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."

Comments

New targets

[Anonymous Coward]

Make them the test targets!

Obama achieved something

[should_be_linear]

My head is gonna explode...

Re:Obama achieved something

[oldhack]

Congress did, Dems with some Reps, no thanks to Obama.

Re:Obama achieved something

[AmaDaden]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[modmans2ndcoming]

where have you been? He has been achieving his goals since day one.

Re:Obama achieved something

[oldhack]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[MichaelSmith]

Given the scale of the US political system I am amazed anything gets done at all. I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities. It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

where have you been? He has been achieving his goals since day one.

Ya, his goals of destroying the US military, forcing a socialist health care system down our throats, and giving Muslim terrorists as many opportunities to kill us as he can.

Re:Obama achieved something

[The Wild Norseman]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Isaac-1]

Let me start off by saying I often agree with the Republicans, but I have been saying DADT was a bad policy since it first came about and it has nothing to do with gays serving in the military. This policy was a side step, it was like the solution of cutting the kid in half for joint custody, no one liked it. The reality of this policy after all was not "Don't Ask Don't Tell", but was instead "If we don't find out it is ok", just look at the number of gays in the military that were outed through no action of their own, who then had to face the punishment. At least now we can move on to something that is A POLICY.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like another Tea Partier who gave up getting his GED...

Re:Obama achieved something

[im_thatoneguy]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[oldhack]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1: Repeal DADT
Step 2: ???
Step 3: No more military!

Re:Obama achieved something

[Killjoy_NL]

Well, I wouldn't follow your elbow into battle, so your comment is worthless to me :)

Re:Obama achieved something

[coaxial]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[causality]

It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.

Population growth doesn't do that. The increasing centralization of power is what does that.

I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities.

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?

Re:Obama achieved something

[gobaudd]

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Re:Obama achieved something

[mspohr]

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.

It really would be good for California to form it's own country. We would be much better off socially, financially, etc. California's economy as a nation would be about 9th in the world.

Re:Obama achieved something

[MightyMartian]

California's problems are in large part because of its absurd constitution which created one of the most worthless political systems in the democratic world.

Re:Obama achieved something

[0100010001010011]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Ethanol-fueled]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[blankinthefill]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[modmans2ndcoming]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[benjamindees]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[MightyMartian]

And then the California agriculture industry would collapse.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[causality]

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".

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.

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.

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[dgatwood]

No, California's economic problems stem from a number of factors:

• The largest percentage of illegal immigrants (most of whom don't pay taxes) of any state in the U.S. (Source: statemaster.com)
• One of the largest homeless populations per capita of any state in the U.S. (due principally to climate)
• A history of significant imbalance between dollars sent to the federal government and dollars gotten back. (Source: taxfoundation.org) Note that the state is doing better than break-even this year, as is every other state, but decades of losses add up.
• A massively broken U.S. health care system that is causing every state in the nation to bleed.
• Severe unemployment in historically strong sectors.
• The bursting of much bigger housing bubbles than nearly anywhere else in the country, resulting in a sudden and dramatic drop in property tax revenues.
• Over-reliance on sales tax revenue that took a dive due to the recession.
• Decades of stupid politicians with no financial sense who spent every penny the state brought in. This is basically a fundamental problem with having 90% of your government officials be lawyers; most lawyers have never dealt with tough economic times, so most do not know how to live within their means.

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[benjamindees]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[plasticsquirrel]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Seumas]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

>> 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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[eples]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[metrix007]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[omfgnosis]

Where's it going to go? It's going to go and price itself right out of the market. Thanks to the global market and technology shenanigans that have been played with food, food production for export/shipment just can't function without near-slavery wages on the fields. If you really want to end illegal immigration, you should be focusing on ending food export/shipment, dismantling NAFTA, and ending the War on Drugs.

Re:Obama achieved something

[bfields]

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....

Re:Obama achieved something

[Opportunist]

Besides, what's needed to dodge draft? Just go there with a buddy and start making out, presto you're out.

Re:Obama achieved something

[slashqwerty]

Are you suggesting that each of the 50 US states should have their own military?

Re:Obama achieved something

[dwye]

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).

Re:Obama achieved something

[Ethanol-fueled]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[khallow]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[eugene ts wong]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

I know how you feel. I'm starting to wish Hitler had won, too.

Re:Obama achieved something

[hairyfeet]

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?

Re:Obama achieved something

[PopeRatzo]

I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities.

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[PopeRatzo]

The situation in California is particularly dire.

And yet California still sends tax money to bail out shit holes like South Carolina or Alaska.

It really would be good for California to form it's own country.

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[PopeRatzo]

It's going to go and price itself right out of the market.

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[PopeRatzo]

The largest percentage of illegal immigrants (most of whom don't pay taxes)

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[PopeRatzo]

I'm starting to wish the Confederates won.

It's not too late to let them secede. The union states would be a lot better off without all the dead weight.

Re:Obama achieved something

[hamiltondaniel]

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...

Re:Obama achieved something

[Opportunist]

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?

Re:Obama achieved something

[Ethanol-fueled]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[omfgnosis]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[GodfatherofSoul]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[clarkkent09]

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).

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

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..... ?

Re:Obama achieved something

[clarkkent09]

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

Re:Obama achieved something

[clarkkent09]

All those make things worse though. What has he done to make things better?

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

>>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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[SumterLiving]

"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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad there's a federal justice department to kick his sorry ass.

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?

Re:Obama achieved something

[Ethanol-fueled]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.)

Re:Obama achieved something

[Boronx]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[dbIII]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Isaac-1]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Obama achieved something

[potat0man]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[MichaelSmith]

You sound like a monarchist

Re:Obama achieved something

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[markass530]

So the states without sales tax?? duh.. and property tax via rents is almost as weak.

Re:Obama achieved something

[FatLittleMonkey]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

Heading towards?

I'd be curious to know which year in the 20th century was the US not at war with somebody, somewhere.

Re:Obama achieved something

[omfgnosis]

What's step two? Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:Obama achieved something

[sunspot42]

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/

Re:Obama achieved something

[omfgnosis]

America has been in a perpetual state of war since its inception.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Jaxoreth]

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Evidently, Obama has done fuck-all for people who use NoScript.

Re:Obama achieved something

[KingAlanI]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[migla]

The aqueduct?

Re:Obama achieved something

[DesScorp]

. 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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Alomex]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[ScentCone]

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?

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of those morons complaining aren't paying any income tax.

Re:Obama achieved something

[iserlohn]

Yes, and as a group, most would probably fall under the annual income threshold required to pay income tax in most states.

Re:Obama achieved something

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[PopeRatzo]

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,

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.

California has a lover per capita GDP than Alaska

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?

Re:Obama achieved something

[PopeRatzo]

You bought Oranges from South Africa? Seriously?

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[TheRaven64]

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...

Re:Obama achieved something

[M1FCJ]

I guess it's about time Israeli and British armies collapse since they've been allowing gays to serve for quite some time.

Re:Obama achieved something

[mspohr]

Isn't the right to secede the ultimate state right?

Re:Obama achieved something

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

No, just deeply federalist.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Opportunist]

In other words, the safest way for a gay to survive the war is to bend over for his superior officer.

Re:Obama achieved something

[TheRaven64]

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).

Re:Obama achieved something

[Omestes]

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...

Re:Obama achieved something

[sco08y]

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!

Re:Obama achieved something

[budgenator]

The saying goes "Lead, Follow or get the hell out of the way" so Obama takes a lot of vacations.

Re:Obama achieved something

[DrugCheese]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[TarPitt]

The largest percentage of illegal immigrants (most of whom don't pay taxes)

That's bogus. They pay sales tax,...

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!

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

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.
-People are not satisfied with Obama. :. Obama is sitting on his ass.

Why read the news when you can follow people on twitter?

Re:Obama achieved something

[omfgnosis]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[selven]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[MichaelSmith]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[falsified]

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?

Re:Obama achieved something

[falsified]

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.)

Re:Obama achieved something

[coaxial]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[budgenator]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[budgenator]

Those kids are often natural born US Citizens.

Re:Obama achieved something

[budgenator]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[dgatwood]

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.

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[dgatwood]

As for the housing bubble? Good.

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[mspohr]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[dgatwood]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[gordo3000]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Alomex]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[Alomex]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[dgatwood]

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.

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:

• Engages in deficit spending
• Takes money from people who would otherwise have saved that money rather than spending it (which basically means the extremely wealthy).

Re:Obama achieved something

[dgatwood]

Actually either one of the above two work.

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. :-)

Re:Obama achieved something

[Alomex]

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.

Re:Obama achieved something

[PopeRatzo]

They also don't generally pay into medicare or social security.

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".

Re:Obama achieved something

[gfreeman]

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?

Re:Obama achieved something

[Anonymous Coward]

Chad? Yemen? You're just making countries up, admit it.

Re:Obama achieved something

[dgatwood]

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.... :-)

Pointless Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, this has nothing to do with technology whatsoever. Keep your non-technology opinions to yourself Timothy.

Re:Pointless Article

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why it's in the Politics section, you fucking prick.

Re:Pointless Article

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to defend timmah, but where are you seeing opinion in this summary? Looks pretty straightforward to me.

Re:Pointless Article

[Totenglocke]

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.

Re:Pointless Article

[tomhudson]

Nothing to do with technology?

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.

Re:Pointless Article

[HanzoSpam]

By all means, have yourself a gay Christmas!

Re:Pointless Article

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Pointless Article

[causality]

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.

Re:Pointless Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Err? How's some sort of Christian video with unclear objectives gay?

Wait, did I miss the joke?

Re:Pointless Article

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Pointless Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me you're trying to be funny.

Re:Pointless Article

[interkin3tic]

Let's see. Does the name Alan Turing [wikipedia.org] ring a bell? The same guy who saved more lives in WW2 than anyone else by cracking the german cypher codes was also forced to take female hormones to chemically castrate him to avoid going to jail for being gay (1952).

The military owes a lot to the gays and lesbians, both civilian and military, who put up with the intolerance and ignorance to serve their country. The military is also the single biggest spender on technology. Any change in military hiring and staffing of this nature is relevant.

I think this falls under the "news that matter" business, but that's kind of a weak claim there. A gay guy who worked with technology, and the military buying technology does not make this about technology.

Re:Pointless Article

[oldmac31310]

That video is garbage, badly done and not funny. Surely you could come up with something better.

Re:Pointless Article

[bmo]

The stupid is strong with you.

Alan Turing wasn't some random gay person "working with technology." He fucking invented it.

Douchebag.

--
BMO

Re:Pointless Article

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Pointless Article

[dwye]

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.

Re:Pointless Article

[SecurityGuy]

Does the name Alan Turing [wikipedia.org] ring a bell? The same guy who saved more lives in WW2 than anyone else by cracking the german cypher codes was also forced to take female hormones to chemically castrate him to avoid going to jail for being gay (1952).

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.

Re:Pointless Article

[interkin3tic]

That wasn't meant to be dismissive of his accomplishment, but you know, feel free to get upset by it.

Re:Pointless Article

[clarkkent09]

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?

Re:Pointless Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see. Does the name Alan Turing ring a bell?

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 :(

Re:Pointless Article

[markass530]

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.

Re:Pointless Article

[Lord Kano]

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

Re:Pointless Article

[tomhudson]

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.

Re:Pointless Article

[tomhudson]

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

Re:Pointless Article

[tomhudson]

And how is unit cohesion enhanced when some members have to worry about being seen as an "outsider" and "not fit for service" if someone finds out they're gay or lesbian?

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

Re:Pointless Article

[tomhudson]

It's relevant. It's relevant to technology because even civilians have to undergo security checks for some tech positions at private corporations. It's relevant because it indicates that eventually, LGBT students at universities can get their education funded by an ROTC program.

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

Re:Pointless Article

[tomhudson]

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

Re:Pointless Article

[Anonymous Coward]

He invented technology. Yeah, ok. And Einstein invented math.

Re:Pointless Article

[gordo3000]

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.

Re:Pointless Article

[gordo3000]

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"?

Yea America!

[Silpher]

Now get rid of torture and death sentence and you'll upgrade from stone age to bronze age!

Re:Yea America!

[wizardforce]

The problem is that this just left the decision to the military rather than grant blanket protection against discrimination.

Re:Yea America!

[Haedrian]

They'll need to collect enough food first.

Re:Yea America!

[Anonymous Coward]

lmao :)

Re:Yea America!

[m.ducharme]

Errr, I thought Bronze Age armies in Greece and whatnot had openly gay soldiers.

Re:Yea America!

[modmans2ndcoming]

Yes, but now there is a real ability to protect Gays and Lesbian's and unless we make a huge step backwards, I doubt we will have another president who is homophobic like Reagan or Bush Sr. was.

Re:Yea America!

[assertation]

Don't worry, we still have the Christian fundamentalists and the far right to help us catch up to radical Islam in the race back the middle ages.

Re:Yea America!

[wizardforce]

Unfortunately, that's probably not the case. If the last elections of the house/senate are any indication, it's certainly possible that if the dems screw up too much we'll have another one just like Reagan/Bush as the president within the decade.

Re:Yea America!

[alchemy101]

No, according to my Civilization tech tree poster there's still a few more prerequisite techs you need...

Re:Yea America!

[imamac]

Of course you let out who actually instituted DADT. But feel free to go on living in your dream world of Democrat perfection.

Re:Yea America!

[Killjoy_NL]

To me the democrats are incompetent and the republicans are evil, but I don't live in the US and am just happy that this bill finally passed.

Re:Yea America!

[bky1701]

You can't seriously be suggesting that Americans need more food, can you?

Re:Yea America!

[modmans2ndcoming]

I left Clinton out because DADT was a proposed rule to protect Gays in the military. It reversed the policies under Reagan and Bush that persecuted Gays and Lesbians by "protecting their private lives from scrutiny". It was not an Anti-gay measure, even though it failed miserably and allowed persecution to continue, but now codified it and tied the executive branch's hands from being able to do anything about it.

But go on living in your bizzaro world where stoopid is smart.

Re:Yea America!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't seriously be suggesting that Americans need more food, can you?

Lord knows we have enough knowledge and military/civics research.

And we're not pop capped at the moment.

Re:Yea America!

[timeOday]

The problem is that this just left the decision to the military rather than grant blanket protection against discrimination.

But remember who is commander-in-chief of the military. Obama will be making a mistake if he doesn't have a press conference to, first, sign the bill, and second, give an order pronouncing DADT dead.

Re:Yea America!

[/dev/trash]

China and the Middle East first!

Re:Yea America!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. The death penalty is a necessary evil. If you don't like it, then stay the fuck out of my country so that you don't ever risk it getting used on you.

Re:Yea America!

[Anonymous Coward]

china and the mideast don't declare themselves defenders of all that is holy and righteous like the US does. We declare ourselves the best but then take on the tactics of our enemies. You can't be the best if you act like those you call the worst.

This is one of the problems with America today. We refuse to lead anymore. Want to stop torture? Mideast first! Don't like killing innocent civilians for no reason? Muslims first! We need to lead on human rights and not wait for countries we openly disdain for their human rights policies. Why do we have to wait on them? Can't we just lead by doing the right thing?

Re:Yea America!

[pleasegetreal]

Probably brought to us from a European, Home of the Last Two World Wars.

Re:Yea America!

[causality]

Yes, but now there is a real ability to protect Gays and Lesbian's and unless we make a huge step backwards, I doubt we will have another president who is homophobic like Reagan or Bush Sr. was.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is what's being repealed here. I'll mention that this policy came from the Clinton administration. If it is an inherently homophobic policy then Clinton would be the homophobe in question.

Now, there are a lot of childish people on this site. Childish people don't understand the concept that one can criticize a Democrat without also supporting a Republican. I think understanding that would be against their religion and they are quite devout. Anyway, in the hopes that they'll control their urge to knee-jerk, I'll roll my eyes and explain for their benefit that I'm no defender of Reagan and I am especially no defender of Bush.

Having said that, I'd like you to help me understand your viewpoint if you would. What is homophobic about "don't ask, don't tell"? Do you believe it is inherently homophobic and no amount of reform could fix that, or do you believe it is inherently neutral but has been implemented in a homophobic manner?

I never liked Clinton, not just because I have philosophical disagreements with him but also because he is a masterful politician. He always gave me the impression of a master salesman who could talk you into buying things you don't need and cannot afford and make you think that doing it was your own idea. That's a skill that honest people don't need. Yet I am thankful that I don't suffer from the popular need to demonize anything or anyone I don't like, so when I think something he did was a good idea I can say so.

It seemed to me that "don't ask, don't tell" was a way to reinforce the professionalism of the military. It made it easier for the soldiers to focus on their difficult and dangerous work instead of being distracted by concerns like what consenting adults do behind closed doors. I believe concerns like that have no place on the battlefield. I believe that's true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. If you believe I am wrong or misguided, can you tell me why?

Re:Yea America!

[nomadic]

I never liked Clinton, not just because I have philosophical disagreements with him but also because he is a masterful politician. He always gave me the impression of a master salesman who could talk you into buying things you don't need and cannot afford and make you think that doing it was your own idea. That's a skill that honest people don't need.

Really? So you can't see that being a worthwhile skill for a hostage negotiator? Or a diplomat having to prevent a war?

Re:Yea America!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't seriously be suggesting that Americans need more food, can you?

Lord knows we have enough knowledge and military/civics research.

And we're not pop capped at the moment.

Get back to work, Frogboy.

Re:Yea America!

[Anonymous Coward]

......

And in other news, the US is ramping up attacks inside of Pakistan, Yemen, and possibly Somolia. Which technically means, we are now fights 3 wa........... We're just a fucking WAR machine aren't we!?!?

Re:Yea America!

[causality]

I never liked Clinton, not just because I have philosophical disagreements with him but also because he is a masterful politician. He always gave me the impression of a master salesman who could talk you into buying things you don't need and cannot afford and make you think that doing it was your own idea. That's a skill that honest people don't need. Really? So you can't see that being a worthwhile skill for a hostage negotiator? Or a diplomat having to prevent a war?

Because I am personally not that way, sometimes I forget how desperately some people need to point a finger and say "hah, you're wrong!" So I wrote "that's a skill that honest people don't need" instead of writing "that's a skill that honest people generally don't need." Yup, I left out a word that I should have included.

So ok, you got me. You win, I lose. Feel better? Good. Isn't nitpicking fun, productive, and useful?

Now that I've responded to your enlightening objection, if you feel like actually discussing the subject of "don't ask, don't tell" and helping me to understand why some people believe it is homophobic, that would be appreciated.

P.S. if you don't understand what I mean by a desperate need to find fault, I can elaborate a bit. You just read a post where I twice rejected a childish, either-or, black-and-white perception of the world. I rejected it once in terms of partisan politics. I rejected it a second time by demonstrating that I can be objective and say that I like something Clinton did even though I dislike the man himself. Yet you see me make one comment about honest people and what do you ask me? You ask me if I can't recognize exceptions to this statement.

Re:Yea America!

[Opportunist]

Yeah, and if you liked "300" you probably rooted for the fags. :)

Re:Yea America!

[lessthan]

The simple answer is that the military isn't always on the battlefield and people's lives in the military are significantly more entwined than co-workers at a civilian job. You live with the people you work with. You go to bars with them and get roaring drunk with them. They invite you to their parties and weddings. The bosses make sure everybody has a place to go on Thanksgiving and Christmas. A lot of the time, your co-workers are the only people who speak the same language as you.

"Don't ask, don't tell" full name is "Don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, don't pursue." Until it was passed, someone could make a complaint to the relevant authority that you were a homosexual and the authority, such as NCIS, was obliged to investigate and determine if, in fact, you were a homosexual. If they believed(not proved) that you were a homosexual, you were then dishonorable discharged, under a special code. The code would show up when your prospective employer checked and would tell them that you were a homosexual. How would an employer react to finding out you were a homosexual pre-nineties?

"Don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise. It put an end to the proactive investigations, military police searching your room for proof on someone else's word. It did not end the discrimination, for if you were caught doing something homosexual, for example, holding hands or kissing or hanging out in a gay bar (which they, to this day, raid) that person was obligated to testify against you to have you discharged. That is just the legalese version. Have you every talked about your significant other while at work? Can you imagine being forbidden from doing so? Can you imagine meeting everybody's girlfriends and wives, but if you even have the courage to bring yours (which most of the time you don't) you can only introduce yours as "a good friend?" That is what "Don't ask, don't tell" is. It let us homos serve, so long as we act sexless. I'm not saying that we should be allowed to have gay sex on a table in the chow hall during lunch, but it would have been nice to go on a date to a nice restaurant without taking a group of friends as "cover."

"Don't ask, don't tell" forces gays and lesbians to separate their lives in a way that straights don't worry about. That is why it was homophobic. It averted some persecution, but it gave no freedom.

Re:Yea America!

[Opportunist]

Philosophy and literature, I assume?

Re:Yea America!

[halivar]

Uhh, yes, they do.

Re:Yea America!

[dwye]

Errr, I thought Bronze Age armies in Greece and whatnot had openly gay soldiers.

No, but gay meant allowing oneself to be buggered by someone of equal or lesser status; it was perfectly fine to ass-ream women, children, or younger males (let alone animals or slaves). The Theban Sacred Band was about 60% older soldiers screwing their recruits and PFC-equivalents. Read an annotated translation of Aristophanes' The Clouds for more on this (where it also points out that homosexuality was an upper class affectation considered silly by the lower classes).

Re:Yea America!

[Idiomatick]

Don't ask don't tell was homophobic and anti-homophobic at the same time. In any case it was a step forwards at the time. When DADT was passed it had previously been illegal for gays to serve. DADT allowed gays to server but they had to shut up about it. It was a compromise.

Don't ask ~~ pro gays
Don't tell ~~ pro homophobes

Now that we have no need for the stop gap measure that DADT represents gays will be allowed to serve openly.

To summarize:
No gays allowed --> 1993 DADT == gays ok, but stfu --> 2010 repeal == gays ok.

As for your lack of support for this repeal. We don't have a law against openly admitting you prefer coke over pepsi. Nor do we have one banning people that put the toilet paper w/ the paper coming under rather than over. And we don't ban people that prefer the PS3 to the Xbox. Why? Because it doesn't fucking matter. You are soldiers there to do a fucking job. The sexual preferences of your fellow soldiers affect your ability to shoot a gun as much as their taste for Justin Bieber. It is the exact same thing.

Re:Yea America!

[Antisyzygy]

"Don't ask, don't tell" forces gays and lesbians to separate their lives in a way that straights don't worry about. That is why it was homophobic. It averted some persecution, but it gave no freedom.

I have the utmost respect for gay people, in fact I firmly believe gay people should not have any rights separate of straight people. I think all people regardless of sexual orientation should be allowed to form civil unions, all current marriages should be considered civil unions (legally) and marriage should be relegated to the church if they so choose to adopt it as a ritual. However, frankly I don't think "don't ask don't tell" was necessarily about restricting freedom. A typical American battlefield commander doesn't want his soldiers having sex with one another, as sex tends to complicate things for the majority of human beings. An easy way to separate people emotionally is to separate the sexes with the supposition that same sex people probably wont enter into relationships. Friendship does not have the same devotion as pairings such as spouse and spouse (which I confirmed for myself by meeting my wife). A person won't execute their orders as efficiently if they are sleeping with their lover/partner/spouse in the same unit. Instead, they will try to save them from harm at their own expense and probably even their unit's expense. This is partially the reason why a military husband and wife do not have the same commander. I don't necessarily think that my excuse for the policy is just, I am only playing devils advocate (and then again, look at the ancient Greek city state of Sparta for a military history including a successful integration of homosexual behavior and good military). I do not even think you need to have the disclaimer that "I'm not saying that we should be allowed to have gay sex on a table in the chow hall during lunch", as its ridiculous. It wouldn't even be allowed nor socially acceptable for a straight man and woman to bone on the chow table. At any rate, take care.

