors. It's not like you can walk into a hospital and demand gender reassignment surgery.
This is one of many things, where counseling just doesn't cut it. Science doesn't yet know what causes the gender identity problems, but most agree that it is a chemical issue within the brain among other things. Counseling doesn't fix that. Obviously for you, this is a hard concept to grasp and I understand that. It's not exactly a socially accepted way to live yet. There's many societal stigmas involved with gender reassignment.
You view gender reassignment as no different than elective amputation. Is not all plastic surgery the same as that? Whether you're having liposuction, a tummy tuck, breast enlargement/reduction, nosejob, etc. All of those are no different than an elective amputation in my eyes. Yet, gender reassignment is very different. For all of those you can go in and if you have enough money, they'll willingly perform the operation for you. Most doctors (again, because some are unscrupulous enough to do it) will not allow it without the counseling and other parts that come along with it.
You're free to believe what you like. You still have not responded to the topic of a transsexual individual in the military. I can only assume that you have no legitimate rebuttal. Otherwise, I'd be interested to know your view. What is the problem with a Male-to-Female transsexual or a Female-to-Male transsexual in the military, wearing the uniform and generally behaving as a normal member of the target gender?
I would not want someone who had an arm or leg electively amputated in the military either.
I read an article by a man who was one of the initial proponents of "gender reassignment" surgery. His observation was that those who have such surgery continue to have the same psychological problems after surgery that they had before surgery. He no longer believes that "gender reassignment" surgery is in the best interests of the patient, even though he was one of those who first championed the idea.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
People can have opinions, it's when they confront others with them verbally or physically that issues arise.
Personally I'm the opposite of you. I want the church to have nothing to do with Marriage. Because I want a legally recognized relationship with benefits that straight married couples don't even think about. Health care plans, Health care Proxies, estate management, asset management... Hell I'd LOVE to file my taxes jointly with my significant other. It'd save a whole lot of time. but to the government, Federal and State, our 9 years together means nothing, and were he in a car accident his ex-wife has more legal precedence over what happens to him in a hospital than I do. Don't tell me there are "work arounds" A) they don't always stick, and B) I shouldn't HAVE to jump through hoops because my partner is not a female.
E8B8B
.THIS.
I am sick and tired of straight men assuming that they are $DEITY's gift to gay men. Just cause I am attracted to members of the same sex does not mean that I want *YOU*.
Put it this way. I'm in IT, I've worked in IT department's most of my adult life. I've NEVER been attracted to anyone in my IT department. Yet, being IT, it's still mostly males. I've even worked with other gay guys in IT, doesn't mean I'm attracted to them either. I've never had one of those workplace dilemma's of sleeping with someone at work, cause there's no one there that I would even consider...
As a gay male, I can tell you that out of a group of men, I'd find a sub-group attractive. It might not even people people I'd work with, but even if it were, Most of the guys I know would let someone else make the first move before starting down a path that would make an uncomfortable environment should the advances be not received well.
E8B8B
Actually, The URL depicts the content. Slash as we know is homoerotic fiction, and this is slashdot, and if you've read most of these posts, you know there's fan fiction in here. From The Definition
Another Gay Nerd on Slashdot
A single article, written by a single man, using his "observations" does not make a scientific study. Until otherwise shown, it makes more sense that the millions of people who are able to live their lives happily as a result of having this surgery speaks for itself.
I would not want someone who had an arm or leg electively amputated in the military either.
If they are physically capable (due to a prosthetic limb) of performing their duties and mentally capable of following orders. Then why not? Should we disallow anyone who has ever had any elective surgery? Should we disallow only those who have had elective plastic surgery? How is it different to have a limb amputated electively than to have a breast reduction? Or for a guy who has had some sort of penis enlargement surgery? Or any other cosmetic surgery? The only difference I can see is a social stigma.
Here's a twist. Heterosexual males are responsible for the vast majority of harassment and rape in the military. Since being a rapist is a very clear sign of mental disturbance, why are all heterosexual males allowed to serve in the military?
Here's a better question, why do you refuse to answer my questions? Why would you not want a transsexual serving in the military under as their target gender? Hell, why wouldn't you want someone who had an elective amputation to serve in the military?
