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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I think you need to pay closer attention. The Democratic congress has worked almost every work day of each month, with some time off during the traditional times taken off. The Republicans are the ones who are never in session. during the Bush years, they worked 10 days a month... and the new house leadership has already scheduled next years session and they are back to 10 days a month.
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.
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
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
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The stupid is strong with you.
Alan Turing wasn't some random gay person "working with technology." He fucking invented it.
Douchebag.
--
BMO
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.
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'
Freedom trumps discomfort, every single time.
If you are uncomfortable with other's freedom, (again back to the consenting adult litmus) then you are a bigot... you are irrationally opposed to another person's equal rights on the basis of irrelevant or woefully misguided reasons.
It's pretty simple really. It's absolutely enough to call someone a bigot over "one issue". People were once afraid of blacks in the military too. well, fuck those people, I have no problem at all making them "uncomfortable" if it means another human being gets to actually live their own lives, as they choose, with EQUAL rights.
and fuck these people for being afraid of gays serving openly too, just as heartily.
You used a lot of big words and I was worried that I might have missed something. Now that I am assured of my understanding, I am free to say that I disagree with your assertion that this repeal is not meaningful. It may mean nothing to you, but it means a lot to those affected by DADT. Civil rights are not a binary bit, civil rights or no civil rights. The fight for civil rights is like fighting a forest fire. You have to stamp out what you can, when you can. Also, I find it saddening that you think so little of those who work for equal rights, that you believe that they can be distracted from the ultimate goal of equality for all, with what you feel is a little sop. I understand your disaffection for the government and their manipulation of the people. It makes me angry too, but I sense at the end of your sentiment the belief that we can do without government and a military is immoral. That may be me putting words in your mouth though. All life is based on struggle. We as humans are in a nearly unique position to transcend that struggle, but we must acknowledge that we are nowhere near that position yet. Sometimes I feel like we are falling further from that goal. Until we get there, we will need mediation for conflict. The government is needed for peaceful disagreement, the military when that disagreement gets not-so peaceful. We need a government, we need a military. However, there may be imperfections that need fixed.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
You can have gay rights and imperialism. You can't have *equal* rights and imperialism.
Okay, I get that. So your civil rights are forest fires, while the civil rights of gays in the military are private swimming pools? You want equal rights, but their choices aren't right choices and should be disregarded as not part of the movement?
A man's beliefs are fundamental in forming his opinions. That is why I brought it up. I deduced that you were at least a libertarian and/or a pacifist because of your dismissal of this repeal. A man who disagrees with his government's actions wouldn't have decided that it means nothing. He may have considered it a small step, but not nothing or, as you seem to see it, a setback. Who we are and what we believe has everything to do with how and what we argue.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
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.
The word imperial was not coined to describe the US.
Well, duh. That doesn't mean the US isn't an imperialist, just that it isn't alone (especially in history).
overall, the US is a force for good in the world.
I would never say the US has done no good in the world. But I can't agree that it has done more good than harm. The US began its empire, immediately after leaving the British empire, by conquering an entire continent, dispensing with hundreds of nations and millions of people in the process. It then conquered and annexed half of a neighboring country (Mexico). Much of the receding Spanish imperial territories (Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico), then the Philippines where hundreds of thousands were murdered. Then Hawaii. Overthrown governments include: Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq. It's intervened on behalf of the Phalange movement in Lebanon, death squads in Colombia (and really all over Latin America), brutal dictators like Pinochet, Suharto, Hussein, Zia-ul-Haq, and on and on. It's the only country on earth to have dropped nuclear bombs on civilian populations (twice!). Following WWII, it reinstated fascist governors throughout contested areas of Italy and Greece. It's supported genocide in East Timor and Kurdistan, committed genocide in Indochina, and been the primary source of support for Israel's ongoing colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine for over 40 years (with a lesser degree of support going all the way back to the Nakba in 1948). It is currently engaged in two military occupations which have taken hundreds of thousands of lives. In Iraq, it has displaced about 20% of the population. In Afghanistan, it continues to escalate against the wishes of the population, and the consequences—already pretty bad—will only grow worse.
And that's the short list. The one I could do off the top of my head, insofar as I could keep it roughly chronological. But here I want to take a step back and point back that imperialism is a precise term, and the moral and emotional qualities we're attaching to it are not part of its definition, but rather our reaction to it. Imperialism is the imposition of a state upon other populations. It is absolutely precise to describe the US' role as imperial. What you or I think about that is another matter.
ascribe bad motives to the US to the exclusion of everything else
I never said the US is unique. I don't know where you got that idea.
After fighting and defeating the Axis in the 20th century
Not alone, and not consistently. The US leadership was enamored with Franco and Mussolini, and had high regard for Hitler. Had the alliances played out differently, it's not inconceivable that the US would have entered the war on their side, particularly as a bulwark against the "real" threat (the Soviet Union), but really its immediate quarrel was with Japan, which is where it placed its focus. Germany was defeated primarily by the Soviet Union.
and helping to put things back together
In part by constructing a post-war economy that helped to stall European recovery at the advantage of the US.
and not completely taking away the sovereignty of the vanquished should tell anyone that the US wants a dominant position, but not an empire.
This is how *all* successful empires are run. The British had their Rajas, the Ottomans provincial autonomy, and so on. Few empires maintain absolute control over their entire sphere of influence, but instead shape the politics of the dominated places to be subservient to the central power.