Re:Yea America!

[Antisyzygy]

Obama is an extremely lame president. It seems to me he is just trying to get through his presidency without being called quitter. I imagine him waking up every day thinking "Fuck. I hate my job, but the pay is OK and I get to make a name for myself. Ill just go though another day chain-smoking so I can pull through". He doesn't do shit for the people. Even worse, our congress also has been bought by the highest bidder (i.e. telecom, oil, etc.) and they spend more time bitching at one another than representing the people that voted them into office. Meanwhile our education system and media is such a joke it spawns millions of morons that do not even realize that voting for republican or democrat ends up fucking them up the ass in the end. /rant over

Re:Yea America!

[Anonymous Coward]

Barack H. Obama is EXTREMELY homophobic. In fact, I think that's what the H really stands for. I don't know what you're talking about.

He has to be tough on gays because he'd lose support from his core constituency--African Americans--who don't like anyone stealing any civil rights limelight from them.

Re:Yea America!

[lessthan]

Actually, to be tangential, if a man and women is caught in an indelicate position in the park, they are more likely to be let off with a warning, whereas if it is two men, their names get in the paper.

To your main point, I understand what you are saying. I agree with most of what you said. Get the government out of the marriage business. However, your information on how the military works seems a little out of date. Women do now serve in the same units as men. It is frowned upon to sleep with members of your unit, but so long as it is not fraternization, it is not expressly forbidden. Some units I knew were downright incestuous, every possible straight combination had been tried. I'm not saying that it is a good thing, just something that happens. When gays are allowed to serve openly, why not treat them like straight couples? If a gay couple gets a civil union, why not separate them into different commands and assign them the same duty stations?

Re:Yea America!

[Anonymous Coward]

bawed on your description, it sounds like "dont ask dont tell" was a step forward, making things better. nowhere near where they migt ideally be, but better than it was. is removing the rule expected to make things better, or is it expected to bring things back to where it ud to be?

Re:Yea America!

[Smauler]

So ok, you got me. You win, I lose. Feel better? Good. Isn't nitpicking fun, productive, and useful?

Wait, so we were supposed automagically guess that you meant something you didn't say? When someone questions what you did say, you turn snarky. In my opinion, GP was making a genuine point, not nitpicking. Something that is productive and useful is clarity.

Re:Yea America!

[Anonymous Coward]

To me the democrats are incompetent and the republicans are evil

From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!

Re:Yea America!

[Antisyzygy]

Actually, to be tangential, if a man and women is caught in an indelicate position in the park, they are more likely to be let off with a warning, whereas if it is two men, their names get in the paper.

That's just downright bullshit. I think its partially due to the idiotic idea that gay = pedophile or gay = deviant. There are equally as many deviant straight people as gay people and frankly deviant is in the eye of the beholder. Pedophilia is a different issue, but saying gay = pedophile is like saying straight = 'young girl panty smeller' or something.

Women do now serve in the same units as men. It is frowned upon to sleep with members of your unit, but so long as it is not fraternization, it is not expressly forbidden. Some units I knew were downright incestuous, every possible straight combination had been tried. I'm not saying that it is a good thing, just something that happens. When gays are allowed to serve openly, why not treat them like straight couples? If a gay couple gets a civil union, why not separate them into different commands and assign them the same duty stations?

I agree with your statement. Im just attempting to use a more objective counter-argument for the sake of being difficult. I honestly grow tired of hearing about who is "gay" or who is "straight" or who is "bi". Oh my gosh! "female celebrity" kissed another woman! Maybe she likes to bump donuts! ZOMG! It doesn't matter in the end. We all contribute to society, and it seems gay people actually contribute more by many statistics Ive read (maybe because they have to deal with more bullshit). Sex seems to be some weird suppressed obsession in America but it really doesn't matter if you have some of your frontal lobe left unfilled with propaganda.

Re:Yea America!

[Antisyzygy]

PS You are a well spoken and respectful person. Its been a pleasure to "debate" with you.

Re:Yea America!

[timeOday]

Obama is an extremely lame president. It seems to me he is just trying to get through his presidency without being called quitter.

He is certainly steady and quiet in a way. Sometimes it's frustrating. But then again, if you look at the record, he often accomplishes what he sets his mind to, usually in slow-motion, yet he gets it done. He got health care reform passed after everybody gave it up for dead. And now the same with this. He has steadily wound down the Iraq war. Even extending the Bush tax cuts (though I question it) is very consistent with his strategy of deficit spending to get the economy going; he wanted it and he got it. Now, it looks like even the START treaty might be ratified before Congress lets out. So, I can't agree that Obama is just running down the clock.

Re:Yea America!

[Caraig]

This decision also repealed the portion of the UCMJ that made homosexual behavior illegal and grounds for court-martial and discharge; I think it was Section 264? I may be wrong about the number.

Re:Yea America!

[shutdown -p now]

I wonder when they're going to upgrade from Republic to Democracy...

Re:Yea America!

[Maxo-Texas]

Grats!

I didn't see any value to this personally, but I could understand that maybe the hard core religious/patriotic/straight troops might have a problem like they used to have with blacks.
It sucked when we lost all those Farsi translators.

Once I found out our troops were already doing joint exercises with other countries that allow openly gay solders, the DADT seemed particularly pointless and stupid.
After the military said, "We are okay with it", I was really surprised even more senators didn't vote yes.

We were losing good, motivated, patriotic soldiers over the issue.

On the flip side, you've lost the ability to "go gay" if some gets really high/near suicidal mortality rate.

I think the military will do just fine.
In a way, it may be yet another sideways nail in the "gay marriage" coffin too.

Re:Yea America!

[Caraig]

Wake me once his words are backed by nuclear weapons.

Re:Yea America!

[markass530]

One problem - being in the military isn't a right. Just ask all the fat people, paraplegics, et al I'm 100% for all gay rights, gay mrriage etc. But this distraction to front line troops (I was one of them in 2008) is selfish.

Re:Yea America!

[lessthan]

how did gay troops distract you in 2008? How would they distract now?

Re:Yea America!

[potat0man]

It seemed to me that "don't ask, don't tell" was a way to reinforce the professionalism of the military. It made it easier for the soldiers to focus on their difficult and dangerous work instead of being distracted by concerns like what consenting adults do behind closed doors.

Wrong. It was a way to ostracize and degrade homosexuals because they're disliked.

If it is about the professionalism of not talking about sexuality, why not make the policy apply to heterosexuals too? If a man was witnessed on a date or courting a woman on or off duty, on or off base, by another soldier, that soldier would be obligated to report it to his superior and the soldier would be summarily dishonorably discharged.

Other grounds for dismissal: wearing a wedding ring, mentioning a wife/gf, using gender-specific pronouns when talking about a spouse/gf or ex-gf, mentioning your biological children, even by accident, keeping a photo of you with another person that suggests intimate heterosexuality, bringing a date/wife/gf to any work-related event, having books/movies with overtly heterosexual story-lines or themes on display, mentioning a gender pronoun when applying for benefits for a spouse.

It irks me when heterosexuals say they don't like when homosexuals are 'overt' about their sexuality. What you don't realize is heterosexuals are overt about their sexuality ALL THE TIME. You just don't notice it.

Re:Yea America!

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Lame?

Or maybe the fact that nearly anything of substance(and a lot of things that aren't) are getting filibustered regularly in a political atmosphere that's ever more hostile to reason and rational thinking in the name of short term political gains?

I can't even begin to comprehend the political calculus if the healthcare reform bill would've been possible if the democrats started from a stronger point of view.

There was posted a long list of accomplishments by Barack Obama in the last two years.

Don't give me this bullpucky that Democrats can run on their accomplishments, because it's not that simple. Russ Feingold? He ran on those accomplishments. and lost.

On the other hand though, Blanche Lincoln? Ran away from those accomplishments and still lost.

The political arena these days is a place where common wisdom goes to die. It's going to be a very weird few years.

Re:Yea America!

[potat0man]

So if there's a guy who can speak a half dozen languages, bench press a buick, and shoot a dime from a mile away, we should kick him out because someone saw him off-base on his off-time holding hands with a guy, and make room for some moron who barely meets the minimum standards but is still preferable because he's heterosexual?

How does that make for a stronger military?

How about we keep the over-achieving homosexuals and just ask the immature redneck with no coping skills to get out of the way so that a real man take his place?

Re:Yea America!

[potat0man]

Also the case in the modern day Russian military.

Re:Yea America!

[perpetual pessimist]

To me the democrats are incompetent and the republicans are evil, but I don't live in the US and am just happy that this bill finally passed.

To me, the Republicans are incompetent and the Democrats are evil.

Perhaps we're both right.

Re:Yea America!

[u38cg]

You are wrong because most soldiers don't really give a damn about what gender you prefer to roll in the hay with. Sure, some do, and there are bigots to be found in all walks of life, but I can assure you that those concerns become very petty after contact.

Re:Yea America!

[Anonymous Coward]

I left Clinton out because DADT was a proposed rule to protect Gays in the military. It reversed the policies under Reagan and Bush that persecuted Gays and Lesbians by "protecting their private lives from scrutiny". It was not an Anti-gay measure, even though it failed miserably and allowed persecution to continue, but now codified it and tied the executive branch's hands from being able to do anything about it.

But go on living in your bizzaro world where stoopid is smart.

When I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1991, my recruiter flat-out asked me the following (verbatim):

"Are you a member or supporter of the Communist party?" Nope, I said.

"Are you a fa**ot?" I replied that I was not. I thought the question a bit odd, as he had picked me up from my GF's place. But we knew they had to ask certain questions, so...

"No sucking d**k, right???" I told him no, none of that either..but who knows??? I might get lucky at the next Commie Party. We both had a good laugh and I was off to Boot Camp a few weeks later.

It barely registered with me until a few months ago when the DADT debate resurfaced. He didn't even ask if I was a HOMOSEXUAL. You could use a slur in the interview and it was all good in the hood. IIRC, the questions previous to the commie and gay questions were around any criminal history. So it was clearly understood that the Marine Corps thought homosexuality was bad like felonies, asthma and Stalin.

Different times...

Re:Yea America!

[TheRaven64]

I'd also take issue with the grandparent's comment that people sleeping together have a stronger emotional tie. If you read some of the psychological studies conducted on Vietnam veterans, one of the problems that they faced with reintegrating into society was that their emotional connections to their family were less strong than to their comrades. It turns out that having to trust someone with your life for an extended period often builds quite a strong emotional attachment (who'd have thought?), although not usually a sexual one.

I still find it hilarious that any military would want to avoid having homosexuals serving, given that many of the most efficient military forces in the last few thousand years have been predominantly homosexual. There's a strong evolutionary reason for this - the only way that a homosexual's genes will be passed on is by insuring the survival of close relatives in the tribe and so there's been a strong evolutionary pressure in this direction.

Re:Yea America!

[dfenstrate]

Now get rid of torture and death sentence and you'll upgrade from stone age to bronze age!

Do advanced civilizations still put down rabid dogs? Because that's the level we're talking about with the death sentence.

I don't care why a dog is rabid. I'm not angry at it for being rabid. I don't enjoy killing it, as a consequence of rabies- but it has no place amongst us, and the deed must be done.

So it is with the most depraved human members of our society. We might wish otherwise, but wishes don't make sociopaths decent people.

Re:Yea America!

[Khyber]

And as soon as such homophobic shit hits the fan again, it's suddenly gays vs the government. This time, gays are armed better than before, which means they have the full capability to win with proper leadership.

In reality, the revolution against religion is brewing, and religious numbers are dwindling.

Re:Yea America!

[jmaslak]

The military has strict rules against personal relationships - including heterosexual ones, since many units have men and women - and obviously having a relationship between two soldiers in battle can cause divided loyalties. The problem won't be any different with gay soldiers, and, fortunately, the regulation can handle it. Sometimes these are ignored (STDs are the Navy's biggest health concern - with straight guys who are hooking up at port with "less than honorable" women), but generally the military has a way of "encouraging" compliance with thier rules.

Part of managing a professional organization is to carry the expectation of professional behavior by the members. If you don't expect them to be professional, they probably won't be. No matter how many big-brother laws you make. I personally think the military - who we trust to only kill the "right" people - can probably handle a gay or two in their unit.

Just like other militaries that allow openly gay soldiers. Such as Israel (which I would hardly call non-professional).

Re:Yea America!

[jmaslak]

Don't pursue is not part of the old (pre-yesterday) law. It was proposed to be, but was defeated in congress, leaving us with just the don't ask and don't tell parts.

Re:Yea America!

[autocracy]

Sometimes even compulsively: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece

Re:Yea America!

[M1FCJ]

Because a human is not a dog?

Re:Yea America!

[Opportunist]

Never, are you nuts? In a Democracy you get a severe unhappiness hit for every unit not garrisoned in its home town!

Re:Yea America!

[Anonymous Coward]

It seemed to me that "don't ask, don't tell" was a way to reinforce the professionalism of the military. It made it easier for the soldiers to focus on their difficult and dangerous work instead of being distracted by concerns like what consenting adults do behind closed doors. I believe concerns like that have no place on the battlefield. I believe that's true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. If you believe I am wrong or misguided, can you tell me why?

Certainly!

1. Small talk amongst soldiers is extremely commonplace, and comradery is not only natural but helpful for team cohesion. These things come up: "So, do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend back home?" Your idea of "reinforcing professionalism" implies that it's more professional to force an arbitrary section of your team to avoid discussion of, to repress information about, or to outright lie in order to conceal personal details about themselves, with the penalty being expulsion should they or anyone else (in some cases even a malicious colleague) leak that information to a superior. I'm afraid I can't get on board with the idea that this is somehow a more "professional" environment.

2. It certainly does NOT make it easier for gay soldiers to focus on their work to have secrets hanging over their heads, and I think it's more than a little insulting to heterosexual soldiers to imply that they're so amazingly unprofessional as to constantly worry about whether a colleague is gay and if that soldier has a schoolyard crush on them. Really? Just how little credit are we really going to give our soldiers?

3. I agree that concerns like this have no place on the battlefield. Sadly, keeping openly gay soldiers off of that battlefield builds an artificial barrier that creates issues where, as you say, there shouldn't be any.

Re:Yea America!

[misexistentialist]

There are very few such supermen, and even fewer gay ones, so it really makes no difference. And it's arguably better for them to serve society as civilians, rather than be killed after a couple of weeks in Iraq by a cheap bomb.

Re:Yea America!

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect they have no politically correct way of separating the troops... kinda like how men and women are given separate areas, no one raises an eyebrow to this, but what other reason could there be than to discourage what will obviously happen when any living creatures are housed with the opposite sex. The forming of personal relationships that you value more than your chain of command can compromise lives. Simple as that. That why men and women are separated, and there is no way they can put "the gays" in a different area than "the straights" without opening a whole other can of worms. So just getting rid of them is the only thing they can think of.

Re:Yea America!

[markass530]

news flash - there are lots of gay dudes in the military, shared a barracks (private rooms though) with one in my unit. I even went to some gay bars with him and some others in my unit.. The military does not witch hunt anymore

Re:Yea America!

[nomadic]

I think you'll find in life that if you develop the ability to speak precisely, it will benefit you by also pushing you to think precisely. If you can't be bothered to pick your words carefully, don't be surprised if you don't get your meaning across.

Re:Yea America!

[selven]

Honest != morally on the right side. For example, a policeman going into a gang undercover is doing the right thing, but being very dishonest in the process.

The parent never said that we don't need some dishonest people, we just need to keep those kinds of people away from political power.

Re:Yea America!

[falsified]

We probably will have another president that homophobic, but after years of out gays and lesbians serving, fighting, and moving up through the ranks, there would be no inertia whatsoever to kick people out, especially all at once.

Re:Yea America!

[falsified]

It was less homophobic than what happened before DADT (where the government would investigate people to find out if they were gay).

Don't Ask, Don't Tell kept the rule on the books but removed the ability for the military to do any proactive investigating. It was a midpoint compromise that sucked. (Like desegregating the military but not the civilian federal government, back in the 1940s.) Clinton wasn't very happy about it and originally wanted to repeal the ban altogether but would have had maybe ten votes for that.

You're maybe forgetting how homophobic 1993 still was. It wasn't until a few years after that Ellen DeGeneres could refer to herself as a lesbian on TV without getting banned by the network.

Re:Yea America!

[falsified]

Shit, I rescind my clearly inferior post saying basically the same thing you just did. :)

Re:Yea America!

[naubol]

Now that I've responded to your enlightening objection, if you feel like actually discussing the subject of "don't ask, don't tell" and helping me to understand why some people believe it is homophobic, that would be appreciated.

Sex is definitely one of the most prevalent topics in our daily lives.

Expression of sexual things is arguably in almost everything we do as human beings and fundamental to how groups of people interact.

Consequently, sexual identity is more than just a small facet of one's identity, it is a major element.

One's own esteem is not, nor should it ever be, considered an individual's responsibility, but is instead enmeshed in the social situation with which they are taking part. Social acceptance is a generally necessary element for satisfaction with life.

Thus, not being able to express one's identity openly leads to self-repression and thus a policy that asks someone to do such a thing is repressive.

Things that repress gay people, specifically, are generally labelled homophobic.

That is why I consider DADT homophobic. But, I tend not to use that word and would prefer the less ambiguous, "repressive" word.

If you can't understand how something is repressive without putting it into context, imagine not being able to wear your wedding ring, not being able to talk about your marriage, not being able to discuss your kids, not being able to express affection for that cute girl you admire in front of your soldier friends for fear of letting them know you're heterosexual, and then really begin to understand just how much of your social communication has your sexuality embedded in it, in some form or fashion, and then try, however impossible it is, to understand what life would be like if you had to neuter everything you say from having any relevance to that.

Re:Yea America!

[Grishnakh]

I have no problem with people being gay, or doing whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't affect others. However, it seems many of the people in the military are (or at least were) like that, from what you say here. So with all that in mind, why on earth would a homosexual willingly sign up for this? Seriously, this isn't North Korea where only people in the military get enough food and everyone else starves; there's tons of other jobs out there in the civilian sector where you don't have to live with your cow-orkers or worry about people forcibly searching your quarters for evidence of homosexuality. What exactly is the attraction?

One of the big things Americans still supposedly value is freedom, but what you describe sounds more like the way America was in the days of the Salem Witch Trials (long before the Revolution and Constitution). Why bother being an American, and risking your life to defend freedom, if you're going to willingly give up that freedom? If the people supposedly fighting for our freedom don't even believe in freedom themselves, then what's the point?

Re:Yea America!

[Grishnakh]

Because then people like Sarah Palin and Glen Beck will scream loudly about it, and millions upon millions of other immature rednecks will vote for laws to have all the homosexuals rounded up and gassed.

Re:Yea America!

[Grishnakh]

I hate to break it to you, but most Democrats aren't incompetent, they're evil just like the Republicans. They're just not as obvious about it. They'll talk about all the wonderful things they'd like to do if you elect them ("hope!" "change!"), but when they get elected, they serve the exact same corporate masters as the Republicans, and when criticized, blame it all on the Republicans ("we couldn't do anything because of their obstructionism!").

Re:Yea America!

[Grishnakh]

His health care "reform" was just a big pile of corporatist crap, and it's about to be thrown out by the SCOTUS because the government can't force people to purchase stuff from private corporations.

As for deficit spending, Bush did that for 8 years, and where'd it get us? Deficit spending only works for a short time in certain cases, but it isn't working here, and continuing to accumulate debt is only going to make things worse.

Obama hasn't done a damn thing to help the average voter for the entire time he's been in office. What sucks though, is that a Republican pres in 2012 is only going to make things even worse. Our best hope is 1) the Democrat voters will finally grow a brain and nominate someone good to replace Obama in 2012, or 2) the American voters will finally realize that both Dems and Reps are corrupt and elect an independent for President.

Re:Yea America!

[Grishnakh]

You mean the Dark Ages. The Middle Ages were when things started getting better.

Re:Yea America!

[potat0man]

The military does not witch hunt anymore

Tell that to the 13,389 people dishonorably discharged under DADT. Or the 1,037 soldiers discharged just in the past 2 years alone.

It's nice some units are already accepting of their gay brothers. But you try living through and building a 20 year career where any day anyone could decide they just don't like you and choose to invoke the DADT policy to have you fired.

Re:Yea America!

[markass530]

dude DADT means you can't invoke shit. These people outed themselves. Its not DADT its DADT Dont Pursue, Don't harass. Those people made their sexuality a public thing. They knew what would happen.

Re:Yea America!

[semiotec]

First, if you think that ignoring presence of sexual needs, and how to properly defuse or redirect the tension stemming from it, is "professionalism", you are amazingly naive.

Second, you are also incredibly naive if you think that the world "generally" don't need negotiation skills. Modern society (i.e. post-cave men) runs on diplomacy and negotiation. Only the childish would think that pointing out mistakes only serves to satisfy some sort of personal gratification. As another poster pointed out, clarification is very useful and productive.

And often in life there are situations where "right" and "wrong" are not so clear, especially seen from different points of view. And that is where negotiations are important. People who don't see any need for negotiations are probably either narcissists who think they are always right, or someone so meek and uncertain that they think they are always wrong.

Third, in one post you try to portray yourself as subjective and clear thinking, and won't make judgments based on unrelated information. And yet, in the next post, you became so prickly with nomadic's post on what seems like a rather valid rebuttal to one of your points. For someone who supposedly doesn't care about pointing out right or wrong, you seem to take offence at such a reasonable argument, and that seems to show that despite what you claim, your arguments do seem to be colored by your personal biases.

Last, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is homophobic because it bars anyone who is openly homosexual from serving in the military. So soldier A (heterosexual male) can talk to other soldiers about his wife and kids or his girlfriend, but soldier B (homosexual male) is unable to do so because if he does, he can be expelled. And you don't think this is homophobic?

Re:Yea America!

[potat0man]

How is someone finding an email on your computer "outing yourself"? Or being quiet when all the OTHER guys are talking about sex? Or having a friend absent-mindedly post a video on your myspace page?

The DADT discharges by vocal activists where people walk up to their CO and say, "I'm a homosexual," are the exception, not the rule. Most of the time it's a slip of the tongue, or confiding in your closest friend, or someone finding a letter you wrote.

You say you have gay buddies in your unit. If any day, for whatever reason someone wanted to stick it to those guys, all they would have to do would be to send an anonymous note to the guy's CO to trigger an investigation that would lead to a discharge. The policy might be to not pursue but investigations of DADT violations did happen.

Re:Yea America!

[Killjoy_NL]

I do see your point about the Democrats, but you have to admit that the Republican party line currently is "Say no"
Look at the 9/11 responders bill, that should have passed months ago.
Watch the latest week of The Daily Show to see what I mean.

Re:Yea America!

[DJRumpy]

Clinton actually intended to remove the ban on homosexuality. Congress panicked and rushed legislation through that banned homosexuals from serving by law. At that point, Clinton's only recourse was to aim for DADT, which gave homosexuals at least minimal protection from the new law. Although it was illegal for homosexuals to serve, they couldn't be asked if they were homosexual.

Clinton was no homophobe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell#Origin

Re:Yea America!