If they can't make good decisions regarding the body they were born with, why would I trust them to make good decisions under the pressure of war?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Who's to say whether their decision was good or not? Certainly not you or me. "Making a good decision" is a matter of personal opinion. Especially in the case of a transsexual individual, usually the gender reassignment is the only thing that prevents them from drowning in depression and eventually committing suicide. Having the surgery provides them the ability to be a happy and productive human being.
Try again.
According to the gentleman I referred to earlier, studies show that "gender reassignment" does not prevent them from drowning in depression and eventually committing suicide. Having the surgery does not provide them with the ability to be a happy and productive human being. Someone who is unhappy as a result of something outside of their control is never happier after that something is changed, they just start blaming something else for their unhappiness.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
A nice study of a follow-up on a few individuals who had sex reassignment surgery Here's another one
Both of these show that the sex reassignment surgery does indeed alleviate the feelings of gender dysphoria. This is not to say that other problems may come as a result (due to aftereffects such as people's reactions to their new gender role, job situations, etc.) but that the gender dysphoria which caused their initial unhappiness and situation is indeed treated by the surgery. It's not a panacea, but it's not this useless and unnecessary operation that you believe it to be. Could you please show me the studies that show the opposite? If you require, I'll find more studies proving my point.
Someone who is unhappy as a result of something outside of their control is never happier after that something is changed, they just start blaming something else for their unhappiness.
Not true. Someone who is unhappy as a result of something outside of their control is indeed happier if that something is changed. If they just start blaming something else for their unhappiness, then it was not actually a result of that original thing which was changed and thus the cause has not been addressed. There is a large amount of counseling and testing that goes into deciding whether someone will have the surgery or not, in order to ensure that only those who actually need it will get it. The first article even goes into various interpretations of the results that could result in a less positive outcome, but dismisses them for many reasons. Thus confirming that the surgery is a good thing that helps these individuals.
That's nice.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Actually I agree with you on one point. Marriage is a very religious thing. Why is the government involved at all? All unions should be civil unions in the eyes of the law, and then individual churches can choose to call them marriages or not.
With regard to freedom, if your belief in freedom includes the right for you to deny freedom to others, then your freedom isn't very free. Compare a person who says "live and let live" with someone who says "A society isn't really free unless I am free to steal his car." Both are definitions of freedom but one is more typical of American freedom than the other.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
And if the one group of soldiers would harm or through inaction allow harm to another, then I wouldn't want them in the military.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
And if the one group of soldiers would harm or through inaction allow harm to another, then I wouldn't want them in the military.
Not to be pedantic, but I'll assume you meant something like "then they ought not be in the military."
And I think this is hard to dispute: all soldiers are human, so as a group they are subject to fear and so they could, through inaction, allow someone to die.
Homophobia is a manifestation of fear. (I make no pretense of being a psychologist, though.) And the natural objection is that it's hardly the same as being afraid of bullets, but in my experience fear doesn't work in such a rational manner.
Is there something wrong with me because I can jump out of an airplane, but I can't stand snakes and spiders? And, while I've got about 25 jumps under my belt, I've never been the first jumper. It's *much* harder to be the first because you spend a good few minutes staring down at the empty sky and can lock up with panic. If you're even second in line you're inside the plane and just have to follow the guy in front, hand off your reserve, turn and just "push" through the emptiness. If I had been the first guy, it's entirely possible I could have been a jump refusal and then I would have probably lost my wings.
So, even for a case where fear is a clear disqualifier for a eminently practical reason, and even when that fear is tested repeatedly, it's extremely difficult to determine who has "too much" fear with any reliability, let alone to the point where you can say there is a "group" that shouldn't be allowed to perform some activity.
If anything, I know I've worked with people who are racist and in some cases didn't like me because they didn't like white people. Similarly, I knew people who certainly expressed prejudice against gays, but I also knew there were a few closeted gays in the unit. Given that they didn't take any action but possibly could have, should they have been disqualified from service?
On a more practical note, how would you make a policy out of this? Would we be able to find enough people to form a military? And would you be able to sell that policy to people who were suspicious that you were trying to shrink the military?
What is it with people that think that if someone has a problem with a gay person or even the gay life style that they must be a homophobe?
Well because that's pretty much the definition of the word.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.