1 - sexuality is not about behavior. Sexual behavior is not the same as sexuality. This is factual, not hair splitting. I could introduce you to a lesbian who was sexually behaved as a married straight woman for 15 years, happily. Although in the end she figured out she was missing out on something -- her own sexuality.
2 - most other western militaries are openly integrated and none report these kinds of imagined problems. It's just troops being bigoted without actually having to deal with reality that they already have gay troops and it's already fine, they just don't know it.
-josh
I feel that your position is wrongheaded and nearsighted. I feel that the position stems from your own, very wrong and unrealistic, beliefs. I actually believe that with some thought, these feelings are correct and self-evident.
Well, good for you. I don't really care what you feel and believe. I've provided argument, and support for my argument, and you've responded by trying to paraphrase my argument in a way that's convenient for you to dismiss, but haven't provided much in the way of challenging my position.
I did not "twist" what you said. I am attempting to demonstrate.
You are changing the meaning of my position in so doing. It's called a straw man argument, look it up.
I simply restated on simpler terms and you found the statement distasteful. Why?
I chose my words carefully, and words are not always interchangeable. Your rephrasing of my position does not reflect what I meant to say, it reflects what you chose to see in it. And if you're not being deliberately dishonest, then you're demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between my version of my position and yours.
You are the one who brought up morality.
If you can't conceive of moral principles besides "evil" and "good"... I don't even know how to finish that sentence. Really?
Exactly how did I change the original meaning?
Well, I never said anyone or anything is evil, to begin with. So, basically, you entirely eliminated the original meaning and superimposed a completely ludicrous one on top of it.
You have taken an all-or-nothing approach to this discussion.
No, I haven't. I absolutely believe in incremental progress. I don't believe the repeal is progress, I believe it is an opportunistic misstep.
This repeal does nothing for you and you construe it to help your enemy.
And, I provide supporting logic for that point. Which you don't seem to care for.
You have some mythical big picture where the government plays us all as pawns and this repeal is a ploy to distract us.
I'm sorry if that's the impression I've given. I don't think it's anything as sinister as that. I think that the government, the military, and so on have interests that they serve, but I don't think they "play" us in any conscious sense. I think they serve their interests as well as they can, and if that means pink-washing imperialism than so be it. They don't have any principles besides power, and the social leanings of the day can be manipulated whatever they happen to be.
Exactly how will we become distracted? Is the HRC going to close up tomorrow?
*I* won't become distracted. I can't speak for you. But I can say that organizations lobbying for the DADT repeal will, if they proceed for changes beyond the repeal, be given the same line that all progressives with an ear in the White House have been getting for the last two years: your expectations are too high, get in line or shut up.
What does American imperialism have to do with DADT?
I don't know why you're asking me to explain something I've addressed from the outset, but okay. DADT was a mistaken policy, now corrected, implemented by the US military which is engaged in imperialism. By correcting this mistake, it is better suited to engage in imperialism.
Gays and lesbians, thousands of them, will someday soon, be able to go to work and not have to lie about how they spent their weekend. How is this repeal anything other than a good thing?
For those individuals, it's a good thing in a sense. And I don't begrudge them that. Though I do wish they'd find a better job. But it's also more than that. It's also a propaganda tool that plays exceptionally well into the hands of their employers.
... and that the internal oppression is used as a means of social control in order to divide people who might otherwise unite to stop the broader system of oppression.
All of which is to say, speaking as a queer personally, I do not see a meaningful improvement in the cause of justice by allowing queers to go kill and die for US imperialism.
A meaningful queer civil rights struggle would be anti-imperialist and anti-militarist by default, and the extent to which it disregards those values it is actively undermining the fundamental moral principle of equal rights.
As a straight man, I supported the repeal of DADT for the same reasons that I support gay marriage. First, I believe that it's none of the government's business. Second, I believe that these "issues," along with many others, are intentionally used to split the population and keep them from uniting on issues that are really in there best interests. So in a way, I agree with you. But there are gays that want to serve in the military, and there are gays that want to get married and the fact they can't is discrimination. As long as this issue is unresolved, it will be an effective wedge. That and I guess I'm just a bleeding heart.
Now, in my opinion, focusing on the imperialism and militarism of the US is still focusing on a symptom. The cause is that over the last 150 or so years corporations have been acquiring all the rights of individual humans (and shedding the responsibilities). Therefore we do not have a government of the people, by the people. The "American interests" we spend billions (oops, trillions) to promote and defend are rarely in the best interest of most actual Americans.
P.S. Now that the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that freedom of speech is a corporation's "right" and furthermore money is speech, it's only going to get worse.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
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.
This paper seems to cover some of that ground: "The Eros of Achilles: Homoerotic Bonding Among Combat Soldiers" by J Laskaris - Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 2000 - vol 10 p139 onwards.
Wow, awesome find.
First of all, there's a section titled "Mantaming Sparta."
Second, there is this very interesting passage:
Jonathan Shay calls attention to our culture's homophobia as inhibiting or preventing combat soldiers from expressing their full grief at the loss of close comrades - a process that he considers essential in preventing post-traumatic stress disorder and states that, ''Veterans need to voice their grief and love for their dead comrades if they are to heal. However, many have learned to keep quiet because of their culture's discomfort with love between men that is so deeply felt."
That's an aspect of homophobia / "don't ask don't tell" that few think about.