[markass530]

The first one, I'm pissed at. He got completely screwed over, and those perpetrators should be booted. The second one, he submitted his letter of resignation. He also had service in abu grahib it sounds. sucks. His unit obviously went over the line, but they were probably joking Thats kinda how (some) combat units are, we call each other names and make innuendo to ease the stress when we have downtime. The third, The commander was a dick, and a liar. Would take a general court martial for a Dishonorable, but once again, DONT PURSUE. He could not have done all that crap he threatened. The Number for the Inspector General is posted everywhere. All she would have had to do is call him, tell her the video was part of a joke, or something, and she is being harassed. She also have got a good discharge with possible medical rating. What you don't get is people are bounced from the army ALL THE TIME for lots of different things. If your command doesn't think you can cut it, there are ways to get rid of you.

Re:Yea America!

[SETIGuy]

all current marriages should be considered civil unions (legally) and marriage should be relegated to the church

Leaving the definition of the word marriage to churches when for a couple centuries it has been a public policy.... Don't you think that falls into the definition of "respecting an establishment of religion". If bigoted churches need a new word for marriage, let them find one.

Re:Yea America!

[rhomp2002]

Actually it has been the rule for generations. It was actively pushed starting with Jimmy Carter. Bush and Reagan did nothing to change it and nothing to push it either. The problem now is that with DADT repealed the question becomes whether the UCMJ has been changed to get rid of the automatic policy of kicking gays out. Unless that is included in the law as passed then gays can be kicked out for just being gay. In fact DADT was put in place to short circuit that law so that gays could serve as long as they did not fall foul of DADT. Since DADT is gone now, then what happend to the UCMJ part of the problem.

Re:Yea America!

[cyclomedia]

Pre Clinton there was a blanket ban on serving in the military if you were homosexual. Clinton wanted to repeal this but didn't have the numbers in Congress and/or the Senate so DADT was the best he could get through: A compromise that essentially allowed anyone to serve in the military, regardless of sexual orientation.

Obama's drive to repeal it is simply the next step along the path, by removing the compromise in favour of equality and openness.

Re:Yea America!

[Adrian in Dallas]

My, how sweetly toothsome you've made your homophobia is this morning, Causality 777677. And how adroitly you misdirected your partisanship. Oh, you may not "defend" the evil Reagan, who's wife consulted with sooth-sayers in the White House, and you claim you don't "defend" the idiot Bush klan, but then you go on to point out that it was Clinton who instituted "DADT," so HE must be the bigot. You failed to mention that DADT was the best deal that Republicans would allow that would keep gay folks in the military. The Republicans wanted to root out and remove ALL gay people (as usual) and the Democrats came up with DADT in order to save as many of them as possible from the rampant discrimination exhibited (still) by Republicans. The policy pleased exactly nobody, but at least each side could claim a (small) victory in their own way. That you would endorse bigotry and the denial of equal rights for all citizens in the name of "reinforcing professionalism" (whatever that means) and "making it easier" on straight folks sorta sounds like you want to cut our noses off to spite our faces. I'm sure it also would have "reinforced professionalism" and "made it easier" on white troops had black people never been allowed to sully the Armed Forces. You'll note the military seemed to have stepped up to the plate on that issue some time ago without much bruhaha. Lo and behold, soldiers actually DO follow the orders of their superiors! If the troops are "distracted" on the battlefield by thoughts of what other people do "behind closed doors," then something is wrong with the training of those wasting time and endangering their comrads thinking about it when they should be doing their jobs, wouldn't you agree? It is a situation that can be addressed by better training and better command decisions from military brass. To imagine that our military won't or can't do their jobs is an insult to all service members.

Re:Yea America!

[Phoghat]

I like Obama, I voted for Obama, however I also voted for Kerry and look what happened with that. Never ever say never. If the Red States and the Tea Baggers and such have their way it just might happen. Voters and the general public are not noted for their intelligence.

Re:Yea America!

[zeroshade]

How is repealing DADT a "distraction to front line troops" unless those troops are homophobic to begin with?

Re:Yea America!

[markass530]

because its a change of policy. And not wanting to share a shower, or 2 person tent with an openly gay person is not homophobic. Just like a girl not wanting to share a shower with men isn't wrong - maybe in the future we will be one unisex society with one bathroom but we aren't yet. You throw the word homophobic around like that it loses meaning. I went to gay bars from time to time with my friend who was gay in hawaii. I shared a bed with a dude in the navy (had to crash there for an early race the next day) who was making jokes that I missed about being gay, and wanting me. When I saw him a couple days later, he said something again, and I was like, dude are you gay? He said he was, I just laughed about it. So go ahead and call me homophobic, but you Don't get he problem because you weren't in the military, and thats fine.

Re:Yea America!

[shnull]

i was going to say what's so wrong but instead i'll say what's so weird about being homophobic. If the norm is the middle of the curve i think homophobia is pretty normal, right there with the natural instinct to fear or shy that what is different, embedded in the genes, just a tool for survival that controls us still today. I myself can't say that i think homo's will go to hell or something like that or that 'the' lord thinks they're an abomination but i must admit that i do feel uncomfortable around gay men, i behave differently, i don't really know how to act , because they are 'different', i detect them as different and i have no standard pose embedded to handle that specific situation. Less so around gay women, but i still behave different (tho that's probably more caused by curiosity) which doesn't seem to be a problem since gay women are generally considered sexy whereas gay men are mostly perceived as some kind of threat. Now this does not affect my every day life and decision making, but i can't say what it would mean in an environment where i had to make split second decisions to survive with a gay man literally 'watching my back' (haha,funny) I do have a major problem with gay people flaunting their sexuality in the face of everyone though, it's not as i'm telling everyone how hetero i am. I think, if you want to be treated 'normally', then you should act accordingly. (to the norm that is, whatever that is)

Re:Yea America!

[zeroshade]

If you've showered with someone for your entire career in the military. Then knowing they are gay should not change anything. If you've showered without any problems with an individual and the only difference now is you know he is gay, then yes, it is homophobic to suddenly now have a problem.

Someone else in the thread mentioned it is rare nowadays for group showers in the military, there are usually individual stalls. Given that situation, your argument falls apart. The only argument you have made is that it might make group showers that are mostly non-existent awkward and uncomfortable. The fact that you are changing a policy does not in and of itself cause a distraction. Especially something like repealing DADT which should have no distraction except for some people being surprised to learn that their buddy is gay. Some people will choose to continue to keep it secret, others will have no problem letting people know once they are sure they won't be discharged for it.

I doubt people will go around skipping shouting "I'm gay! I'm gay!" But when "the guys" pal around talking about their significant others, now the guy who is gay would be able to join the conversation truthfully if they are so inclined. If anything, it should relieve distractions.

Re:Yea America!

[modmans2ndcoming]

The Joint Chiefs, Secretary of Defense and the President will need to change the UCMJ to protect Gays. the law says it will allow gays to openly serve once the military is ready. supposedly that means having the UCMJ fixed to allow it and decide how to bring the change in, all at once or phase it in from lease resistant group in the military to most resistant group.

ok

[nomadic]

Good.

In other (more accurate) words,

[kramerd]

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.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Haedrian]

My brigade is more fabulous than yours.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Anonymous Coward]

This will either lead to segments of our military being strictly only for homosexuals

AKA, "the Marines,"

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[rat7307]

Here's a thought: How about just removing any sexuality based stuff from the books and then it's not an issue? Win/Win/Win/Win

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[kramerd]

Its not much of a thought. DADT was implemented because nothing was in the books, so it became an issue when individuals had (for lack of better terms) issues.

Now that all you do is remove the policy, the same problems will come back, because now there is no policy to say that you cant discriminate.

You can find similiar problems with the US constitution; historically, we have had to specifically state that women or black people also count. Sadly, there are plenty of places in the US where if those ammendments were not made, they wouldn't.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[zwede]

Posting to undo my unintentional "overrated" mod.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for removing sexual bias and ushering in a new era of unified showering facilities.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent something that's not funny, because i fail to see the attempt at humor. All i see is a post pointing out what has happened in the past and how it relates to this, which is more sad then amusing.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[kramerd]

I definately was not going for funny...

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[modmans2ndcoming]

Obama and Gates will make sure they have a policy. They will just need to rewrite a few regulations to exclude homosexual behavior from being applied. If they catch two soldiers engaging in Homosexual behavior, then they will just use the fraternization section of the UCMJ.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[SheeEttin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI ?

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[coaxial]

Its not much of a thought. DADT was implemented because nothing was in the books, so it became an issue when individuals had (for lack of better terms) issues.

No. DADT came about because Clinton wanted to repeal the ban, (Homosexuals were considered security threat because they could be blackmailed into spying. How openly homosexual soldiers could be blackmailed on being gay, was never clear.) and there was push back because of fear that "sodomites" would try to rape straight soldiers while taking refuge from artillery barages in fox holes and whatnot. And really, what red blooded straight American boy with bulging muscles can resist the sailor from the Village People?

It was a compromise because bigots wanted to stay bigots. Clinton should have just pulled a Truman and ordered it.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Isaac-1]

The thing is DADT was not an anti-discrimination policy, it was an anti-investigate policy, if knowledge of someone being gay came to the powers that be in the military, then the person was treated the same as before this policy came about (no gays allowed). The thing is it did not have to be the gay told, it could be an angry ex-spouse with a video tape, a police raid on a motel room, any number of other sources and then it was court martial time.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[imamac]

Fraternization only occurs between supervisor and subordinate. (Officer > Enlisted)

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[johnkennethhunter]

The 50th Regiment (Gordon Highlanders of Canada) had the nickname "Gay Gordons." However, that was back when gay then didn't mean gay now.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Anonymous Coward]

This will either lead to segments of our military being strictly only for homosexuals or strictly not for homosexuals,

Why? Do you really think that gays will refuse to serve with straights?

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[modmans2ndcoming]

Try again. Enlisted > Enlisted as well. There is almost always a rank difference because even in a room full of corporals, there are different enlistment dates.

This is what has been told to me both my brothers, one is a Staff Sargent in the Marines, the other is a Staff Sargent in the Air Force.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Haedrian]

+ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOehDqygaj8&t=90

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[imamac]

You are incorrect.

Fraternization, as defined by the Manual for Courts-martial, is a personal relationship between an officer and an enlisted member that violates the customary bounds of acceptable behavior in the Air Force and prejudices good order and discipline, discredits the armed services, or operates to the personal disgrace or dishonor of the officer involved.

Enlisted and Enlisted is referred to as "Unprofessional Relationship". Read AFI 36-2909 for more specifics.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[kramerd]

Way to miss the point.

Its now up to military leaders to individually determine policy; thus why I used the phrase segments of our military, and not military as a whole.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[flyingsquid]

The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" is a disaster from a military standpoint. Just when we finally developed the ability to make our planes invisible to radar, our enemies will be able to track them using gaydar.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[biryokumaru]

Gee, I'm glad your mastery of Google makes you so much better informed than people in the goddamned military.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Stenchwarrior]

From a more realistic standpoint, relationships between enlisted personnel is not frowned upon for the most part, provided they are the same rank or at least both NCO's or non-NCO's (non-commissioned officer). Yes, there are different enlistment dates and more responsibilities are given to the soldier with the earliest enlistment date when they have the same rank, but that doesn't really apply to relationships from what I've seen. The big no-no amongst enlisted is if one is an NCO and one is not. If a Private and a Staff Sergeant hook up then the SSG can get in quite a bit of trouble for abusing the rank and higher authority. This is all assuming they are in the same Unit; soldiers with different MOS's and not in the same unit or company should be able to date whomever they want. It happens all the time and I know several NCO's married to non-NCO's and even officers.

People meet and fall in love in the military on a daily basis, regardless of rank or status.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[imamac]

I am in the military. Thanks though.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[imamac]

True. It's the E-7 supervising the E-4 and also sleeping with her that's the issue.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe what you have just done is called "being pedantic" or "making a distinction without a difference"

D-Bag

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Anonymous Coward]

Rank is necessary for command, but it doesn't imply command. Having a lower rank doesn't make someone automatically subordinate to a higher ranked individual. If two individuals of unequal rank are serving under a third individual, they are peers despite their rank difference. That only changes if there is a change in command.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[repetty]

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.

Wow, don't let the absence of any evidence get in your way, dude. You're on a roll!

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Anonymous Coward]

After the first sentence I was like WTF? and then I read the next sentence and was like LOL!!!

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Opportunist]

Don't worry about that, only gay people have gaydar and you're up against fundamentalists that make the guys from the Bible Belt look liberal. You're safe.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Opportunist]

Why can you have "issues" with gays but you must not have "issues" with blacks, jews and women in your team?

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Opportunist]

Judging from the Village People I'd have said the Navy.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Opportunist]

Sooooo... openly gay soldiers were a security risk and prone to blackmailing, but closed gay soldiers who risk being kicked out of the military should it become known are not...

I think you need military intelligence to understand that logic.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Tumbleweed]

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.

Dude, the Navy is going to become *fabulous*. Operation Petticoat will inspire a thousand pink submarines.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[kramerd]

...How exactly would that serve military purposes?

Pink submarines are much easier to spot, assuming they aren't in a gay pride parade or Susan G Komen walk.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Tumbleweed]

...How exactly would that serve military purposes?
Pink submarines are much easier to spot, assuming they aren't in a gay pride parade or Susan G Komen walk.

The morale of the seamen serving board pink submarines will be so great due to the fabulous new look of the sub, they will be more more effective. Plus they will serve as an inspiration to the enemy, who will clearly want to defect to our side. I predict total victory at sea for all our submarines that are battling ... whoever it is that has submarines left.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[kramerd]

Almost every military of 1st world countries have submarines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarine_operators

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[aliddell]

dunno about the other branches, but in the Marine Corps, NCO's (corporals and sergeants) were allowed and encouraged to hang out together. fraternization was between NCOs and non-NCOs (lance corporals and below), between NCOs and staff NCOs (staff sergeant and above), between staff and non-NCOs, and between officers and (usually) non-staff-NCOs. (exceptions, always).

source: experience (mine).

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[dwye]

What about the reverse, where the E-4 is male sleeping with his female E-7 supervisor?

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[ShakaUVM]

>>Enlisted and Enlisted is referred to as "Unprofessional Relationship". Read AFI 36-2909 for more specifics.

IIRC, dating is prohibited, but marriage is allowed. Even between officer and enlisted. Or it was back in the '90s when I was in AFRO TC.

I can see this being another quandry with gay soldiers, as the whole gay marriage at overseas bases issue is something the military is entirely unprepared to deal with.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[ShanghaiBill]

Pink submarines are much easier to spot, ...

No, they are not.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Jethro]

I haven't clicked yet, but that better be what I think it is.

*click*

Yup, good job.

Funny thing, I saw that for the first time when I was 8, and I didn't get a BIT of it. And I only recently realised that he goes "Squad! Camp it UP!"

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[kramerd]

That has to be one of weakest trolls I've seen on /., and that is saying a lot.

You used anecdotal evidence based on one captains opinion, of which admittedly (from your source) 'no formal testing was done to determine how well it worked.'

The article refers to one pink submarine (which was pink because that was the hull color and they didn't bother to paint it) only because the opponent used pink shells and shell splash blended.

Note also from your source, "The primary problem with Mountbatten pink was that it stood out around midday, when the sky was no longer pink, and the traditional battleship grey was much less visible."

Reading comprehension is fun.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[rockout]

Also an issue. It's not an issue when there's no supervisor/subordinate relationship and the two that get involved with each other are somewhat close together in rank. They don't even have to be the exact same rank.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[rockout]

You're only half right but I suspect you don't even know why. Fraternization CAN occur between two enlisted members, but generally only when there's a supervisor/subordinate relationship between the two, OR if there's such a huge difference in rank (e.g. the base's highest-ranking NCO starts dating a lowly E-3) that the relationship could be looked upon as affecting unit morale ("hey she only got that great EPR because she's banging the First Sergeant!" or something like that)

So, to sum up, an officer/enlisted relationship would pretty much always be fraternization for the same reason (in fact, I can't think of a situation offhand where it wouldn't be) - but for enlisted/enlisted relationships, the answer is, it depends.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[telomerewhythere]

Let me explain something. If you don't respect someone, you can't really love them. Therefore, in a group of people where all the males are taught to actively not respect women men will not be able to love women. So the love will be going to who they respect, other men. And with that love comes sex.

It's no real secret that there are a lot of 'gay' men in Muslim countries, just ask anyone who has spent time really embedded with them.

The same would be true of any group, such as those fundie 'Christians' that also teach no respect for women.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Antisyzygy]

That's called "studliness". I want to bone my E-7, too bad I'm not in the military. Ill "don't ask and don't tell" the shit out of that.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see your point. Are you admitting that you've spent time embedded with gay men?

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[SuricouRaven]

Didn't it go through a similar stage with blacks, prior to full integration? They tended to end up in their own non-whites units. With a tendency to be assigned roles in logistics or latrine-digging, because the commanders didn't trust them in combat.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[SuricouRaven]

"dating is prohibited, but marriage is allowed."
Reminds me of certain highly-religious circles.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[SuricouRaven]

He could have just ordered it - the commander in chief has that authority - but doing do might have just resulted in his successor countermanding the order.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[coaxial]

He could have just ordered it - the commander in chief has that authority - but doing do might have just resulted in his successor countermanding the order.

Well given that it would have been after eight uneventful years of gays serving openly, how like do you think that would be? Ike didn't countermand Truman's desegregation order.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[scamper_22]

Well... let's look at the rational behind don't ask, don't tell.

Why do we separate men/women in terms of sleeping areas, washrooms, showers...?

Because there is sexual tension between men and women and certain areas are deemed private.
It is deemed that you have a certain 'right' to not feel violated or sexual tension.

Now along comes a homosexual.
Well... now what happens?
Does a male soldier not have the same right to not feel violated or sexual tension with a homosexual soldier showering next to him. This would be the same kind of sexual tension felt if a women was showering in the same shower as a guy. Ditto for women and lesbians.

A lot of people just dismiss this... oh... a homosexual guy is not checking you out.. so why should you feel violated. Well... we could easily say... why should a woman feel violated if she showers in front of a man?

So what do we do here?

Well, we could get rid of all sexual references... but remember that includes traditional heterosexual references. So no more male/female washroom... only unisex. No separate sleeping areas.
If we could get to this point in society... wonderful... but we're not there yet. This is actually the only option that does not discriminate between people.

Almost any other policy discriminates against one group or another.
Allow homosexuals to be openly homosexual and you deny the right to privacy and protection from sexual tension to heterosexual men and women from their homosexual counterparts. The right would still exist between heterosexual men and heterosexual woman.

Discrimination I say!... and I'm not being sarcastic there. There is almost no way to arrange this that would be free of discrimination.

So don't ask.. don't tell... a very reasonable policy. We keep the separation of men and women. We don't need to change all our of military bases, washrooms, showers... You minimize the sexual tension by making sure no one knows if someone is homosexual. It's not perfect as you probably know some percentage of the military is homosexual... but its minimized as you don't know which person.

Don't ask, don't tell.. made a lot of practical sense. Did it discriminate against homosexual right to express themselves. Yes... but we're dealing with competing rights here. The right to express yourself versus the right of someone else to be free from sexual tension.

If we were some kind of imaginary enlightened... post sexual society... we could indeed get rid of all sexuality and have uni-sex washrooms, sleeping areas... and none of this would be a problem.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[telomerewhythere]

Nice turn. What I meant is that if you ask an oilfield worker that has spent time in the Middle East around the locals, and they are honest with you, they could tell you many Muslim men are gay, and it's not that secret.

It's my fault for replying seriously to a funny post.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Quiet_Desperation]

Both Lockheed and Northrop Grumman are woking on gaydar invisible make-up.

Aircraft! I meant aircraft!

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[markass530]

Being against DADT repeal means you're a bigot? I 100% support gay rights Marriage included. I had a couple friends while I was in the military that were gay. It was an open secret. But being in the military ins't a right. Midgets could probably help the military out in lots of ways (besides entertainment) but they can't join. Mostly its the fact its being pushed during war that bothers the shit out of me. I

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[RobertM1968]

Why can you have "issues" with gays but you must not have "issues" with blacks, jews and women in your team?

Because sadly, irrational "issues"/hate/bigotry never seems to disappear - it just gains a new target. And even more sadly, in some backwards ass hick cities and towns in this country, one target doesnt get replaced with another... it simply gets added to the list. Inotherwords, bigotry towards jews or blacks doesnt disappear to be replaced with bigotry towards gays... gays simply gets added to the list. So, in some places, hate actually increases as new groups get added to the bigot-list.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[hachete]

Ummm, that's how the Western World worked in those days outside of small enclaves. In less "enlightened" regions, it was worse.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the command.
Most of the time they just send either the SNCO or the LCPL to a different command/dept/work center and pretend it didn't happen.

there's always a shit position that needs to be filled, so unless you're well liked you might not want to pull that card.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[M1FCJ]

Don't worry, the next one to fight against will be Catholics vs. Protestants. People still talk about JFK being the first Catholic president and how well that ended for him. If US wants some lessons on how to get this thing in track, they can always have a chat with Irish and Scottish.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Nimey]

It was a political decision; it's the sort of logic that only works inside the Beltway.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[markass530]

You can't blackmail someone under DADT. You can't go rant and rave that someone is gay.to the military. You would be violating the don't pursue part of the policy, you would be ignored, hell the military might go after you for blackmail. more likely even. . Pretty much you gotta get (or try to) get married, or raise your hand and say "Im gay!" Many many people are gay in hte military now, I had several friends who were. It was an open secret. way to many people treat DADT Repeal LIKE It's a public policy in their criticism of it. Talking about rights here, discrimination there. The fucking military discriminates, ever seen a midget in uniform? Hell anyone who got paralyzed from war left the military. Straight f'n hero's couldn't serve anymore. Blind people deaf people.. I could go on for a while. I'm not disagreeing that it's a peculiar Policy either.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[markass530]

nope according to everyone you are a bigot sir.. and you no get no mod points. I said exactly what you were saying, but shorter, and not as detailed or in depth). so if intelligence is measure by how much someone agrees with you, then you are a genius,

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[virgil_disgr4ce]

Director: ... we're gonna have to make some changes. First of all, Franklin, you're no longer the girliest cadet here. Franklin: Humph! We'll see about that!

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[falsified]

You realize that by "military leaders", they mean, like, the people on the Sunday morning news programs, and not a bunch of NCOs, right?

The military leaders we're talking about are either Obama appointees or serve in their role because of the approval of Obama appointees. The law was written that way to try to quiet McCain's whining about micromanaging the military (I fucking wish we did), not to be functionally different from an outright ban.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[kramerd]

No, news program people do not dictate (or even influence)military policy (they report it, mostly inaccurately), nor do appointed military concern the issue.

The lack of an overall policy not only allows for individual prejudices to shine through but moreover ensures that obama appointees et all aren't involved.

We shouldn't have to have laws preventing rape, theft, murder, etc, but we have them to deter those would do so if no law were in place and to standardize the punishment. This is actually a rather simple concept if you don't want one thief having their hands cut off and another having their wrist slapped.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[coaxial]

Being against DADT repeal means you're a bigot?

Yes.

. But being in the military ins't a right. Midgets could probably help the military out in lots of ways (besides entertainment) but they can't join.

So the question is why shouldn't homosexuals serve openly, given that they're already serving. Lt. Dan Choi is gay and served and announced that he will soon serve again as an Arabic linguist. Why shouldn't he? Name one reason that would cast doubt on his effectiveness?

It would put someone else at unease? Well that's what they said about having blacks serve along side whites, and you know what? It didn't happen. The bigots left.

Mostly its the fact its being pushed during war that bothers the shit out of me.

You have an interesting definition of "pushed." Repeal has been talked about and repeatedly studied for at least 10 years now. It was slow walked for as long it could be.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Anonymous Coward]

you're up against fundamentalists that make the guys from the Bible Belt look liberal.

As someone who grew up in the Bible Belt, I disagree with that.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[markass530]

Well I'm 100% for gay marriage and every other gay RIGHT.I had a couple friends in the navy with me who were gay. My suite mate in the army was gay (actually didn't find that out for a couple months, wasn't surprised, and didn't care ) but like I said being in the military isn't a right. This bigot stuff, just retarded really. and retarded people can't serve either, you have to pass a test to get in. The military does discriminate. There is a reason men and women Don't shower together, share heads, or sleeping quarters in the military - sexual tension. forcing guys to do so with other openly gay men, is short of another word. Me? I Don't care, I would go to gay bars all the time with my friend who was gay in Hawaii, got free drinks here and there, if some guy hit on me, I just chatted him up and thanked him for the compliment. This is so far from racial integration. You keep talking like it's a public policy - its a military one, and I'm guessing you've never served in a combat unit. There is a reason 50+ percent of them said the POLICY REPEAL will have a negative impact - not gay people serving, or anything like that, just a major change of policy.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Opportunist]

Erh... you might probably understand how people who are physically or mentally unable to serve in the military are excluded from it? If someone is in a wheelchair, he's not really the perfect soldier if you ask me.

And while midgets is a bit far fetched, my army has a few jobs where small size is a requirement. I leave it to your imagination where it might be useful.

But what "condition" could possibly make a gay guy unsuitable for service?

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[markass530]

Midgets isn't far fetched. I worked on submarines - the shorter you are, the less headaches you get from banging it against hard steel. There is a limit though. There was a guy going through school with me who was right at the limit - and towered over midgets. No condition would prevent a gay guy unsuitable for service - gay people have been allowed in the military since 1993. Also a large percentage of Army females are lesbians, it's never a problem, well because girls are just different.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Opportunist]

Yeah, yeah, and lesbian porn is hot while fag porn is eeek!

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[markass530]

so now I have to give the lecture on how boys and girls are different? Not sure why you are talking about porn

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Taevin]

These puritanical beliefs about gender, nudity, and sex just need to die already. The amount of psychological and sociological harm they have inflicted, and continue to inflict, is simply unfathomable. As is so common, you conflate nudity with sex, but there are so many shades of grey in between. You might even say they're not even on the same scale because sex does not require nudity, and nudity does not require that sex take place (except in the puritanical mindset where the only time a person should see another naked is when they're having sex and even then, we'd best just pretend the whole thing never happened).

Of course it's not your fault, exactly, these ideas are beaten into our consciousness from a very early age. Children have no inherent aversion to nudity, it's a learned behavior from their parents (who rightfully should teach them what is and is not appropriate). However, that teaching often starts creeping into other areas where it's ok to be naked like the privacy of own's room, the bathroom, or the locker room. We're told to keep the blinds closed and cover up because "someone might see you." Our brains fill in the missing dots: it's bad for someone to see us naked, the only time we should be naked is having sex, therefore anyone that sees us naked is immediately overcome with the urge to grope us.

That's simply not the case, and I think you know it. The proposed problem (if it even exists) is not sexual tension, but adults (and supposedly professionals) behaving like impetuous adolescents. The only thing that really marks a difference between a post-pubescent adolescent and an adult is wisdom and maturity, the maturity to understand and cope with things like having your feelings hurt or, as gross as you might find it, that gay guy or that fat girl find you attractive.

So no, DADT is not a reasonable policy, as it is not based in reason. If you actually believe that the policy has anything to do with the "shower problem," you've bought into the bigotry, even if you aren't a bigot yourself. It's obvious to everyone that homosexuals are no less capable a soldier than heterosexuals (and in some cases, more apt than their straight counterparts due to their proclivity to do things like study foreign languages). So tossing a good solider out because they're gay is something most people can use their faculties of reason to say that's wrong and stupid. Oh, but "they might see you naked in the shower," and just like that, people's brains shut off.

Sure, I'll admit that I like the gym shower because it's a great place to see a lot of attractive men without their clothes on. However, it's more on the level of looking at art, or a landscape view on a hike because just as those straight guys have no interest in sex with me, I have no interest in sex with them because there is no reciprocation of that sexual attraction. There's no sexual tension there unless you're the one bringing it to the table. It's the same for most straight guys too: they'll admire that passing beauty in the short skirt but it's nothing for their girlfriend/wife to get upset over. It's not as if the second their spouse turns her back they're going to run over and start hitting on the girl.

I'm glad you brought up the "shower problem" though, because in my mind it really underlines just how discriminatory the policy is. Statistically speaking, your average military man is already showering with one or two other men who could potentially be sexually interested in poor ol' Joe Hetero. Somehow it's not a problem now but it will be once everyone "knows" which among them is interested in dudes? I say "knows" because as other servicemen have pointed out in this topic, it's typically not that hard to figure out ("gaydar" isn't magic, after all) and not that big of a secret anyway. So what you're really saying is that it's demonstrably not a problem but you want to reserve the right to oppress the homos by holding the threat of a dishonorable discharge over their heads. Yet, if a priva

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Taevin]

Someone call the faaabulaaance, this man needs a humor injection, stat.

Seriously though, how do you cope in this fucked up world with so little?

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[scamper_22]

"That's what you've said after all, is that your "right" to not feel imagined sexual tension is more important than the right of another to be themselves and actually express their existence as a sexual being."

and where did I say that?

I'd be more than happy to live in a world of unisex washrooms and everything. Everyone would be treated equally in such a world.

Yet that is not the world we live in.
I'm pretty sure I'd be arrested if I ran through the streets naked as well.
I'd also be arrested if I spent my time in the girl's washroom or shower.

By removing DADT, but keeping in place the current segregation of men and woman, we are 'discriminating' against people. There's no way around that either. We 'respect' the sexual tension between men and women enough to build separate beds, showers... but we don't 'respect' the sexual tension between men and between women. That's discrimination.

That's the only point I was making.
In this world, DADT was a very practical policy for the military.
The military is afterall an institution where you have to give up much of your individuality for the 'greater good' anyways. The initial joining in voluntary, but once in, there's a whole host of restrictions on you.

Was it 'legally' pure...no... but neither is a world without DADT. There's just another kind of discrimination.

Do I think it's the end of the world if DADT is gone? Nope... but I don't think it resolves a whole lot actually. We'll just be in a world where military superiors will have to sit around dealing with this stuff on a case by case and individual by individual basis.

But for a military organization... where lives are at stake... it was a very practical policy when it was in use.

But I guess I must just be a bigot.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[Anonymous Coward]

My brigayd is more fabulous than yours.

FTFY.

Re:In other (more accurate) words,

[gfreeman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPML-n1kRnY

And the tech scoop?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, really. You can read this on every other news source. Is there anything slashdot can add?

Re:And the tech scoop?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Alan Fucking Turing.

DADT and wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Re:DADT and wikileaks

[MichaelSmith]

...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.

Brings to mind this admittedly speculative article.

Also this article in the telegraph.

THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is timothy using this site as his own political blog? This is disgusting.
When as DADT been a topic before on slashdot? The answer is never.

This is not news for nerds. This is news for gays.

Re:THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, fag..

Re:THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!!

[metalmaster]

what say you about the apple "fanboi" ?

Re:THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!!

[thryllkill]

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.

Re:THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!!

[Taxman415a]

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.

Re:THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!!

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

Re:THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!!

[RobertM1968]

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.

Re:THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!!

[thryllkill]

You make a much better point than I did. I need to go back to not posting on /.

Re:THIS IS NOT NEWS FOR NERDS!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

The reason this is slashdot worthy

[Anonymous Coward]

A protocol with an ask request without a tell response could be considered an early form of udp.

Re:The reason this is slashdot worthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, in this protocol the ask request triggers suing you response, which is fortunately not what the UDP does.

Chapter 1

[Anonymous Coward]

September 16, 1991. Today it finally began! After all these years of talking and nothing but talking we have finally taken our first action. We are at war with the System, and it is no longer a war of words.

I cannot sleep, so I will try writing down some of the thoughts which are flying through my head.

It is not safe to talk here. The walls are quite thin, and the neighbors might wonder at a latenight conference. Besides, George and Katherine are already asleep. Only Henry and I are still awake, and he’s just staring at the ceiling.

I am really uptight. l am so jittery I can barely sit still. And I’m exhausted. I’ve been up since 5:30 this morning, when George phoned to warn that the arrests had begun, and it’s after midnight now. I’ve been keyed up and on the move all day.

But at the same time I’m exhilarated. We have finally acted! How long we will be able to continue defying the System, no one knows. Maybe it will all end tomorrow, but we must not think about that. Now that we have begun, we must continue with the plan we have been developing so carefully ever since the Gun Raids two years ago.

What a blow that was to us! And how it shamed us! All that brave talk by patriots, "The government will never take my guns away," and then nothing but meek submission when it happened.

On the other hand, maybe we should be heartened by the fact that there were still so many of us who had guns then, nearly 18 months after the Cohen Act had outlawed all private ownership of firearms in the United States. It was only because so many of us defied the law and hid our weapons instead of turning them in that the government wasn’t able to act more harshly against us after the Gun Raids.

I’ll never forget that terrible day: November 9, 1989. They knocked on my door at five in the morning. I was completely unsuspecting as I got up to see who it was.

Read more...

Nice of them to decide to get something done

[Anonymous Coward]

Now how do we get Congress to work the other 11 1/2 months of the year?

Re:Nice of them to decide to get something done

[modmans2ndcoming]

I think you need to pay closer attention. The Democratic congress has worked almost every work day of each month, with some time off during the traditional times taken off. The Republicans are the ones who are never in session. during the Bush years, they worked 10 days a month... and the new house leadership has already scheduled next years session and they are back to 10 days a month.

Re:Nice of them to decide to get something done

[MightyMartian]

The Republicans don't have to work so hard. They've got their corporate lobbyists writing legislation for them.

Re:Nice of them to decide to get something done

[OakDragon]

When Congress works hardest, the nation hurts most. Can I hear 8 days a month?

Re:Nice of them to decide to get something done

[Anonymous Coward]

You say this like it's a bad thing. I'd be thrilled if congress wasn't in session. It would mean that they're not creating laws to screw us.

Re:Nice of them to decide to get something done

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod him up please!

Re:Nice of them to decide to get something done

[RobinEggs]

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.

Days spent in legislative session don't equate with days of productivity. If the congressmen are playing golf in Nassau whenever they're not in session, then of course it's irresponsible to meet just 10 days a month. If for those non-legislative days they're researching, reading bills, visiting their governor, writing bills, or holding meetings with entities such as the pentagon, the GAO, etc. then I'd rather they were out there looking hard at the real world and analyzing what perspective they should bring back to the full body. The alternative is a congress that spends all it's time dragging important people away from their jobs to testify and consult rather than seeing those people's work first hand where practical, a congress that spends more time arguing and politicking amongst themselves, creating alliances and self-reinforcing opinions, than critically analyzing reality.

A congress that meets every day is worse, in my opinion, than one that meets just 10 days a month, even if the other 20 days were golf vacations.

Re:Nice of them to decide to get something done

[Grishnakh]

So do the Democrats. They're just not quite as obvious about it.

Only took...

[jimmerz28]

Finally. Now we just have to trust our military leaders will do the right thing(s).

Sad news :( Justin Bieber, singer, dead at 16

[Anonymous Coward]

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Pop/R&B singer Justin Bieber died from a car accident this morning, after leaving from an interview. Paramedics arrived at the scene, but they were unable to revive him. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Reddit community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Sad news :( Justin Bieber, singer, dead at 16

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up Anon bitch. No one wants to hear your trolling.

Stupid

[RoFLKOPTr]

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.

Re:Stupid

[SydShamino]

I'd rather have the gays in the military than the homophobes. At least then they'd all believe in the freedom they're fighting for.

Re:Stupid

[ayvee]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Stupid

[Beelzebud]

Should we not allow other minorities in the military because there are racists in it? Your argument is tired and hollow.

Re:Stupid

[ShootTheCoreSam]

I actually just created an account to down-vote this ignorant homophobic stupidity.

Re:Stupid

[tomhudson]

Other countries have gays and lesbians serving openly without problems. Maybe you need better leaders?

Re:Stupid

[coaxial]

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.

Re:Stupid

[modmans2ndcoming]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Guido von Guido]

Let me change one word in your first sentence (in italics):

This has got to be one of the stupidest moves they could make. Make and repeal all the laws you want, but there's no getting around the fact that there are some people that just hate blacks.

Which was very true when the army was first integrated, and it's still true today. Many of those people were in the army then, and some of them still are.

The army survived integration, though, and it's fine. It'll survive the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and it'll still be fine

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Funniest post ever.

Re:Stupid

[Xzallion]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Haedrian]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Pstrobus]

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.

Re:Stupid

[MichaelSmith]

OMG slashdot is approaching two million accounts.

Re:Stupid

[vaxjo]

Are you kidding? What we need is better citizens.

Re:Stupid

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Stupid

[rhakka]

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.

Re:Stupid

[bmo]

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

Re:Stupid

[stdarg]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Stupid

[bartyboy]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Pstrobus]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Stupid

[lessthan]

Men don't shower together in the military! This "shower together" meme is stupid, yet rich with homoerotic subtext. Is that what people think of the military? All day, a bunch of guys getting wet and soapy under a stream of hot water? I was in the Marines and the only time there was a group shower was the 3 months of boot camp, where you are so sick and exhausted, EVERY DAY, that you don't even wake up with a morning boner, much less have the energy to perv on guys in the shower. Everywhere else there are individual showers. I was on a tiny FOB in northern Iraq, living in tents and we built a shower stall, rather than some sort of group shower. Why are straight men afraid to shower with gay guys anyway? Women have good reason to be leery of showering with guys. Aren't 99% of rapist men? Combine that statistic with the physical shape a man is required to be in while in the military and women don't stand a huge chance of resisting, do they? I found on Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, that 15% of the women coming back from the current wars and going to the hospital have been doing so because of "sexual trauma." Sounds like women have a good reason to be afraid of straight men. What good reason do straight men have to be afraid of the gays?

Re:Stupid

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

We have citizens? I thought we're consumers.

Re:Stupid

[SumterLiving]

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.

Re:Stupid

[yters]

I've seen those militaries overseas and I'm not impressed. I'd prefer we not become like those militaries.

Re:Stupid

[telomerewhythere]

There is one glaring fault with claiming pedophilia is as wrong as it is because it fails the 'consenting adults' test. pedophilia is so wrong simply because it is so damaging to the psyche of children. To a lesser extent it is because it harms them physically.

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.

Re:Stupid

[markass530]

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.

Re:Stupid

[markass530]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Isaac-1]

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

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Stupid

[TheRaven64]

Calling someone else ignorant is somewhat ironic given that you've created an account specifically to moderate someone down when:

• You can't moderate in a story where you posted and,
• Only the oldest 90% of accounts get mod points, so you won't get any until another 200,000 people sign up.

Re:Stupid

[sco08y]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Omestes]

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!

Re:Stupid

[sco08y]

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.

Re:Stupid

[tomhudson]

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?

Re:Stupid

[tomhudson]

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

Re:Stupid

[Tom]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

land of the braves

Man, fuck the Braves! The Mets mop the floor with those peach-eaters!

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be afraid, but I'd be jealous. How awesome would it be to shower with a bunch of women?

Re:Stupid

[falsified]

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.

Re:Stupid

[rhakka]

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.

Re:Stupid

[rhakka]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Taevin]

18-25 year olds are going to be fucking like rabbits;

There, got rid of some unnecessary specificity for you.

most gay guys consider that to be the number one selling point of being gay.

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.

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.

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:

In a comprehensive review of interviews with all known experts on homosexuality in the IDF in 2004,[23] researchers were not able to find any data suggesting that Israel’s decision to lift its gay ban undermined operational effectiveness, combat readiness, unit cohesion or morale. In this security-conscious country where the military is considered to be essential to the continued existence of the nation, the decision to include sexual minorities has not harmed IDF effectiveness. In addition, while no official statistics are available for harassment rates of sexual minorities in the IDF, scholars, military officials and representatives of gay organizations alike assert that vicious harassment is rare.

Interestingly, they also seem to realize that the real security threat is not from openly gay service men and women, but the closeted ones:

Israel takes the position that gays in the closet (those who, for example, may have informed their superiors of their sexual orientation, but on a confidential basis) cannot get security-sensitive jobs while those who are out can work anywhere.

So, it would seem that gays serving openly will result in fewer people dying.

Re:Stupid

[eyendall]

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.

Re:Stupid

[gfreeman]

Did you just equate genital mutilation with a hair cut?

Re:Stupid

[telomerewhythere]

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.

Re:Stupid

[telomerewhythere]

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...

Re:Stupid

[jarlsberg71]

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.

Re:Stupid

[SydShamino]

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.

Re:Stupid

[SydShamino]

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.

Re:Stupid

[sco08y]

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?

Re:Stupid

[SydShamino]

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.

How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews

[Anonymous Coward]

How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews

There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.

In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.

I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.

Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.

That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman sits on all sorts of “multi-cultural” committees and is constantly being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. She’s all in favor of mass immigration and there’s no way she’s worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because “Race is Just a Social Construct” and “We’re All the Same Under the Skin”. She’s a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?

Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn’t apply the same rules to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was, in short, a hypocrite. But not just that – she was a Jewish hypocrite. And that’s a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way about a Jew because of her Jewishness.

After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those Jews – like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact – gave me the creeps. There was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it wasn’t just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.

Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was “The Iron Lady”. Ronald Reagan was “Teflon Ron”. Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy”. But these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed “Hannibal Lecter”. Peter Mandelson, now Britain’s Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair’s suspected former lover, is “The Prince of Darkness”. Michael Howard (né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is “Dracula”.

When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why had Gentiles reacted to them like

New name for the policy

[Dyinobal]

Don't ask don't, give a damn even if we know.

It's more true now than ever before...

[grokgov]

If you're going to fight in the jungle, clash!

Aww man

[Greyfox]

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!

Harvard

[Anonymous Coward]

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

/. has far too many political stories

[Anonymous Coward]

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 would discharge at the first opportunity

[carigis]

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..

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[ColdWetDog]

as a soldier. I would file for a discharge at the first possible opportunity and choose not to renew any enlistment. You should not have to cover your ass as well as your ass..

Nice homophobic rant. You might look at the rules about fraternization among soldiers. They will still apply. So your virgin butt hole is safe.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[couchslug]

You must never have served. There have always been gays in the service, usually left alone if they do their jobs.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[carigis]

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..

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[carigis]

great more gay people to leak 250,000 military documents cause they were picked on.. wonderful

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[icebraining]

Heterosexual men actually rape more men than homosexual men, but don't let facts mess with your homophobic views!

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

cocksucker

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Bootsy Collins]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[carigis]

glad your following along...

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[carigis]

but that article is about english gays..I mean evereyone over there smokes fags

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[carigis]

cmon.. bootsy I am HOT.. dudes dig me.. aint my fault.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[modmans2ndcoming]

Just like Starship Troopers!!!

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[CyberDragon777]

Why? Are you afraid that the gay guy discharges in you?

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[rhakka]

if he's got a virgin butt hole, it won't be for long. The only people who rage against homosexuality are those who struggle with their own homosexuality.

it's sad, really. I hope he finds some peace before he hurts someone.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about virgin? The guy is probably banging his favorite homophobic senators on the side.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[metrix007]

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?

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[carigis]

thank you for pausing to explain your rant. much appreciated....LOL

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[carigis]

well played,

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[stdarg]

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?

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Opportunist]

So you're saying you're attracting gays? Have you ever heard of gaydar?

Makes one wonder...

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[foniksonik]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[rhakka]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

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 :)

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[lessthan]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[markass530]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[k8to]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[icebraining]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Bootsy Collins]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[metrix007]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[garnkelflax]

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!

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[TheRaven64]

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).

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Bootsy Collins]

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!

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[metrix007]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[stdarg]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[nosferatu1001]

Sorry, they wouldnt be attracted to you, theyve seen better.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[rhakka]

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.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[rhakka]

of course it's not a perfect predictor. but I bet it's better than 50/50.

Re:I would discharge at the first opportunity

[jarlsberg71]

.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.

It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

a good blowjob maybe!

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Now you can suck dick, and STILL get to kill brown babies, to steal their oil!

God bless America. I think this is what MLK would have striven for.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

God bless America. I think this is what MLK would have striven for.

Yeah, you keep saying that like people give a shit. MLK was a prop on the stage, a piece of furniture, a lamp, a table.. Actually a record player, reciting the script he was given. Oh, he may have written it, but it still had to get through channels..

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[dbolger]

Actually his "I have a dream" speech was largely improvised.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Artifakt]

Yes, and yet most people are convinced his assassination was entirely a matter of racial politics, and couldn't possibly have anything to do with him going off script.
Teddy Roosevelt said, in 1912, "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." That was coincidentally the year he delivered his most impromptu speech ever, The "Ladies and Gentlemen, I have just been shot - I may have to cut this one a little short" speech.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

The comment above is clearly written in a way that will get a rise out of people, but it makes a legitimate point. Insofar as the LGBTQ civil rights struggle is one rooted in justice and equal rights, the DADT repeal strategy has left a lot of us scratching our heads. Any civil rights struggle which fits in a broader context would necessarily come to the same conclusions that the 60s/70s racial civil rights struggle in the US did: the oppression of classes within the domestic population is part of the same system of oppression waging imperial war elsewhere, 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. I don't think the strategy of focusing on militarism is going to do any good for queers here or anywhere else. It will, instead, elicit misplaced pride in militarism, drown criticism of US war in needless and irrelevant murky moral grey (and if you don't believe me, go and take a look at how Israel's queer rights record, in contrast with their neighbors, is used to pink-wash their own colonial crimes), and distract queer movements from the fact that real equal rights are not on the agenda of anyone in power.

Quite a lot of the queer rights movement realizes all this, but the movement has been hijacked by mainstream organizations whose lobbying message reflects the twisted values of the system they've swept themselves up into.

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.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

Wait, are you insinuating that MLK was an agent of the state? If so, I think those of us reading would very much appreciate a coherent explanation. If not, what exactly is the implication of "going off script" as it relates to his assassination?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Thank you for your correct interpretation of my snarky derision for false progressivism.

This is no victory for people, or their rights - anywhere.

Oh, and now they can draft you, too... New pavement, just laid, to smooth that road.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been researching this topic a great deal as of late. It's been something of a mixed hobby that has progressed into a bit of an obsession. Probably far too many late evenings digging around various biographies of his close friends and other important figures tends to create a slightly different story then what we see in the silver screen.

All in all, MLK's divergence started out as a young child when his parents were taken from him by a street thug. This event forever altered his path in life and molded him as he grew up. While he was alone throughout his youth he was well cared for. His parents had left him a sizable sum and the heir to the family business.

Through time and training this child grew into a man who dreamed of bringing justice to those who would do harm to others. To protect his identity and estate he would where a costume and a mask. While the police saw him as a vigilante the people would see him as a hero.

Unfortunately, this would end all too quickly as he attempted to swing away on a home made grappling hook and belt combo. It turns out that buildings make terrible anchors and a fall of just 30 feet can be fatal.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

Every time I finished a sentence, I kept expecting the next sentence to be "I sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel-Air."

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[lessthan]

I don't think I understood your comment. What I got was "the government uses segregation and prejudice to control the masses, allowing the government to continue waging wars that would otherwise be stopped by a union of the people." Is that the first part? I believe that the next bit boiled down to "the repeal will only help the government whitewash its warmongering actions and distract social crusaders from issues that matter. The military is bad and this is self-evident." Is that everything?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

I wouldn't characterize it all that way, but you clearly more or less understood it. What's confusing you?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[greentshirt]

So are you trying to say that it would have been better to continue the open discrimination against LGBTQ? If not, then please stop spoiling a small victory.

If your answer is “yes, because it’s legitimizing our war machine etc etc etc” sorry, that doesn’t fly. American corporations will continue to use the US military to secure cheap resources and promote their business interests – regardless of public opinion. Even if we don’t challenge your guesswork, it’s a major stretch to believe that this change in public opinion would strengthen US militarism. US militarism is dictated by corporate interests and the monied, it needs no help from public opinion because public opinion is easily purchased – ask Freedom Works.

All this repeal does is allow gay people to feel a little less “the other” – and that is a good thing. Please be happy for them.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

So are you trying to say that it would have been better to continue the open discrimination against LGBTQ?

First of all, DADT wasn't *open*. It was literally the exact opposite of open. Second of all, while I support the repeal of DADT as such, yes, I'm opposed to queers serving in the military. It's not part of the queer rights movement and shouldn't be portrayed as if it is. US militarism is on the opposite end of the moral spectrum from civil rights struggles.

If your answer is “yes, because it’s legitimizing our war machine etc etc etc” sorry, that doesn’t fly.

You're oversimplifying my point. And it's no wonder, after over-simplification, that it "doesn't fly." Let me reiterate: militarism and imperialism are incompatible with civil rights; allowing militarism and imperialism to co-opt a civil rights movement will weaken and diffuse the movement; it will become a tool used to isolate different the queer rights movement from the broader movement for justice; and it will be used as a propaganda tool to portray militarism and imperialism as the opposite of what it really is.

American corporations will continue to use the US military to secure cheap resources and promote their business interests – regardless of public opinion.

Who said anything about public opinion? Justice isn't won by having strong feelings, it's won by making injustice too costly to maintain. The consequences of using the DADT repeal as described above will deal a real, meaningful blow to those of us trying to achieve that.

Even if we don’t challenge your guesswork, it’s a major stretch to believe that this change in public opinion would strengthen US militarism.

Do yourself a favor and look into Israel using gay rights to bolster its image as a liberal utopia, defending itself from its backwards neighbors by colonizing them. This is something that's going on right now, and to think the US won't take advantage of the same thing is pretty naive. And if you don't think it works, go spend some time talking to left Zionists.

US militarism is dictated by corporate interests and the monied

Yes, but it depends on a complacent, if not participating, public. The US imperial agenda was severely curtailed in the 70s under public pressure—not through opinion, but, in the words of the powerful, because the society was falling apart.

public opinion is easily purchased

Well gee duh, that's what the whole DADT drama is about. They're co-opting us and they're going to use growing public sentiment in favor of queer rights to promote similar sentiment to a "more tolerant" military.

All this repeal does is allow gay people to feel a little less “the other” – and that is a good thing.

It doesn't make me feel any less other. How would being entitled to become cannon fodder for the empire make me feel more included?

Please be happy for them.

In case you missed it, I'm queer. So before you go on telling me that I'm dismissing some victory that queers care about, keep that in mind.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[PopeRatzo]

I do not see a meaningful improvement in the cause of justice by allowing queers to go kill and die for US imperialism.

While I agree that this is no clear-cut victory for progressivism, and it does tend to lend an air of moral progress to a repressive tool of state, I do believe there is some social benefit to making institutions inclusive, even ones that have been morally questionable. When blacks were allowed to serve beside whites in the military, it did raise the status of blacks back home that did not serve, and brought more of them to the middle class via the veteran's benefits, improving their lives in a way that hastened the end of Jim Crow (but not, alas, the struggle)..

It's the same with gay marriage. Is it progress that gays could participate in a patriarchal institution which oppresses women? Well, yes and no. Like most things, it's complicated.

A meaningful queer civil rights struggle would be anti-imperialist and anti-militarist by default

Of course. That's the meaningful struggle for all of us, gay or straight. And I'd include anti-capitalist. But I'm not sure these can be fought head on, friend. This is the real "Forever War".

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[DocHoncho]

duh, like the illuminati killed him and shit, don't act so surprised

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[lessthan]

You used a lot of big words and I was worried that I might have missed something. Now that I am assured of my understanding, I am free to say that I disagree with your assertion that this repeal is not meaningful. It may mean nothing to you, but it means a lot to those affected by DADT. Civil rights are not a binary bit, civil rights or no civil rights. The fight for civil rights is like fighting a forest fire. You have to stamp out what you can, when you can. Also, I find it saddening that you think so little of those who work for equal rights, that you believe that they can be distracted from the ultimate goal of equality for all, with what you feel is a little sop. I understand your disaffection for the government and their manipulation of the people. It makes me angry too, but I sense at the end of your sentiment the belief that we can do without government and a military is immoral. That may be me putting words in your mouth though. All life is based on struggle. We as humans are in a nearly unique position to transcend that struggle, but we must acknowledge that we are nowhere near that position yet. Sometimes I feel like we are falling further from that goal. Until we get there, we will need mediation for conflict. The government is needed for peaceful disagreement, the military when that disagreement gets not-so peaceful. We need a government, we need a military. However, there may be imperfections that need fixed.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

It was always my easy way to avoid a draft. Hey, I can't be in the army, I'm one a them homosexuals!

Seriously, though, I have no idea why you can't have both gay rights and imperialism. That doesn't follow as naturally as you seem to suggest.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

It may mean nothing to you, but it means a lot to those affected by DADT.

Since apparently you missed it (don't feel bad, you're not alone), I'll repeat that I am queer. I was affected, at least in terms of legal application, by DADT.

Civil rights are not a binary bit, civil rights or no civil rights. The fight for civil rights is like fighting a forest fire. You have to stamp out what you can, when you can.

Which is a great analogy, and one which I agree with, except for the nagging issue that the DADT repeal is akin to pulling those firefighters out and directing them to use their fire hose to fill a private pool.

Also, I find it saddening that you think so little of those who work for equal rights, that you believe that they can be distracted from the ultimate goal of equality for all, with what you feel is a little sop.

I don't think little of the queer rights movement, I think little of the mainstream lobby movement that has co-opted their energy into the DADT issue. It's not *our* (note, I'm including myself here) fault that we don't have control over those lobbying resources.

I understand your disaffection for the government and their manipulation of the people. It makes me angry too, but I sense at the end of your sentiment the belief that we can do without government and a military is immoral. That may be me putting words in your mouth though. [...]

If you're inferring from my opposition to US imperialism that I'm an anarchist, I can only say this: while I am, in fact, an anarchist, my opposition to US imperialism shouldn't lead you to that conclusion. There is a big difference between opposing a system of government and its military apparatus that has been used for conquest and hegemony for centuries, on the one hand, and opposing all government and military on the other hand.

I could make a case for anarchism, and I do in other contexts, but this isn't the place for that and it will hopefully be enough here to say that my critique of the DADT repeal strategy doesn't depend on that argument. It should be enough to say that I don't want to send queers off to kill Afghanis or be killed by them. And that has no bearing on whether or not a government or a military is a necessary feature of a good society.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

You can have gay rights and imperialism. You can't have *equal* rights and imperialism.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[bbhack]

...

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.

Wow. Can you say narcissism? Every gay boy must believe as you do regarding the US and its positions and actions in the world?

You have so invalidated your position by implying that you know all that's right and wrong, not just because you do, but because of who you are.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[lessthan]

Okay, I get that. So your civil rights are forest fires, while the civil rights of gays in the military are private swimming pools? You want equal rights, but their choices aren't right choices and should be disregarded as not part of the movement?

A man's beliefs are fundamental in forming his opinions. That is why I brought it up. I deduced that you were at least a libertarian and/or a pacifist because of your dismissal of this repeal. A man who disagrees with his government's actions wouldn't have decided that it means nothing. He may have considered it a small step, but not nothing or, as you seem to see it, a setback. Who we are and what we believe has everything to do with how and what we argue.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

You must have misunderstand me. I said that imperialism and equal rights are mutually exclusive. That's not saying that the only right opinion is my opinion, only saying what my opinion is. If other queers (or, hell, you) want to explain to me how imperialism can coexist with equal rights, I'm all ears.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

So your civil rights are forest fires, while the civil rights of gays in the military are private swimming pools?

No, wait. I'm saying that building a civil rights movement for queers in the US by piggybacking it on an imperialist propaganda win is effectively diverting civil rights efforts away from the fundamental principle of equal rights and toward opportunistic goals. And I'm not talking about *my* equal rights—I'm relatively privileged and in a twisted sense I could benefit from the DADT repeal.

The lobbying organizations that are using the queer rights movement to repeal DADT are delivering a real win to the propaganda machine supporting the US military which is engaged in imperialism, in effect selling out the *human rights of victims of US imperialism* for meager civil rights gains here.

No real movement for justice would make a deal like that.

You want equal rights, but their choices aren't right choices and should be disregarded as not part of the movement?

No, I want equal rights, full stop. Human rights, civil rights, the whole nine yards. Getting the one while disregarding the other is not a moral position.

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.

The only part of my political philosophy that's relevant to this discussion is that I'm opposed to imperialism. I could be a traditional conservative, a Quaker, an Iraqi, a socialist, some heretofore unknown brand of progressive-liberal, whatever, and oppose a policy that I think will bolster imperialism.

If you want to debate the inherent merits or demerits of government and military, on a theoretical level, I might be willing to engage (time allowing), but I don't think it has a bearing on my position in this thread.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[bbhack]

The word imperial was not coined to describe the US. We have a large footprint, we look after our interests, we elect foolish and self-interested politicians. we have incompetent and self-interested diplomats and generals, but overall, the US is a force for good in the world. My fault is to find fault with the world in total, and your's is to ascribe bad motives to the US to the exclusion of everything else.

After fighting and defeating the Axis in the 20th century, and helping to put things back together, and not completely taking away the sovereignty of the vanquished should tell anyone that the US wants a dominant position, but not an empire. Extreme example, but not that long ago.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[lessthan]

I'm a little lost. So the military is doing evil, so is therefore evil. Enabling gays to join evil is an evil, so this repeal is evil?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[ShakaUVM]

>>my opposition to US imperialism shouldn't lead you to that conclusion. There is a big difference between opposing a system of government and its military apparatus that has been used for conquest and hegemony for centuries

US imperialism? Centuries?

Our ill-advised imperialist phase started in the 1890s with Cleveland, McKinley (and General Funston especially), who wanted the US to be "more like Europe" against the wishes of a significant portion of the country, who considered imperialism to be anti-American. The phase kinda-sorta lasted for about 40 years, though during this time, we gave Cuba independence, the Philippines later, and so forth. If you actually study American history instead of reading head-up-ass anarchist writers, especially the writing of contemporary Americans, you'll see how odd it is for America to actually subjugate a foreign country. I suppose you could make an argument for the Native Americans, but really what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now is much more typical for our country.

When the Barbary pirates caused trouble for America, we sent troops over there, burned some stuff down, and negotiated a more lasting peace. That's much more our MO than McKinley-style imperialism.

And while you might bitch and moan about cultural hegemony, well. Who gives a shit?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

Oh and here I thought you were actually interested in a discussion, my mistake. Try not deliberately caricaturing my position and then we'll talk some more.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[lessthan]

I am interested. I'm sorry I offended. How would you describe your previous post?

No, I want equal rights, full stop. Human rights, civil rights, the whole nine yards. Getting the one while disregarding the other is not a moral position.

How else can you rephrase that? That is basically saying that doing good in the name of evil isn't good.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

The word imperial was not coined to describe the US.

Well, duh. That doesn't mean the US isn't an imperialist, just that it isn't alone (especially in history).

overall, the US is a force for good in the world.

I would never say the US has done no good in the world. But I can't agree that it has done more good than harm. The US began its empire, immediately after leaving the British empire, by conquering an entire continent, dispensing with hundreds of nations and millions of people in the process. It then conquered and annexed half of a neighboring country (Mexico). Much of the receding Spanish imperial territories (Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico), then the Philippines where hundreds of thousands were murdered. Then Hawaii. Overthrown governments include: Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq. It's intervened on behalf of the Phalange movement in Lebanon, death squads in Colombia (and really all over Latin America), brutal dictators like Pinochet, Suharto, Hussein, Zia-ul-Haq, and on and on. It's the only country on earth to have dropped nuclear bombs on civilian populations (twice!). Following WWII, it reinstated fascist governors throughout contested areas of Italy and Greece. It's supported genocide in East Timor and Kurdistan, committed genocide in Indochina, and been the primary source of support for Israel's ongoing colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine for over 40 years (with a lesser degree of support going all the way back to the Nakba in 1948). It is currently engaged in two military occupations which have taken hundreds of thousands of lives. In Iraq, it has displaced about 20% of the population. In Afghanistan, it continues to escalate against the wishes of the population, and the consequences—already pretty bad—will only grow worse.

And that's the short list. The one I could do off the top of my head, insofar as I could keep it roughly chronological. But here I want to take a step back and point back that imperialism is a precise term, and the moral and emotional qualities we're attaching to it are not part of its definition, but rather our reaction to it. Imperialism is the imposition of a state upon other populations. It is absolutely precise to describe the US' role as imperial. What you or I think about that is another matter.

ascribe bad motives to the US to the exclusion of everything else

I never said the US is unique. I don't know where you got that idea.

After fighting and defeating the Axis in the 20th century

Not alone, and not consistently. The US leadership was enamored with Franco and Mussolini, and had high regard for Hitler. Had the alliances played out differently, it's not inconceivable that the US would have entered the war on their side, particularly as a bulwark against the "real" threat (the Soviet Union), but really its immediate quarrel was with Japan, which is where it placed its focus. Germany was defeated primarily by the Soviet Union.

and helping to put things back together

In part by constructing a post-war economy that helped to stall European recovery at the advantage of the US.

and not completely taking away the sovereignty of the vanquished should tell anyone that the US wants a dominant position, but not an empire.

This is how *all* successful empires are run. The British had their Rajas, the Ottomans provincial autonomy, and so on. Few empires maintain absolute control over their entire sphere of influence, but instead shape the politics of the dominated places to be subservient to the central power.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

I don't know why you're wanting to keep rephrasing my points. It's perfectly comprehensible as is, without putting words like "evil" and "good" (as contrasted with "evil") in my mouth.

Is there any chance you can *reply* to the statement instead of twisting it?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[markass530]

although true (im a cav scout who was in iraq for a year) thats an extremly naive take on it The army is the army, . The big worry is that the military gives extreme coercisive power to some people . It does not give as much as it once did but it still gives a lot of power to people. When you give that much power to people to run the lives of other people , there has to be some mechanism in place to make sure that they do so in good faith, good concience and in full obedience to the law and the best interest of the United States. My worry is that during the transition, while people are trying to figure out what it all means, that it will enable someone who does not fit the standards that we would like to have for someone who leads people but will instead allow someone to persue their own peculiar interests . I could care less about what the PV1 s are doing when the lights go out so long as no one is hurt and no one complains, but I care alot about what the people who lead those PVTs is doing, on the weight of their character and what influences their decisions. People always talk this issue talking about the PVTs, but this is not an issue for PVTs this is an issue of who in their chain of command and what the consequences are .

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

I suppose you could make an argument for the Native Americans

You suppose? You'll grant that? Conquering an entire continent, hundreds of nations, and millions of people... might just be imperialist? That is how the US got its start.

The rest of your comment boils down to a misconception that empires are defined by complete subjugation of all the countries they exercise power over, rather than the exact same conquest/hegemony/manipulation/institutional soup that the US uses and has used since the age of outright conquest ended around the time the explicitly imperialist phase you describe did.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

oh SHUT UP.

I'm tired of this phony intellectualistic post-modern conspiracy theory.

I am so fucking tired of it.

With out quoting Chomsky or with out resorting to, "The lack of proof IS THE proof of a conspiracy!" can you prove that there is a systematic oppression of minorities and gays that's spanned 5 decades since the 60's with a consistent message that also removes any doubt or skepticism anyone might have that this might be instead the result of short sighted and ignorant thinking?

I agree, shit SUCKS for the lower classes and it's largely because of moves by the moneyed elites who have worked to screw the poor; but to say that there's an active oppression going on really does disservice to what actual systematic oppression is. Given the fact that upward social mobility is a reality(yes, social upward mobility is absolutely slim, and the mechanisms that would allow it are so fucking restrictive it's not even funny), you're pretty dead wrong and dangerous. You ignore real change and wish to instill apathy until you get your absolute way. The reality is, the world is way more complex than you present it to be and that's incredibly dangerous.

Christ. Unless you can show documents or other actual evidence proving your conspiracy theory, shut up. There is no conspiracy to oppress the lower class; the rich aren't nearly that smart.

No, this isn't hetero-splainin' or what have you, I'm bi, and I've got friends who are GLB(T is still not covered under this repeal; hopefully soon) and serving. They serve because they love the service.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[potat0man]

You noodle-armed nancy pants. Get your head out of your ass. This about improving the US military, not furthering civil rights.

It used to be if you had one spot open but two applicants, one who could bench-press a buick and speak half a dozen languages and the other who barely met the minimum requirements, we had to give the spot to the lesser qualified guy because he's a heterosexual. That was moronic.

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.

Give me a break. What if there is a society of people openly and actively torturing and killing homosexuals as a policy and all diplomatic efforts have failed? Militarism, violence and the use of force would not only be in line with furthering civil rights, it would be required for it.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[lessthan]

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. I did not "twist" what you said. I am attempting to demonstrate. I simply restated on simpler terms and you found the statement distasteful. Why? You are the one who brought up morality. Exactly how did I change the original meaning? You have taken an all-or-nothing approach to this discussion. This repeal does nothing for you and you construe it to help your enemy. You have some mythical big picture where the government plays us all as pawns and this repeal is a ploy to distract us. Exactly how will we become distracted? Is the HRC going to close up tomorrow? Are you and I going to stop voting and donating as our conscience sees fit? What does American imperialism have to do with DADT? Do you blame the hammer for the hole in the wall? 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? You change what you can and work on what you can't. I am asking you to defend your position and you use buzzwords and false equivalencies. Wordy false equivalencies.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[AK Marc]

Which is a great analogy, and one which I agree with, except for the nagging issue that the DADT repeal is akin to pulling those firefighters out and directing them to use their fire hose to fill a private pool.

To continue the analogy, firefighters have lots of downtime. Having them fill pools when not fighting fires would help and not hurt.

Though in reality, these "firefighters" have no downtime, so it pulls them off "more important" things. However, filling the main public pool in a city is more important than putting out a smoldering house that is already a total loss and won't be spreading. So sometimes the public wins are more important than the more meaningful and less visible pieces because, in the long run, the more visible one will elevate the issue and lead to a quicker overall resolution.

If you're inferring from my opposition to US imperialism that I'm an anarchist, I can only say this: while I am, in fact, an anarchist, my opposition to US imperialism shouldn't lead you to that conclusion.

Why not? Consistency will often result in a seemingly unrelated opinions giving a good idea of or even defining other opinions held.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[cold fjord]

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.

Really?

Soldier Sex In Afghanistan
December 18, 2009 -
Last year, the U.S. Army in Afghanistan has removed the prohibition on sex between male and female soldiers. There are 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and about ten percent of them are female. So far this year, about fifteen percent of these female troops have had pregnancy tests, and a few percent of the female troops have gone home because they were pregnant.

Your views differ markedly from many in the military, especially those in the ground combat arms - the ones with the primary responsibility for attacking the enemy. The closer the person is to the sharp end, the less interest they have in this experiment.

60% of Marines Deployed to Combat Zone Say DADT Repeal Would Have Negative Impact
Early reports on the Pentagon's survey of the troops on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" were nothing but roses for repeal supporters, but the details of the survey complicate that narrative somewhat. While only 20% of troops who have never been deployed to a combat zone say that repeal of DADT would "very negatively" or "negatively" affect their "immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission," more than 44% of combat troops say repeal would have a negative impact on unit effectiveness:

An exception to the pattern was the response of Service members deployed to a combat zone now or in the past to the circumstance of being “in a field environment or out to sea.” Among all Service members in this group, 44.3% (and 59.4% of Marines—see Q71a in Appendix E) said performance would be “very negatively/negatively” affected in this situation. Of note, among all survey items related to the review’s major subject areas, this item had the highest percentage of Service members reporting negative perceptions about the impact of a repeal.

Update: The report also says that "67% of those in Marine combat arms units"--i.e. infantry, artillery, armor--"predict working alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative effect on their unit’s effectiveness in completing its mission 'in a field environment or out at sea.'"

About 11% of all combat troops surveyed said repeal would "positively" or "very positively" affect performance, while 19% said repeal would have "no effect." Another 26% of combat troops surveyed said repeal's affect wold be "equally as positively as negatively." These troops--who see both negative and positive effects of repeal--are lumped together with those who believe it will have "no effect" under the survey's "neutral" category.

The Flag & General Officers for the Military

This is a list of 1,163 distinguished retired military leaders from all branches of the service who have shown their support for the 1993 law with personal signatures requested and received by regular mail. The list (as of February 2010) includes two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several Service Chiefs, a number of combatant command, theater, and other major U.S. and allied force commanders, together with two Medal of Honor recipients and hundreds of retired flag and general officers who have led the men

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[ShakaUVM]

>>conquest/hegemony/manipulation/institutional soup

Yes, the standard imperialist soup of the tie-died college airhead who screams "fascist pig!" at the police while calling his lawyer when they take away his marijuana.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[markass530]

So all those gay dudes who are imperialistic and like the military should what? go fuck themselves? civil rights should be civil rights. and since it's the topic, being in the military is very much NOT a right. It's a privilege. And to say people in the military go "Kill and die for the US" you have the same tone as the guy you were replying to.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

You know when someone starts by saying "oh SHUT UP", something completely stupid will follow. I don't even know what you're talking about.

I didn't say anything about a conspiracy. I didn't quote Chomsky. I didn't say the world is simple. And I don't really care why people join the military, straight or queer. I have no idea what your post has to do with mine.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

This about improving the US military, not furthering civil rights.

That's what I said! And I don't want to improve the US military, I want to improve civil rights. Does *anyone* on Slashdot read before they respond?

What if there is a society of people openly and actively torturing and killing homosexuals as a policy and all diplomatic efforts have failed?

They're our allies. ;)

For what it's worth, I'm not taking a stance against violence. And I'm not taking a stance against military or war. I'm taking a stance against imperialism. The US military is not an agent for civil rights and human rights, it's an agent for corporate profit and hegemony. If we change that, I'd be happy to serve in the military myself.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[k8to]

1 - sexuality is not about behavior. Sexual behavior is not the same as sexuality. This is factual, not hair splitting. I could introduce you to a lesbian who was sexually behaved as a married straight woman for 15 years, happily. Although in the end she figured out she was missing out on something -- her own sexuality.

2 - most other western militaries are openly integrated and none report these kinds of imagined problems. It's just troops being bigoted without actually having to deal with reality that they already have gay troops and it's already fine, they just don't know it.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

However, filling the main public pool in a city is more important than putting out a smoldering house that is already a total loss and won't be spreading. So sometimes the public wins are more important than the more meaningful and less visible pieces because, in the long run, the more visible one will elevate the issue and lead to a quicker overall resolution.

Queer liberation isn't a lost cause, and neither is anti-imperialism. Both will eventually prevail. The "firefighters", to stick with the analogy, are facing a tough problem because they're fighting against arsonists.

The repeal of DADT is not a win, it's a distraction.

Why not? Consistency will often result in a seemingly unrelated opinions giving a good idea of or even defining other opinions held.

I explained why not in another comment. To quote myself, "The only part of my political philosophy that's relevant to this discussion is that I'm opposed to imperialism. I could be a traditional conservative, a Quaker, an Iraqi, a socialist, some heretofore unknown brand of progressive-liberal, whatever, and oppose a policy that I think will bolster imperialism." I mean, I could discuss why being an anarchist leads to being anti-imperialist, but it's kind of a waste of my time because I'm not really discussing any principles that aren't much broader than anarchism.

Really, as I said to the other commenter, if you want to discuss my broader political philosophy, open up a discussion somewhere else and I'll join in, time allowing. But I'm trying to focus on the consequences of a civil rights movement being swept up into an imperialist system. And I think that discussion is both relevant and warranted, and has merit in its own right without putting on trial my vision for an ideal society.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[PylonHead]

The turmoil of this issue is only beginning

Only for you and a few of your homophobic buddies. I expect you'll all keep whining. The rest of us will just go on getting the job done in a world that's slightly fairer than it was yesterday.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/07/131857684/how-gay-soldiers-serve-openly-around-the-world

"Frank says all five countries he studied — Britain, Israel, Canada, South Africa and Australia — had major concerns about the potential effect on military effectiveness and recruitment patterns before their bans were dropped. But all five countries quickly implemented changes. And, Frank says, they experienced no wide-scale problems after the bans were repealed."

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

I feel that your position is wrongheaded and nearsighted. I feel that the position stems from your own, very wrong and unrealistic, beliefs. I actually believe that with some thought, these feelings are correct and self-evident.

Well, good for you. I don't really care what you feel and believe. I've provided argument, and support for my argument, and you've responded by trying to paraphrase my argument in a way that's convenient for you to dismiss, but haven't provided much in the way of challenging my position.

I did not "twist" what you said. I am attempting to demonstrate.

You are changing the meaning of my position in so doing. It's called a straw man argument, look it up.

I simply restated on simpler terms and you found the statement distasteful. Why?

I chose my words carefully, and words are not always interchangeable. Your rephrasing of my position does not reflect what I meant to say, it reflects what you chose to see in it. And if you're not being deliberately dishonest, then you're demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between my version of my position and yours.

You are the one who brought up morality.

If you can't conceive of moral principles besides "evil" and "good"... I don't even know how to finish that sentence. Really?

Exactly how did I change the original meaning?

Well, I never said anyone or anything is evil, to begin with. So, basically, you entirely eliminated the original meaning and superimposed a completely ludicrous one on top of it.

You have taken an all-or-nothing approach to this discussion.

No, I haven't. I absolutely believe in incremental progress. I don't believe the repeal is progress, I believe it is an opportunistic misstep.

This repeal does nothing for you and you construe it to help your enemy.

And, I provide supporting logic for that point. Which you don't seem to care for.

You have some mythical big picture where the government plays us all as pawns and this repeal is a ploy to distract us.

I'm sorry if that's the impression I've given. I don't think it's anything as sinister as that. I think that the government, the military, and so on have interests that they serve, but I don't think they "play" us in any conscious sense. I think they serve their interests as well as they can, and if that means pink-washing imperialism than so be it. They don't have any principles besides power, and the social leanings of the day can be manipulated whatever they happen to be.

Exactly how will we become distracted? Is the HRC going to close up tomorrow?

*I* won't become distracted. I can't speak for you. But I can say that organizations lobbying for the DADT repeal will, if they proceed for changes beyond the repeal, be given the same line that all progressives with an ear in the White House have been getting for the last two years: your expectations are too high, get in line or shut up.

What does American imperialism have to do with DADT?

I don't know why you're asking me to explain something I've addressed from the outset, but okay. DADT was a mistaken policy, now corrected, implemented by the US military which is engaged in imperialism. By correcting this mistake, it is better suited to engage in imperialism.

Gays and lesbians, thousands of them, will someday soon, be able to go to work and not have to lie about how they spent their weekend. How is this repeal anything other than a good thing?

For those individuals, it's a good thing in a sense. And I don't begrudge them that. Though I do wish they'd find a better job. But it's also more than that. It's also a propaganda tool that plays exceptionally well into the hands of their employers.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

Well that's cute. I'm kind of disappointed that you didn't get even one of those stereotypes right, but oh well.

Go read up on how the British Empire managed its possessions. Or the Ottoman Empire. Or, you know, pick an empire.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

So all those gay dudes who are imperialistic and like the military should what? go fuck themselves?

There's nothing in being gay that dictates proper moral values on other positions. If they want to have gay sex and also want to be agents of empire, that's their business but I'm not going to be their ally.

civil rights should be civil rights. and since it's the topic, being in the military is very much NOT a right. It's a privilege.

Huh? Pick one.

And to say people in the military go "Kill and die for the US" you have the same tone as the guy you were replying to.

I didn't really have a problem with the tone. I tried to articulate the point in a way where the tone would be more compelling. Which, judging by my responses and moderation, success!

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[bledri]

... and that the internal oppression is used as a means of social control in order to divide people who might otherwise unite to stop the broader system of oppression.

All of which is to say, speaking as a queer personally, I do not see a meaningful improvement in the cause of justice by allowing queers to go kill and die for US imperialism.

A meaningful queer civil rights struggle would be anti-imperialist and anti-militarist by default, and the extent to which it disregards those values it is actively undermining the fundamental moral principle of equal rights.

As a straight man, I supported the repeal of DADT for the same reasons that I support gay marriage. First, I believe that it's none of the government's business. Second, I believe that these "issues," along with many others, are intentionally used to split the population and keep them from uniting on issues that are really in there best interests. So in a way, I agree with you. But there are gays that want to serve in the military, and there are gays that want to get married and the fact they can't is discrimination. As long as this issue is unresolved, it will be an effective wedge. That and I guess I'm just a bleeding heart.

Now, in my opinion, focusing on the imperialism and militarism of the US is still focusing on a symptom. The cause is that over the last 150 or so years corporations have been acquiring all the rights of individual humans (and shedding the responsibilities). Therefore we do not have a government of the people, by the people. The "American interests" we spend billions (oops, trillions) to promote and defend are rarely in the best interest of most actual Americans.

P.S. Now that the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that freedom of speech is a corporation's "right" and furthermore money is speech, it's only going to get worse.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[nospam007]

"I don't think little of the queer rights movement,"

I guess you think the same about Womanfolk, Niggers, Krauts, Wops, Frogs, Kikes, Polacks, Micks, Coons, Hillbillies, Scanadihoovians, Bohunks, Hunkies, Cannucks and Greasers?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

Do yourself a favor and look into Israel using gay rights to bolster its image as a liberal utopia, defending itself from its backwards neighbors by colonizing them.

Yes, how horrible it is for them to treat gays like human beings. I mean, don't they realize that equal rights for gays are less important than your anti-Israel talking points?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is it progress that gays could participate in a patriarchal institution which oppresses women?"

Perhaps some of the hetero rapists there could get raped too for a change?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[drinkypoo]

The reason you're wrong is because you seek to eliminate personal choice by telling people what is right for them to do. The reason repealing DADT is right is because it creates an artificial distinction between persons.

What is ultimately needed is for the federal government to catch up with California (as usual) and simply make it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[drinkypoo]

civil rights should be civil rights. and since it's the topic, being in the military is very much NOT a right. It's a privilege.

Huh? Pick one.

You're being a douche, there is no conflict there. I don't remember anywhere in the constitution that it says that the rights of the people to smoke cock shall not be infringed, or that all citizens shall have the right to serve an imperialist military. If you want to argue over what's a right and what isn't, that's cool, but your statement does not accomplish that.

The fact that you made 02385472308 comments responding to every individual attack against your argument suggests to me that you don't really know what it is. When you do, you'll be able to knock off one cogent comment and a couple small followups and get your point across.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[drinkypoo]

Now, in my opinion, focusing on the imperialism and militarism of the US is still focusing on a symptom.

You're wrong because the US military was supporting American imperialism and bombarding towns for United Fruit before corporations had personhood.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm opposed to queers serving in the military. It's not part of the queer rights movement and shouldn't be portrayed as if it is.

Apparently the 13,000 gay men and women who were dismissed under DADT don't agree with you, so I'm confused as to who died and made you leader of the LGBTQ's?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're proposing seems to me like you want to impose a certain view of the world, a specific interpretation of the past, present, and possible futures and a code of conduct derived from all that upon queers everywhere (or at least in the USA). Why should gays and lesbians be forbidden to play with guns and handgrenades if it pleases them fine? It's the same question as: Why should boys not play with dolls or girls with little toy soldiers and tanks and get dirty on a soccer field? Why do we always have to mold people into what we think is right? Equal opportunity and equal rights, yes, but no more and no less than that, please.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[bledri]

Now, in my opinion, focusing on the imperialism and militarism of the US is still focusing on a symptom.

You're wrong because the US military was supporting American imperialism and bombarding towns for United Fruit before corporations had personhood.

I over simplified, no doubt. Yes, US corporations pursued imperialistic activities before personhood. I think that back in the day of the East Indian Trading Company corporations were "artificial persons" in the UK and could be regulated under common law. Yet they were extremely imperialist - leading to the American Revolution. Of course, they "could" be regulated, but they had huge influence over the government so all the regulations were in their favor. Like declaring US tea importers "smugglers" and taxing them out of business. When there was push back against corporations in the US in the late 1800s (more for local behaviors than imperialism) they started the long fight for personhood. Why? So they could do what ever they want, were ever they want and to keep the public in the dark, or better yet misinformed. All without accountability.

My point is that as long as the government is in the back pocket of the corporations, then the military will continue to be in their back pockets as well. After all, the US the military is under civilian rule. And as long lobbyist can exercise their billions of dollars of "free speech" to funnel money to political campaigns and misinform the actual citizens, nothing is going to change.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Arker]

No, you do not understand him.

What does American imperialism have to do with DADT?

It's simple. There are two ways of looking at this, and BOTH are valid, though I consider one more weighty, certainly both are valid.

1. The policy is straight up tax-funded federal government discrimination for sexual orientation, which is obviously wrong on that level and the repeal should be celebrated.
2. The US Military is engaged, not in defending the US, but in long wars of occupation as a result of invasions based on lies. These wars cost millions of innocents their lives and/or liberty, and have involved torture and lawlessness on a grand scale. Viewpoint 1 being true and valid, nonetheless, anyone truly concerned for human rights should be trying to get the breeders out of the us military, not trying to keep the gays in!

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

you describe the same shitty, paranoid chomskyite worldview that tends to exist at the most extreme end of the liberal spectrum espouse.

You stated elsewhere in this thread you basically think that the Government uses the same mechanisms of oppression to oppress lower classes as they do to go to war and that allowing the GLB community to serve in the military isn't equal rights due to, in your view, imperialism in the broad scope of American foreign policy?

Except, they're not. And it's paranoid. It also has a strong whiff of a conspiracy to hold minority populations down. You also implicitly dismiss any sort of skeptical notion that negligence on the Government's part would possibly be a part of any societal ignorance as to what they're doing. You also imply that the mechanisms of injustice and prejudice are being directly manipulated by the Government to further it's goals, again with out any possibility that other mechanisms could be at work.

All i'm asking you for is, do you have any solid evidence that what you're saying is true?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are indeed "queer" as you say, I should like to remind you that the people we are currently fighting with would kill you in 2 seconds for being gay if given the chance.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

US "gave" Cuba and The Philippines independence?

How generous.

I would argue they maintained "dependency" - with limited autonomy under the continuous threat of economic and military violence.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

Uhwhut. I repeat, I AM QUEER. I am not using it as a term of derision.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

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).

Nah, we had imperialism before that. Corporatism is certainly a shift in power from the feudal beginnings of the US, but it's the same dynamic it always was... concentrated power, force and manipulation. Imperialism is definitely a symptom, but if it weren't corporations it would be churches or some other power center.

I don't disagree that we should end the treatment of corporations as persons, but I think it's a mistake to treat that as some new horror.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

The reason you're wrong is because you seek to eliminate personal choice by telling people what is right for them to do.

Not really. All other things being equal, I promote equal rights in any context. But I don't have any illusions that equal employment rights across sexual orientations in the military is not a civil rights victory. It's a triumph of the military's agility and it signifies a change in strategy in the US state. It will bolster US imperialism, and the majority of the queer rights movement that opposes that will come to view it as a mistake.

And if I'm wrong, so be it. I'm willing to be corrected by history.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

You're being a douche, there is no conflict there.

Uh, yes there is. You can't have both "DADT repeal is a civil rights victory" and "there is no civil right to military service". They are mutually contradictory.

I'm replying to multiple comments because they're all making somewhat different points, and I don't think any one of them deserves an off-topic response to points made by other commenters.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

You're asking me to provide evidence for something I haven't said. Why don't you tell me what you think is going on, in contrast with my own position, so at least I have some idea what I'm supposed to be disputing.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

Insofar as Israel's gay rights record isn't being distorted (which it is), it's not horrible. What's horrible is their manipulation of it as a justification for their imperial/colonial mission. To repeat, again, I am queer. I do support equal rights for queers. I do NOT want them to be co-opted by a morally backwards policy of domination of other peoples. America can't be both a city on a hill and a superpower.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

Apparently the Slashdot comment form. I didn't realize that posting my opinion on some Internet forum conveyed authority.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

What you're proposing seems to me like you want to impose a certain view of the world, a specific interpretation of the past, present, and possible futures and a code of conduct derived from all that upon queers everywhere (or at least in the USA).

Nope. Just stating my opinion. I can see how you'd make that mistake though... wait, no I can't.

Why should gays and lesbians be forbidden to play with guns and handgrenades if it pleases them fine?

They shouldn't. But destroying the lives of brown people half a world away to improve one's lot in life is not an equal rights victory. The same goes for heteros in the US military.

It's the same question as: Why should boys not play with dolls or girls with little toy soldiers and tanks and get dirty on a soccer field? Why do we always have to mold people into what we think is right?

Huh? My problem with queers in the US military has nothing to do with gender/sexual orientation roles. It has to do with the function of the US military.

This might come as a shock to you, but I also don't want women in the US military. Or people of color. Or white men. Or German Shepherds. Or computers. I could go on.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

I'm amazed this cute bit of nonsense took so long to come out.

Thanks for proving my point! I have no question in my mind that this will be used to promote the "morality" of the US mission in the Middle East and South Asia.

But anyway, I'm not fighting them. I don't know if you are, but since you scare-quoted the word queer, I can only assume you're straight. If you are fighting them, I think they're more interested in killing you than me.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[budgenator]

One thing that people in general are forgetting is that most Service Members are also family members and frequently it's the non-serving spouses that get most stressed out about issues like Females in combat or Openly Gay service members. The Reason Gays were originally excluded from US Military using Security concerns as an excuse isn't diminished by events like Bradley Manning

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[ShakaUVM]

There's an entire set of people, too stupid to think, that believe that McDonalds in France is a sign of American imperialism, not even knowing what the fuck imperialism actually is.

Just like how they'll scream "fascist pig" at the police and then go whine to their lawyers and march in the streets, not knowing that in an actual fascist state, the lawyers and protests would have no effect whatsoever.

You'd know this if you knew anything about the subject, instead of just copy/pasting screeds from Chomsky.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[gordo3000]

any particular reason you believe germany was uniquely defeated by the Russians? People say this over and over again and besides the fact that more Russians died, I've never heard a convincing argument as to this point. It is EQUALLY false to say Germany was defeated by the British or Americans as well. Your position assumes the marginal help given by the US or Britain was meaningless or not terribly meaningful. It was a 3 front strategy that overwhelmed a frankly under gunned Germany. There are valid arguments that Germany surrendered to the US and British forces because they were afraid of the barbary of the Russians, but that is different from saying the Russians primarily defeated them.

Now when it comes to Japan, the US defeated Japan almost unilaterally.

but to your broader point, equal rights and justice for all sound very nice, but in reconstruction of Europe, doing anything is charity , NOT an equal rights question. your position assumes that you violate ideas of justice or equal rights simply by not giving someone half of what you have.

as to the general issue of whether our wars are fundamentally unjust, that is harder to argue. it is easy to say "the US did this and supported that dictator" but without trying to understand the tradeoffs, you don't know if people were, on net, better off. every decision makes someone worse off at the expense of another. equivalently, look at the death rate on Iwo Jima for the Japanese. 20,000 soldiers almost totally fought to the last man and died. So while nuclear weapons sound terrible, are you sure we wouldn't have had to kill many, many, many more to achieve peace? More Japanese died or were injured in the taking of Okinawa, by a factor of 2 by some estimates, and that local population had almost NO LOYALTY TO JAPAN. So which was kinder given the fact the US and Japan were at war with each other? I figure 200,000 civilians dead in a shock and awe campaign is much more compassionate and just than the millions who would have died in an invasion given the record at each previous engagement. The truly depressing part was taht we didn't drop these bombs before Okinawa or the firebombing of Tokyo and that we didn't use one on Berlin to possibly shock the Nazis into a much earlier surrender. Instead of worrying about those that died in one attack though, I'm much more interested in reducing the total civilian casualty numbers.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The comment above is clearly written in a way that will get a rise out of people, but it makes a legitimate point. Insofar as the LGBTQ civil rights struggle is one rooted in justice and equal rights, the DADT repeal strategy has left a lot of us scratching our heads. Any civil rights struggle which fits in a broader context would necessarily come to the same conclusions that the 60s/70s racial civil rights struggle in the US did: the oppression of classes within the domestic population is part of the same system of oppression waging imperial war elsewhere, 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.

Prove it.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

The comment above is clearly written in a way that will get a rise out of people, but it makes a legitimate point. Insofar as the LGBTQ civil rights struggle is one rooted in justice and equal rights, the DADT repeal strategy has left a lot of us scratching our heads. Any civil rights struggle which fits in a broader context would necessarily come to the same conclusions that the 60s/70s racial civil rights struggle in the US did: the oppression of classes within the domestic population is part of the same system of oppression waging imperial war elsewhere, 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.

Prove it.

Gladly. What are you disputing?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Tim C]

your position assumes that you violate ideas of justice or equal rights simply by not giving someone half of what you have.

Actually I believe that his position is that rebuilding in a shape that is advantageous to you, or with conditions attached, is not as charitable as it seems.

Besides which, it wasn't exactly charity.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

It does when you continue to post opinions phrased and framed as an absolute. To whit:

It's not part of the queer rights movement and shouldn't be portrayed as if it is.

is an absolute statement that appears to carry some authority, which you do not have.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

any particular reason you believe germany was uniquely defeated by the Russians?

Perhaps its a counterpoint to the widely publicised (eg Hollywood) notion that the USA won WW2 single-handedly.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[gordo3000]

that was a 4 billion dollar loan as part of the lend lease program. you do realize that those funds were because we basically paid for a massive build up of the British army and then after the war, when they owed us some 40 billion dollars, cut that amount down to 10% and turned it into a loan which gave them until the year 2000 to pay off at 2% interest. to put that in todays dollars, had they just let it compound, it is a meager 13 billion dollars in the year 2000, pretty cheap if you ask me.

And of course, I was referring to the marshall plan (13 billion dollars) and other 13 billion on aide given before that plan went effective in '48(?) which wasn't repaid.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe he is disputing that one sentence. Granted, the sentence in question also appears to be a paragraph but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[gordo3000]

well, if nothing else, the historical record proves the view you credit to the civil rights leaders of the 60's and 70's is absolutely untrue. In fact, by massively extending civil rights to oppressed groups post the civil rights era, the record shows that these groups more completely integrated into society and have generally become much more supportive of the military and the government overall.

In reality, the extension of civil rights to disaffected groups reaffirms support for the status quo, not the other way around. It is being excluded from the benefits of the status quo that cause disaffected groups to rebel against it, rather than the other way around (i.e. you seem to be saying and correct me if I'm wrong, that the oppression of groups prevents them from uniting against a flawed and equally repressive international policy of the government).

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[compro01]

1. And we had the same dire predictions 18 years ago when the Canadian forces decided to do this. Guess what? There were no problems with it.

2. The Canadian forces have had women in combat for 28 years. Again, dire predictions turned out to be bogus.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[gordo3000]

your problem can't be fixed by changing the rules around corporations. if the world is as dismal as you say it is (at least, from the US perspective) the real problem is an ignorant populace. you worry about false information, but if people weren't morons we wouldn't have that issue. and if people are morons, at least we have an educated elite making decisions rather than leaving to fools to go at it on their own. democracies only succeed with an educated and informed populace.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

9_9

If that statement appears to you to carry any more authority than that of an unsolicited opinion from some schmuck on the Internet, the problem is with your critical thinking skills. The only authority I expect to convey is in my ability to reason through my premises and address concerns raised. If that isn't sufficient to defend my opinions, feel free to disagree with me. But if you want me to change my mind or stop posting my opinions, you'll need to provide contradictory reasoning.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

The problem with "prove it" is I'm not sure which claims are being disputed, and on what grounds. It's too open-ended and to address it without any more insight into what's being doubted would require a book (or probably volumes of books). I think you'll agree that it's a waste of everyone's time for me to post that much detail.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

the record shows that these groups more completely integrated into society and have generally become much more supportive of the military and the government overall.

That doesn't challenge my position, it supports it. By co-opting the civil rights struggles of the 60s/70s, the US state separated the direct concerns of people of color in the US from the indirect concerns of solidarity with people around the world who are victims of the US war machine.

In reality, the extension of civil rights to disaffected groups reaffirms support for the status quo, not the other way around.

That's... kind of what I said. Which is why I say that a meaningful struggle for civil rights will be founded on equal rights for all, and will not accept this kind of division.

(i.e. you seem to be saying and correct me if I'm wrong, that the oppression of groups prevents them from uniting against a flawed and equally repressive international policy of the government)

Nope! I'm saying that it is the isolation and co-opting of a given oppressed group's struggle that breaks its unity with other oppressed classes. Moreover, because the military is concerned, this is already a strategy of divide-and-conquer in terms of recruiting the poor and weak and presenting them a "way out" that involves being cannon fodder and committing murder for the state.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It warms my heart to see at least 2 people agreeing to disagree in a such a respectable , peaceful manner.
Beacons of hope , that is what you are.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Are you saying we shouldn't have bothered with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at all?

Are you seriously suggesting that GLBT people shouldn't serve their country? What about conservagays and lesbolibertarians?

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The Philippines threw the US out in the early 1990's.

I was there right as they were throwing everyone out.

We haven't invaded, and we're still allies.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

Are you saying we shouldn't have bothered with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at all?

Of course not. I'm saying we should have gone much much further.

Are you seriously suggesting that GLBT people shouldn't serve their country?

Of course not, but that is quite a different question from whether they should join the US military.

What about conservagays and lesbolibertarians?

What about them? Being queer doesn't make someone's politics right.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Of course not. I'm saying we should have gone much much further.

Basically your problem is is that we're not extending the civil rights movement to include the brown people we're currently bombing.

Which is kind of crap. I'm not saying that Iraqis deserve it or that we should feel like we're entitled to use military force whenever(I'm along your lines on this), but the model you suggest that unless we achieve absolute egalitarianism both domestically and in foreign contexts, everything we do is worthless. Which is bullshitting all over any progress made because it's not a perfect solution. That's bullshit because you're not seeing the value in the progress we have made. Those of us who are applauding the DADT repeal are still pushing for more perfect solutions. Perfection doesn't just rise out of the ether, especially where Congress is concerned. This is what I have a problem with.

Plus your description of the mechanisms used to oppress and keep populations down ignores the reality of how oppression and marginalization work, which isn't nearly that simple.

A huge step back for civil rights

[meerling]

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. :(

Re:A huge step back for civil rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, what, precisely, are you smoking?

Apparently you haven't been paying attention

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This is why the Dems lost the House

[RazorSharp]

Whether you agree with DADT or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority. Shut down Guantanamo Bay, get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and do something about the economy and deficit. Then I won't view this debate as an utter waste of congress' time. In the meantime, this is just a wedge issue that Republicans can use to gain midwestern support, much like gay marriage was for Bush in '04. I doubt Obama even personally cares about this issue -- he just cares about the money he gets from the homosexual interest groups. This hardly changes anything. Now gay service members can talk about being gay. Whoop-di-do. I'd rather they be safe at home and not be allowed to talk about their sexuality than serving in hostile territory allowed to talk about it. It just doesn't matter if DADT is right or wrong, it's nowhere near as wrong as putting these soldiers in harm's way unnecessarily. Obama pretended to be outraged by these wars and Guantanamo Bay on the campaign trail, what happened to that?

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[vadim_t]

Why is Guantanamo a priority and DADT isn't?

Unlike the Iraq war, practically speaking, Guantanamo doesn't make a big difference. There are only 174 people there. The biggest benefit to closing it is a "we care about people's rights" angle. Which is an excellent idea, but doesn't DADT fall into the exactly same category? It probably even affects many more people in the practical sense.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Isaac-1]

He woke up one day and was the president, then he realized all the stuff Bush had been saying about there not being easy, quick solution to these things were true..

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[RazorSharp]

In one case we are holding people without trial 'indefinitely.' People who were tortured by the previous administration. In the other case a few soldiers can't reveal their sexuality without being discharged. How the hell is that the same category? People don't necessarily have a right to discuss their sexuality at work.

Here's a simple test: would you rather not be allowed to talk about your sexuality at work or be tortured and held in a prison indefinitely without any hope for a trial, let alone a fair one?

Soldiers are expected to sacrifice some of the rights normal citizens have. I don't see DADT as a violation of anyone's rights. It may be a questionable policy, but it's certainly not a civil rights issue. People act like DADT disallows gays from serving in the military. That's not true, it just means they can't talk about it. If someone is so undisciplined they can't refrain from talking about their sex life when they know it's in violation of the rules, they don't belong in the military.

Holding those prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is blatantly criminal and unethical. It's incomparable to DADT.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Nyeerrmm]

Because those things are hard. He's the president, not a magician. He can't travel back in time and make sure that proper procedure is handling the capture of certain procedure that would make a prosecution possible, or convince other states and governments to take the prisoners instead. He can't use that time machine to give evidence of the lack of WMDs in Iraq and prevent attention from being diverted from Afghanistan, nor can he magically convince Pakistan to do a better job of policing their border. These are all messes that are believe it or not, difficult to fix now, regardless of how easy it might have been to avoid them at first.

What he can do, however, is use his position as commander in chief of the armed forces and leader of his party to eliminate a gratuitously bigoted policy who's time has come due to huge shifts in public opinion over the past 15 years. That seems like a good thing to me.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[interkin3tic]

And yet Bush did whatever the fuck he wanted to the environment, constitution, world, even though no one with half a brain wanted it. Obama, on the other hand, gave up on the tax cut issue without trying.

I may be naive, but I think the voters could have been been educated to realize that tax cuts for millionaires would be bad for everyone else. Matter of fact, I think the millionaires themselves could have realized that saving a little money now would hurt them in the long run too. I didn't expect him to, say, raise taxes for the wealthy, but not even trying? Terrible.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[vadim_t]

People don't necessarily have a right to discuss their sexuality at work.

Why not? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to.

Here's a simple test: would you rather not be allowed to talk about your sexuality at work or be tortured and held in a prison indefinitely without any hope for a trial, let alone a fair one?

I'd prefer to have neither really.

I think both DADT repeal and Guantanamo closing should have happened long ago. I just don't think that social progress should be stopped until all terrible injustices get resolved first. Otherwise we can get into a loop of:

Let's repeal DADT? No, there's Guantanamo first
How about now? No, there's the Iraq war first
How about now? No, now we started another war somewhere else
How about now? No, there's...

And progress for millions gets stopped by something horrible happening to a few people somewhere. I'm not saying to reverse the order either, we could just do both things. There are millions of people in a country, it's possible to fix several issues at once.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[MightyMartian]

Yes, you give up rights when you enter the military, but the issue was still one of equality. A heterosexual soldier feared no consequences for talking about his or her sexual interests, but a homosexual soldier could not. The rules don't have to uphold civilian notions of civil liberties, but they do have to apply equally to all concerned, if they are to just rules.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[AfroTrance]

Then I won't view this debate as an utter waste of congress' time.

This comment is utterly absurd. I bet congress has petty insignificant bills pass through it all the time. Why are you singling out this one?

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[IICV]

Seriously? For DADT, there's a very very easy solution - the President is Commander in Chief of the army, he can literally say "this is bullshit guys, you must treat people of all sexual orientations equally". Quick and easy - after all, that's what the commander does, he commands. I mean, how do you think Bill Clinton got DADT started in the first place? He just said "allright people, you just can't talk about this", and then Congress fought about it for a while.

The problem Obama has, of course, is that the other side of the aisle is the Party of No. If he actually does use his power as Commander in Chief to order equality, they would shriek "teh gay is destroying our military even harder now! from behind! oh god teh hard gay from behind!" on every news channel, in contravention of the experiences of pretty much every other modern military. While it would be quick and easy, there would be political repercussions that can be avoided by having Congress do it.

Of course, I really wish he would grow some balls and actually do that - the people he would lose are already lost, and actually getting something done would, I think, energize his base and maybe sway some moderates. Unfortunately, he's just fobbing this off on Congress so there's less risk to his political image.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[RazorSharp]

Because of the controversy around DADT, it took an inordinate amount of time an effort to pass. The results aren't worth that time and effort. That time and effort should have been put into more important things.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[RazorSharp]

But he can close Guantanamo by executive order. He doesn't even need Congress for that.

Yes, he's the president, not a magician. I don't care if he succeeds in all of his campaign promises, but I'd at least like to see him try. Guantanamo epitomizes his failure.

Also, Afghanistan is a military operation, not a war, so he doesn't need Congress to do the right thing there as well. We can't make Afghanistan a first world nation, we can't do anything about the corruption, we can't do anything about the violence. We'd be better off just leaving.

I once believed in Obama. Now I believe he's just a politician. Will I vote for him again? Of course: I'd rather his incompetence than that of Gingrich or Palin. But I'm still disappointed.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[RazorSharp]

My sentiments exactly. Obama has mostly fought the wrong battles and lost all the ones that mattered. Health care reform? Please. I can't believe people call this guy a socialist. If only. . .

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[stdarg]

One issue is that we have special laws for protected minorities like gays. Hopefully the military won't try to treat "openly" gay people as having special privileges in terms of protection from harassment or obscene speech that non-protected minorities don't receive. 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? Seems like a step in that direction.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Idiomatick]

Of course, I really wish he would grow some balls and actually do that - the people he would lose are already lost, and actually getting something done would, I think, energize his base and maybe sway some moderates. Unfortunately, he's just fobbing this off on Congress so there's less risk to his political image.

You say this right after he GOT this passed. And it had to be a bi-partisan effort (to some degree at any rate) due to the super-majority requirement caused by the GOP filibuster system. If he shat all over the GOP he wouldn't have been able to sweet talk any of them over the fence and would have never gotten this passed.

It sure ain't sexy but this is how it has to be with current political climate and filibuster rules.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[lessthan]

Not even sexual interests. How about normal day-to-day stuff like "I had a fight with the significant other." If your SO is the same sex, you can't talk about that.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Antisyzygy]

HEY! Im from the mid-west and I support teh gayz.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[TheoMurpse]

I think the difference could possibly be that DADT represents a potential violation of civil rights (sexual orientation isn't clearly defined in the 14th Amendment as a protected class), while GTMO absolutely represents a violation of human and civil rights (no due process, torture, etc.) and international treaties.

One is morally wrong and legal. The other is morally wrong and illegal.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[confundido]

it's hard to argue that it's a priority.

Here's an argument that is supposedly hard to make: Equal dignity for equal sacrifice makes it a priority. This brings LBGT troops a step closer to being able to talk to a military chaplain about their home and family, and allowing their partners to access grief counseling open to widowed military spouses, as well as support groups for families with veterans suffering from PTSD. It brings us closer to allowing same sex partners to see their loved ones off, and welcome them home from active service, just to name a few benefits. While it would be great they weren't there in the first place, they are, and deserve that support as much as any other service member.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[dbIII]

Unlike the Iraq war, practically speaking, Guantanamo doesn't make a big difference.

It made a massive difference. It lost the high moral ground. Now if we take issue with the treatment of prisoners in North Korea we can have it thrown back in our face because we now use the exact same torture techniques that we learned from returned POWs from the Korean war. The USA has gone to looking as if it is run by a bunch of gangsters as if it's just a richer version of Russia.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Eivind]

I indirectly refer to my sexuality at work all the time, like every time I refer to my wife as in, "Yeah, no problem I can stay until 5 today, my wife is getting the kids today."

Being required to keep your sexuality hidden, basically amounts to a ban on talking of, even indirectly, your private life.

Are heterosexual soldiers required to completely refrain from making any statement that tags them as heterosexual ? Are they allowed mentioning the wife ?

It's blatant discrimination to require silence from homosexuals, on topics heterosexuals are free to discuss.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Rich0]

If Obama wanted an easy out he could have had it - the courts were about to throw DADT out the window, and his administration begged them not to. If he just stood back and did nothing the policy would be gone today.

The cynical side of me thinks that DADT is kept around so that the D's can keep campaigning on it, just like how abortion was kept around so that the R's could keep campaigning on that. If politicians actually cared about these kinds of issues you'd see them do something about - there have been plenty of times in the last decade where one party controlled the white house and both houses of congress, and that applies to either party.

These are sideline issues to politicians - useful for drumming up supporters on election day, but nothing they really care about.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Pharmboy]

Whether you agree with DADT or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority.

Not really. During the 60s, it would have been easy to say that with Vietnam going on, civil rights for blacks could be delayed, but thankfully it wasn't. As a nation, we should NEVER be too busy to move forward on civil rights.

And technically, someone who is gay but can't be public about it is a security concern. They can be blackmailed. That is the whole purpose of security clearances, to make sure someone can't be forced to share info. Now that problem can go away.

And if you are worried that Obama isn't living up to his promises, read my lips: All politicians lie.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[TheRaven64]

For DADT, there's a very very easy solution - the President is Commander in Chief of the army, he can literally say "this is bullshit guys, you must treat people of all sexual orientations equally"

I might be missing something about the US chain of command, but my understanding was that DADT was passed as a law (wikipedia confirms this: federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654)). No officer, even the CinC, may give an order to violate a law without facing court martial. If he ordered the generals to ignore DADT, he would be telling them to ignore a law, which would be an illegal order and they would have no obligation to follow it.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Jawnn]

Seriously? For DADT, there's a very very easy solution - the President is Commander in Chief of the army, he can literally say "this is bullshit guys, you must treat people of all sexual orientations equally".

Then the next Republican, pander-to-MidWest-homophobes, Command in Chief comes along and returns to a "persecute the homo's for political hay" policy. That is bullshit. Now it's fixed. For good. By a Democratic president.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Anonymous Coward]

No, holding prisoners largely detained as illegal combatants until a conflict is over is simply prudent. Have you not seen the statistics for recidivism among those they released? You do realize that Al Queda trains its operatives to claim torture for PR purposes, right? War is an ugly business, but sometimes it is better to be uglier for a short period than prettier for a long term.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[assertation]

As a straight man who doesn't see anything in it for himself, I have had trouble remaining interested in all of the articles about DADT and Gay Marriage. I've had thoughts similar to yours along the lines "Aren't there higher priorities to work out first?".

At one time African Americans were segregated in the military and it as big an issue as DADT is now. Try substituting "African American" or "Jew" for "gays" in your comment and ask yourself how it sounds to you.

"Aren't there more important issues than allow African Americans or Jews in the military? We have more pressing problems".

My point is that to many people DADT is an egregious civil rights issue, though on an emotional level I understand where you are coming from. It is hard to get excited about something you don't benefit from one way or the other.

However, there are benefits.

I believe President Clinton helped torpedoed the bipartisan goodwill he needed to have an even more successful presidency by bringing up gays in the military first thing after he was elected.

Gays in the military, or at least DADT, will soon no longer be a wedge issue that future Democratic presidents will have to take political risks for. They will be able to spend their political/bipartisan goodwill capital on other issues. Especially if the gay marriage thing gets settled and gets off the board as an issue.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Aristos Mazer]

he can literally say "this is bullshit guys, you must treat people of all sexual orientations equally"

No, he can't. He couldn't.

Clinton tried to do that -- to do exactly what Truman did on race. He announced before taking office his intent to declare that gays could serve openly. In response, Congress passed the Don't Ask Don't Tell legislation to tie the president's hands. And they told Clinton, "You will sign it or we have enough votes to put through a veto-proof version that increases instead of decreases the investigations into military personnel.

You can read the full history here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[flyingsquid]

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.

You could make the same argument about any number of rights issues: "Whether or not you agree with civil rights, it's hard to argue that allowing blacks to vote and ending segregation is a priority when we have the Vietnam War and Soviet imperialism to worry about. Until we do something about that, civil rights is an utter waste of time" Or how about:"Whether or not you agree with the suffrage movement or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority. After all we have the Great War to worry about. Until we win against Germany, debating about an amendment to give women the vote is an utter waste of time"

How can we say that basic civil rights aren't a priority? How can we say that ending discrimination is a waste of time? That justice is just too inconvenient right now? Because that's exactly what you're arguing. Our society is fundamentally about rights and liberties. The right to speak and assemble, the right to worship as we choose, the right to privacy, the right to a just trial, the right to pursue happiness- to live your life. Those rights aren't an inconvenient afterthought, they're the entire point of the country. It's critical that gays and lesbians are allowed to serve in the military, because it's defending the rights of everybody, including and especially those who are different, that makes the country worth fighting for in the first place. If we aren't doing that, then everything else becomes just a waste of time.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[hey!]

President is Commander in Chief of the army, he can literally say "this is bullshit guys, you must treat people of all sexual orientations equally".

No he can't. People (liberal and conservative both depending on the issue) seem to think that "Commander in Chief" means the president has the same powers over the US military that a dictator would have. He does not.

The president may *command*, but he doesn't have absolute unilateral control of the military. His command is subject to regulation by Congress, which passes laws, approves budgets, and holds hearings. Just to make that very clear, the President can't just appoint officers. Congress has to approve all military commissions, and establishes the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I'm not even sure the President has veto power over the Uniform Code.

So, the President can *sometimes* set a policy unilaterally, as when Truman ordered the military desegregated, but Congress *could* have stopped him. In this case Congress has *preempted* any move Obama might make by passing DADT into law. This is the law of the land and the President is legally bound by it.

If the President decided to ignore the law, that might well precipitate a constitutional crisis in which officers have consider what their oath to support the Constitution demands of them. If it didn't start an immediate crisis, in a way that might almost be worse. That'd be a set-up for a more serious crisis later. It's quite possible that he would get away with countermanding the DADT law initially, because that'd make everyone happy. The liberals in Congress would be glad to see DADT go because they don't like the policy. The conservatives would be glad to get a hot button issue to rally their base. Everyone would get what they want in the short term.

Why would this be a bad thing? Because it's a very bad thing to cede legislative power to the executive branch. Hitler came to power not by winning a majority in the Reischstag, but by convincing a minority party to give him the majority he needed for a measure "temporarily" ceding legislative powers to the Chancellor's office. This was after a suspicious fire in the Reischstag building was blamed on communist agitators, and the arguments were much the same you hear today for giving the President absolute control over the military.

This is the kind of situation where it would be very foolish to say, "yeah, but this is an emergency *bad* things will happen if we handcuff the President with laws and legislative oversight." Bad things *might* happen, it is true, but bad things *also might* happen when you let any one person run the military as if they were his to do with as he pleases.

Control of the military is one of the most important, and I think well thought out parts of the US Constitution. The framers looked back to how King Charles precipitated the first English Civil War, and then to the early and unproductive conflicts between the Continental Congress and Washington as CinC of the Continental Army, and decided they liked the middle way eventually worked out between Congress and Washington. Washington was given a free hand to *command*, but Congress retained the power to regulate, budget and oversee. It's a system that works amazingly well when there is political consensus about a war. That it works less well without political consensus is a *feature*, not a bug.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[misexistentialist]

On the other hand heterosexuals have to obey orders and the terms of their contract, while homosexuals can go home whenever they want.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. As a military member, I fully support the repeal of DADT. It's discriminatory and against everything I've learned as a non-commissioned officer. On the other hand, if Pres. Obama ordered the repeal of DADT prior to Congress having passed it, I would have had to begrudgingly disobey that order. It's law. :/

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Anonymous Coward]

Only 174 people are there, but how many people feel the threat of going there and let that enter into their decision making? It's a huge fucking problem.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't necessarily have a right to discuss their sexuality at work.

Why not? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to.

I'm going to nitpick your phrasing because I've seen people take the reasoning you seem to be espousing to its logical extreme.

Just because *you* see no reason they shouldn't be able to doesn't mean they *necessarily* have a *right*. That's just bad logic. It means that someone who, in general, doesn't understand why a restriction exists should assume there is no reason for it and immediately insist on its removal.

There are plenty of occasions where mentioning your wife, children, or sexuality are inappropriate in the workplace. I can't imagine a doctor rambling about his wife and kids, or his homosexuality, while letting someone know about their terminal illness is usually appropriate (though perhaps it sometimes is, depends on the situation), and I wouldn't rule out (can't imagine, but wouldn't rule out) jobs where it was inappropriate all the time (the "job" of prostitution comes to mind...she probably shouldn't tell the johns that she's actually a lesbian). Even if there weren't, "I don't see any reason why not" is not an argument.

There's a high standard to be reached before something becomes a "right" in my book. Discussing specific topics at work doesn't reach that standard. A much better argument is that every time it is appropriate for a man to discuss his wife and kids, it should be appropriate for him to discuss his husband and kids (unless there is a specific, narrowly tailored, compelling reason for it to work otherwise, which is how rights work in our legal system). Then you can express doubt that any such reason exists.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it the case that a member of the military has the right (maybe even the obligation, I don't know, I'm just sitting in my armchair here :) to disobey an immoral order, even if lawfully given? So, in this case, it's true that DADT is lawful, but it is wrong, so it can be ignored. Of course this requires a large number of people (starting with the jury at your court-martial) to agree that it is wrong.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[northstarlarry]

Those rights aren't an inconvenient afterthought, they're the entire point of the country. It's critical that gays and lesbians are allowed to serve in the military, because it's defending the rights of everybody, including and especially those who are different, that makes the country worth fighting for in the first place. If we aren't doing that, then everything else becomes just a waste of time.

Hear, hear!

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[amRadioHed]

What about section 12305(a) of 10 U.S.C., "the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States".

So all the President has to say is that the gay service men are vital to the war effort and he can legally disregard DADT and allow them to stay in the service.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[AfroTrance]

That time and effort should have been put into more important things.

Lack of time and effort is not the reason why congress is not passing laws that will fix America's problems. It's because the politicians do what's best for their lobbiers, instead of what's best for their voters.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Anonymous Coward]

He became part of the government.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Grishnakh]

The USA has gone to looking as if it is run by a bunch of gangsters as if it's just a richer version of Russia.

What do you mean "looking as if"? The USA IS run by a bunch of gangsters and is a richer version of Russia. The main difference is that American women aren't nearly as pretty as Russian women.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Grishnakh]

Health care reform? Please. I can't believe people call this guy a socialist. If only. . .

Exactly. He's not a socialist, he's a fascist. A socialist would never advocate a healthcare system with an unnecessary layer of middlemen (called an "insurance company", though it doesn't really insure anything), which taxpayers are required to purchase service from. That's fascism.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Grishnakh]

Also, Afghanistan is a military operation, not a war, so he doesn't need Congress to do the right thing there as well. We can't make Afghanistan a first world nation, we can't do anything about the corruption, we can't do anything about the violence. We'd be better off just leaving.

Exactly right. It's nothing more than a quagmire, and we might as well just give up and leave. There is absolutely no way we can force those people to change their culture to be more like ours; they need to do it themselves.

I once believed in Obama. Now I believe he's just a politician. Will I vote for him again? Of course: I'd rather his incompetence than that of Gingrich or Palin. But I'm still disappointed.

I'm still hoping the Democrats will nominate someone new in 2012. AFAIK, there's no requirement that the incumbent President receive his Party's nomination for the 2nd term. There's plenty of much better Democrats out there. How about Rick Boucher of Virginia? He was great with technology issues. Or how about Dennis Kucinich?

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[zeroshade]

You're completely right, the time and effort should have been put into other things. However the criticism is not that DADT should have just been left alone, the criticism is to blast every single one of the people who made it take so long.

DADT was a very important civil rights issue. The answer to controversy is not to drop it and move on (like most politicians do) but to smack down everyone who creates that controversy.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[Danse]

If Obama wanted an easy out he could have had it - the courts were about to throw DADT out the window, and his administration begged them not to. If he just stood back and did nothing the policy would be gone today.

The cynical side of me thinks that DADT is kept around so that the D's can keep campaigning on it, just like how abortion was kept around so that the R's could keep campaigning on that. If politicians actually cared about these kinds of issues you'd see them do something about - there have been plenty of times in the last decade where one party controlled the white house and both houses of congress, and that applies to either party.

The military wanted it to be done by Congress rather than the courts, so that's how they were trying to do it.

These are sideline issues to politicians - useful for drumming up supporters on election day, but nothing they really care about.

Sideline issue or not, it was something that he campaigned on, so I suppose it's good that he was trying to deliver on it. Guess now that it's done, it won't be an issue for him next election.

How long will it last when 'transgendered' apply?

[Derling Whirvish]

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?

UCMJ 925 ART 125 - SODOMY

[Anonymous Coward]

(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.

European Douche Bags

[Anonymous Coward]

You can tell when the European douche bags come online.

Sound great.

[eddy]

The military as a whole would be better off, and you'd be free to explore your insecurities. Win-Win!

Re:Sound great.

[carigis]

yea.. multiply me by alot of like minded soldiers and you have alot less of a military force.. sure aint gonna replace all them with gay people who might break a nail

Re:Sound great.

[RingDev]

Dude, you realize there are gay people serving with you RIGHT NOW. There were gay guys in the 90's. There were gay guys in the 2000's. And there are still gay guys now. (I'm sure there are gay women as well, but I only personally know of a number of gay men serving)

So if they didn't try to full fill your ass rape fantasy over your tour so far, they probably won't after DADT is repealed either.

-Rick

Re:Sound great.

[MightyMartian]

You are one prejudiced pile of shit. I can tell you this, I wouldn't want a hateful, evil bastard like you watching my back.

But apart from anything else, most folks in the armed forces have no problem with openly gay people serving in the military, so this bizarre fantasy of yours that the army will be depleted of soldiers is just in your own mind. Typical of disgusting, useless bigots, not only are they hate-mongers, but they're fucking retards as well.

Re:Sound great.

[carigis]

R U Angry?

Re:Sound great.

[rhakka]

you mean we get to strike a blow against predjudice, put bigots out of work AND slash the size of our military?

fuck yeah!!! this is the mother lode!!

Re:Sound great.

[stdarg]

Why is someone who is against gays a bigot? Look at the definition:

"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

"a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"

"bigoted - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others"

Being against gays serving openly is not sufficient to call someone a bigot. It's one issue. And if you're so strict on enforcing gay rights, even in situations where it makes others uncomfortable, then you're a bigot too by your strict definition.

Re:Sound great.

[Anonymous Coward]

...situations where it makes others uncomfortable...

Oh I get it. You're a pussy.

Re:Sound great.

[rhakka]

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.

Re:Sound great.

[shutdown -p now]

multiply me by alot of like minded soldiers and you have alot less of a military force

Sounds awesome, maybe they can finally cut DoD budget back somewhat. And pull out of Afghanistan for real.

Re:Sound great.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're overestimating how many of your 'fellow soldiers' are going to be trying to get themselves discharged over this.

But by all means, get discharged! In fact, go for broke! Punch out the colonel and get an DOTH! Surely if you care more about whether gay people are serving than you do about yourself serving, you won't care about a little thing like a dishonorable discharge, will you?

But you won't do that. Assuming you really are a soldier and not a wannabe fanboy douchebag pretending to be one on the internet, that is. You'll grumble when you think it's safe and only your bestest buddies will hear (at least one of whom will in fact be gay and be uncomfortable with your whining.) Maybe you'll even rape one of your fellow soldiers just to 'put them in their place' and to show them what happens to gay soldiers (you fucking asshole.) You'll stay in the military and give lipservice to the new policy. Because you're a coward, little fucker. You're not going to open your mouth because you really are scared of letting your true nature show and getting a dishonorable. And you hope that nobody asks you point-blank about your homophobia. At least you won't have to tell.

Oh. What a coincidence. How about that? Have fun feeling how homosexuals have been made to feel by shitheads like you, you fucking little prick.

And why did I post as an AC when I called you 'coward?' Because of this: I have no intention of continuing this discussion with a homophobic jerkwad. I'm going to tell you how much of a douchebag you are then let you go on your merry way. Whether you do the honorable thing and overcome your own bigotry... or if you bitch and moan in private when you hope nobody can hear you... or you just say 'screw it, I'm a dick!' and go for that discharge-other-than-honorable... is entirely up to you.

Man up, kid. If you really are a soldier, you'll adapt, adopt, and overcome -- specifically, adapt to the new policies, adopt them as your own, and overcome your own bigotry. And you'll see that the gays and lesbians who are serving RIGHT THIS MOMENT and have for decades, are no more or less than your brother and sister servicemen from before DADT was repealed and they were allowed to serve without that hanging over them. Trust me, it's not going to be any different.

Re:Sound great.

[potat0man]

If you can't handle it, then you're not good enough to be a U.S. Soldier. You will be replaced, easily. The U.S. has practically unlimited money for increases in salary and enlistment bonuses to cover any losses. With morons getting out of the way, pay going up, policies becoming more in line with mainstream values, a whole new pool of smarter, fitter, more ambitious applicants will arrive.

I personally know 4 gay military members in the service right now and have one gay friend who retired from 20 years in the Army. Good odds they're smarter than you, better shots, could beat you at arm wrestling and as a bonus they don't throw a fit when the military enforces a policy they disagree with.

Re:Sound great.

[stdarg]

Freedom trumps discomfort, every single time.

If you really mean that, great. I support gays serving openly, but only in the right circumstances. I strongly oppose any kind of restrictions on what people are allowed to talk about or do that doesn't immediately harm someone else. If someone doesn't like gays and they find out someone is gay and they make fun of them, that's freedom vs. discomfort right? Do you support that person being free of fear of sexual harassment lawsuits or whatever?

So gays can serve openly, but no special treatment, no need to watch what you say or do, etc (and that goes for gay people too, they don't have to watch what they say). I would support that 100%.

Since this is a typical liberal project, it doesn't seem likely though. They want gays to serve openly, but they also want everybody else to walk on eggshells and create tolerance, inclusive environments and all that crap. That's really the only thing that bothers me.

Re:Sound great.

[rhakka]

Systematic emotional abuse of people you don't like is violence. It does things like set up actual violence, and suicide.

  A heated argument or something is one thing: messing around with people you know is another. Other than that, I don't think it's too much to ask for people in professional situations, such as professional military, to behave with a modicum of professionalism. If I work in a company and I slur or slander my co-workers, I get punished. The same should hold true whether you are gay, woman, minority or what have you in a military situation.

A neanderthal utopia isn't really my ideal definition of "freedom". Being "free" doesn't mean you are free to abuse everyone around you.

Re:Sound great.

[Taevin]

Are you kidding me? Your argument is that if gays want to serve openly in the military they have to submit to sexual harassment? No one would tolerate a serviceman calling out "show us your tits, honey" to a servicewoman but it's ok for a guy to grab his crotch and say "yeah I bet you'd love to get your lips on this, wouldn't you fag?"

Re:Sound great.

[stdarg]

Systematic emotional abuse of people you don't like is violence.

So at some point discomfort turns into violence. But looking at the other perspective, you would never suggest that a gay person who makes others uncomfortable is violent at some point. For instance is kissing in public violence?

If I work in a company and I slur or slander my co-workers, I get punished. The same should hold true whether you are gay, woman, minority or what have you in a military situation.

I already said I don't think you can compare the military to a regular job. When your punishment means being court-marshaled and sent to prison it's different than being fired. If it means your commanding officer doesn't like you and starts preferring you for the most dangerous missions, where you can die, and you can't just quit your job because you'll be sent to prison.. I just don't see how you can compare them.

And in some crazy future scenario where the draft is reinstated, it's definitely not comparable.

A neanderthal utopia isn't really my ideal definition of "freedom". Being "free" doesn't mean you are free to abuse everyone around you.

It's hardly a utopia if people are abusing others, so I don't know why you would call it that. But we're talking about reality, not a utopia.

Re:Sound great.

[stdarg]

My expectations for people who are already risking their lives and often placed in situations that they don't want to be in but legally cannot walk away from are A LOT lower than yours. So whatever. If some guy makes a sexually harassing remark to a woman, I don't think he should be punished. Likewise if a woman makes fun of a man in a demeaning way, so what. Comparing the violence of words to, you know, WAR is just completely stupid to me.

Re:Sound great.

[rhakka]

two gay men kissing each other does nothing whatsoever to target anyone in any way. Any discomfort felt is not for any reason you can rationally tie to their actions. They aren't threatening anyone.

If a gay man tries to kiss YOU, it's abusive and violent. It's not really that complicated.

Punishment in the military does not automagically mean prison. There are many levels of punishment below that. it's different than working at a company, but it's not that different in that respect and most of its differences would tell me I would want my military to be MORE professional, not less.

Re:Sound great.

[stdarg]

two gay men kissing each other does nothing whatsoever to target anyone in any way. Any discomfort felt is not for any reason you can rationally tie to their actions. They aren't threatening anyone.

But two straight guys who are talking amongst themselves and saying "Oh man that is so gay" in reference to some event are also doing nothing whatsoever to target anyone. And yet someone who overhears them can claim they feel sexually harassed and that their sensibilities have been violated.

If a gay man tries to kiss YOU, it's abusive and violent. It's not really that complicated.

Notice that when the borderline for when gay activity becomes abusive is when they physically assault you, apparently. But the borderline for when anti-gay activity becomes abusive is just when you say things that gays take offense to. Then it's "systematic emotional abuse" as you called it.

Punishment in the military does not automagically mean prison. There are many levels of punishment below that. it's different than working at a company, but it's not that different in that respect and most of its differences would tell me I would want my military to be MORE professional, not less.

Okay it's not necessarily prison but it's still different from a regular job.

As for professionalism, we simply disagree. People whose jobs take over their lives and place them in stressful hectic situations where life and death are on the line should be given *more* leeway in how they vent frustration and anger at circumstances beyond their control, not less.

Re:Sound great.

[rhakka]

We went through all this with blacks already. it's exactly the same fucking thing: having blacks in the military didn't make it illegal to make fun of anyone, and neither will this, despite all the hand wringing and "OMG I DUN WANNA BE PC" grunting.

It's not about people "taking offense". Of course, good manners is about that, but there is no law and never has been saying you have to have good manners. Unless you are in a position of power over someone else. Then you have to abide by professional rules of conduct, like not calling your underlings "bitches", "Niggers", or "fags". at least, once they get out of boot camp.

If someone shouts "faggot" in a firefight, I might cut them some slack. If they are hazing someone in a bunk, then they are a testosterone drunk frat boy with a gun and they need a lesson in discipline. You can wave it away all you like, but it's still bullshit and there is no reason to consider it acceptable behavior.

Re:Sound great.

[stdarg]

We went through all this with blacks already. it's exactly the same fucking thing: having blacks in the military didn't make it illegal to make fun of anyone, and neither will this, despite all the hand wringing and "OMG I DUN WANNA BE PC" grunting.

If that's true, great, like I said that's exactly what I support. However, I doubt it will end up as tolerant of non-PC-ness as you're suggesting.

Then you have to abide by professional rules of conduct, like not calling your underlings "bitches", "Niggers", or "fags". at least, once they get out of boot camp.

You have to admit, vocabulary like "that's gay" is far more common among straight men than "you nigger" is among non-black men. Kids grow up calling things gay, they don't grow up calling each other niggers. It's a different part of our culture and treating it the same as racial issues doesn't make sense.

If they are hazing someone in a bunk, then they are a testosterone drunk frat boy with a gun and they need a lesson in discipline. You can wave it away all you like, but it's still bullshit and there is no reason to consider it acceptable behavior.

I don't support hazing and all that, gay or straight. I'm talking about speech issues and specifically what people might say on their down time amongst themselves.

Over time our military is becoming more and more rigid with respect to restrictions on soldiers' behavior. That's undeniable. Whether this is just another minor step on the ladder or a major one with plenty of unforeseen consequences remains to be seen.

Re:Sound great.

[Danse]

Then you have to abide by professional rules of conduct, like not calling your underlings "bitches", "Niggers", or "fags". at least, once they get out of boot camp.

You have to admit, vocabulary like "that's gay" is far more common among straight men than "you nigger" is among non-black men. Kids grow up calling things gay, they don't grow up calling each other niggers. It's a different part of our culture and treating it the same as racial issues doesn't make sense.

It wasn't back when black men were first allowed to serve. Back then gay didn't mean what it does now, and nigger was in common usage. The sooner the term "gay" as a derogatory term for practically anything leaves common usage, the better.

I don't support hazing and all that, gay or straight. I'm talking about speech issues and specifically what people might say on their down time amongst themselves.

Over time our military is becoming more and more rigid with respect to restrictions on soldiers' behavior. That's undeniable. Whether this is just another minor step on the ladder or a major one with plenty of unforeseen consequences remains to be seen.

All of which you could say about integration of blacks or women into the military as well. I don't see how it's any different at all. Yeah, a lot of people had a problem with it. Doesn't matter. They're there to do a job, and some of the most important things those kids that join up need to learn are discipline and respect. No, it's not ok to behave in a juvenile way or use juvenile and offensive language regarding your peers. No, it's not ok to disrespect people because they're different. Kids that do that stuff need some education, and the military is probably the right place for it if they're like that already. If that's being "rigid", then I'm all for it.

They'd never pass it with a GOP majority

[Nimey]

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.

Re:They'd never pass it with a GOP majority

[Anonymous Coward]

God, you must be so proud of what a wonderful, caring, non-bigoted person you are! I must ask how you can survive as such a righteous individual with the rest of us poor, brutish savages running around being nowhere near as enlightened as you are?

Also - Jesus Christ, shut the fuck up. Nobody gives a shit how non-bigoted and wonderful you are you little shit.

Re:They'd never pass it with a GOP majority

[Nimey]

MAY I SUCK YOUR PENIS SIR?

New army moto

[m0s3m8n]

Out with "An Army of One" and in with "We're Fabulous!"

Re:New army moto

[sco08y]

Out with "An Army of One" and in with "We're Fabulous!"

We'd just get a C&D letter from Navy JAG.

Re:New army moto

[Anonymous Coward]

My uniform is more fabulous than yours!

Re:New army moto

[eyendall]

There is nothing "conservative" about homophobia and the attitudes and beliefs it betrays. I can think of many other more appropriate descriptive adjectives.

not that there's anything wrong with it...

[__aatirs3925]

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. =/

Sharia Law

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Sharia Law

[jarlsberg71]

How would they know? Are we giving openly gay soldiers pink triangles to wear on their sleeves?

This land is your land, this land is my land...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

COME ON

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck does this have to do with tech? You can't even stretch this one.

Happened Before

[germansausage]

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.

Re:Happened Before

[moehoward]

Stupid, idiot, right-wingers who won't allow polygamy.

Why is polygamy wrong here yet accepted in a rather large part of the world? Or do we "have to draw a line"? We almost had a huge hole in the US, known as Utah, due to this issue over 100 years ago. Utah, um, relented (haha). OK. We twisted their arm over "don't wive's, don't tell".

Gosh. Why are there laws in the US against bestiality? Live and let live. Right? So if someone finds that bestiality is inherited, then we need to have "civil rights" laws/protections. I am 100% not against homosexuality. I have zero problem with it. I do have a problem with it as a civil rights issue. Absurd.

I agree that we have spent way too much money on separate bathrooms based on gender. Which, is based on sexual orientation. So, separate bathrooms inherently are discriminatory. Unisex bathrooms should now be the norm and we should potty together. As a man, I look forward to couches and hang-out areas in my bathrooms. Especially because I now will be able to hit on hot chicks in the bathroom. Yes, I have been hit on by not-so-hot guys in bathrooms in the past and it is as weird as a woman might feel being watched or hit on in a women's bathroom. But, this opens up a whole new avenue for me on my dating front.

Our enemy's these days (no

Re:Happened Before

[lessthan]

You are an idiot. 99% of rapists are men. Maybe women have a reason to not want to share a bathroom with us, other than "it feels weird."

Why don't we have polygamy? So long as we have polyandry too and everyone is consenting adults, why not? Bestiality is a different animal all together. Your horse can't say yes or no and, before you bring it up, neither can children. Consent is the issue. If everyone is an adult and of sound mind, why do you get to impose your sexual mores on them?

Re:Happened Before

[FatLittleMonkey]

There will be a bit of friction and then the Army will adjust OK.

Ooo, I bet you say that to all the boys...

Re:Happened Before

[jmaslak]

Not only did it happen before, but allowing blacks to be fully integrated occurred during a time of war. The Korean. With no effect on the units' ability to fight, other than now the military was promoting the best person for the job and making the job more attractive to a huge number of US citizens.

There is always time to fight for human rights - after all, isn't that what the military is fighting for? Freedom? So the logic people use that "we're at war" is kind of bogus. Of course we are (and we will be for the next 10 years at least) - we're fighting for the freedom of the Iraqis and Afgans. Unless of course we're not, and we're fighting for oil and ego, in which case we probably don't have time for human rights...but I'd like to believe this isn't why the US went to war.

All that said, I would love to see the Navy at a LGBT event singing "In the Navy" by the Village People to try to attract gay recruits. :)

Re:Happened Before

[argStyopa]

Ironically, in the end the military has become one of the places closest to a pure meritocracy where people of color can succeed with the least color barriers.

I don't know if it's reached that for women yet.

Re:Happened Before

[Anonymous Coward]

> There will be a bit of friction

There are lubricants for that...

Re:Happened Before

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it isn't about who they sleep with on leave, it's about working together.

Re:Happened Before

[Grishnakh]

You are an idiot. 99% of rapists are men. Maybe women have a reason to not want to share a bathroom with us, other than "it feels weird."

They seem to get along just fine with unisex bathrooms in France. Are American males genetically inferior or something?

Re:Happened Before

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of B.S. is this post to even get a 5?! C'mon /. he provides no sources for his outstanding claim when there have been blacks and women serving in the military for a very, very long time. There were even confederate (and union) units that had black soldiers in them.

Re:Happened Before

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be a bit of friction and then the Army will adjust OK.

I think that's what they're worried about :S

Re:Happened Before

[Tim C]

You are an idiot. 99% of rapists are men.

But 99% of men are not rapists.

DD

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they can get back to giving the gays dishonorable discharges like they used to. Thanks Obama!

Re:DD

[moehoward]

Yup. Exactly. I have no idea why the "movement" sees this as some victory. We go back to the past. Which was fine. As much as I am a gay-rights person, I see this as a victory in the sense that folks can now be discharged for homosexuality. I am OK with that.

Don't ask, don't tell was a huge victory for the "movement" in the Clinton era. Repealing it takes us all back to square one. My goodness. Queue the Benny Hill music.

Moe

Re:DD

[jjohnson]

Repealing DADT allows the Commander in Chief to end the policy and require the military to allow gays to serve openly. Obama has already said he'll do that while giving the military sufficient time to handle the change. DADT was a step backward because it enshrined a personnel policy into federal law.

Re:UCMJ 925 ART 125 - SODOMY

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

AAAAAAAAA

[NetNed]

Why is this on /.?

Re:AAAAAAAAA

[RightSaidFred99]

Gives everyone the ability to post and show how wonderfully open minded they are. Most people on Slashdot are really, really wonderful and enlightened humans and just need a forum to let the rest of us know it.

Oh finally. _I_ am enlightened enough that I don't mind the gays, in fact I'd have you know one of my best friends is gay. By George, we sure did codwallop those frightfully bigoted Republicans didn't we. Oh, I tend to think they are repressed homosexuals myself, I mean _I_ am just fine with gays!

If you let them, they'll carry on in that vain for hours.

Re:AAAAAAAAA

[tftp]

they'll carry on in that vain for hours.

It was not a typo.

Re:AAAAAAAAA

[moehoward]

Because their liberal bias is seething for some reason. I suspect Taco hated the mid-term results. It was like the weird 6-week period that Jon Stewart did after Bush's second election. He was almost in tears every night, despite being a "comedy" show. Taco needs to reign things in. Or else, risk being marginalized. I read Slashdot, but the past few months are making me rethink. I use Slashdot as a professional resource as, well, someone who needs technical resources. After 13 years, I am having an honest discussion about this.

Slashdot is showing its colors. It needs to sit down, shut up, and smile. Period.

First order of business for Taco is to get some honest reporting regarding wikileaks. For god's sake, there are really good reasons why this is a bad thing and Assange may be a really bad guy. Not such coverage is found on slashdot. People die in the future for mirroring this stuff. Not my problem. Yours?

Moe

It is NOT a repeal!

[mmmmbeer]

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.

I would discharge at the first opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that precisely what you're afraid the gays will do?

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Now for true equality in the military

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to allow men and women to bunk and shower together now.

To not allow this would be hypocritical.

Bullseye!

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need straight soldiers. We need soldiers who can shoot straight.

Santa?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

repealing the law...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Jeremi]

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.

Serving openly?

[pauljlucas]

FTFS:

While this does not permit homosexuals to openly serve ...

I can find nothing in the linked article that says that homosexuals can not openly serve. In fact, the very first sentence says:

The U.S. military will for the first time in history allow gays to serve openly after the Senate voted Saturday to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that has required such troops to hide their sexual identity or risk being expelled from the services.

So is TFS wrong?

Re:Serving openly?

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, before Congress passed DADT in the first place, the military actively investigated soldiers who were rumored to be gay. If they were determined to be gay, they were discharged. My recollection is that it was a dishonorable discharge, but I'm not sure that this is correct.

Re:Serving openly?

[compro01]

No, TFS is correct. Read further down the article, specifically the bottom of page 2.

This leaves it to the military leadership (Obama and the joint chiefs) to decide whether to allow open homosexuals to serve, if they find that it would not affect "troop readiness, cohesion or military recruitment and retention", which a recent report by the pentagon says it wouldn't, so this should be happening shortly.

Re:Serving openly?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what do you expect? Most recruits, who then go up the ranks, come from the same backwards fundamentalist communities politicians want to appease, I can't imagine they'd be very confortable knowing there are gay soldiers at all, let alone in their own unit.
Who says they are not going to 'friendly fire' them on religious grounds? That doesn't really help winning battles, you know.

Think about what religion is doing to your country next time you pray for someone's soul. 'Towel heads' were the the most advanced civilization on Earth for a while, after salvaging the remains of the Roman civilization, then religion got them. What happened to the Romans? Oh, yeah, they started adoring Jesus. Most great civilizations in history fell shortly after an acute religious infection.

The leaders think they can use it as the opium of the People, and it seems to work, but, much like real opium, eventually they sample the stuff and barbarians take over without resistance shortly thereafter.

What about article 125?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What about article 125?

[fishbowl]

Article 125 carries a sentence of life without parole in cases where there is no consent, or five years with consent. Also, it counts as a felony conviction in civilian life, a dishonorable discharge and Total Forfeiture is a huge consideration for any career military.

On the other hand, if the President wanted to, he could use his authority as Commander in Chief and simply make a direct order that would take Article 125 off the books. It really is that simple. In that venue alone, the President's word carries total authority. In fact, if a President wanted to make an issue out of something like DADT, he wouldn't need an act of Congress either way. He could simply make the order under the aegis of his position of command. If a majority of Congress was willing to go to the mat saying that was beyond the President's authority, they could move to impeach, but that is *all* they could do about it. Personally I think it would be very interesting to watch as Congress challenges for the first time in history a sitting President's authority to command the military.

Re:What about article 125?

[MightyMartian]

This regulation also bans a considerable portion of hetero sex. Blowjobs aren't just for homosexuals, and there is not insignificant portion of the hetero population that also partakes in anal sex. I'll ask you the last time that anyone in the Army was court martialed for giving or receiving a blowjob.

Re:What about article 125?

[MightyMartian]

Oh, and by that question I don't mean between different ranks, which of course, is banned for reasons of discipline and maintaining the chain of command.

Re:What about article 125?

[fishbowl]

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/12/19/003253/Senate-Repeals-Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell#>there's no talk about changing the UCMJ to allow homosexuality.

Actually, Article 125 is often the central subject whenever cooler heads (e.g., former JAGs) discuss DADT.

People with a realistic frame of reference remember that the military has adjusted to things like racial integration (at least twice) and to a significant degree gender integration -- and these were possibly *more* controversial at the time -- so they understand that the military will adjust to this as well. Of immediate concern is the awareness that there will be serious issue like harassment and assaults, and that there will be leadership problems as some of these are punished and others are not. There is also already work being done to update the already-mandatory training (EO, CO2, and POSH) for this. I expect there will be more Article 133/134 action as a result of DADT repeal than Art 125.

Re:What about article 125?

[Fuzi719]

How many soldiers have gotten court-martialed for getting a blowjob, ever?

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Derling Whirvish]

Not so fast:

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. "

Devil's Advocate

[bornagainpenguin]

This same bullshit happened twice already. Negroes in the Army..Oh Noes..its the end!! Women in the Army..our forces are doomed.

What wars have we won since that happened? Just sayin' ;)

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Xarius]

What real wars have you fought since then?

Re:Devil's Advocate

[northstarlarry]

Most of them, actually. There were quite a number of African-American soldiers fighting in the Civil War, and WWI, and WWII, and I therefore assume the wars between those. Women didn't serve openly (more than a few enlisted, pretending to be men, during the Civil War and perhaps other wars too) until the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps in 1941. They went to boot camp, but mostly, AFAIK, had non-combat positions.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Grishnakh]

WWII? The Tuskegee airmen did a great job as fighter pilots in that war. They had the WAC way back then too, though they weren't fully integrated.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck modded this uniformed bigotry up? Mod the two comments below it up!

I'm wondering on what they base this notion....

[mark-t]

"The Marine Corps' top general suggested Tuesday that allowing gays to serve openly in the military could result in more casualties because their presence on the battlefield would pose a distraction."

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?

Re:I'm wondering on what they base this notion....

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, no one has ever said "twilight was a good movie" and been serious about it.

As for sleep-masturbating, they just have the order mixed up, so no big deal.

As for vampire larping, its no stupider than any religious convictions, only they understand that at the end of the day, its just playing pretend.

Re:I'm wondering on what they base this notion....

[yters]

Currently women are not allowed to serve on the frontlines. If military leadership believes letting women serve on the frontlines will cause more military casualties, I'm sure the same reasoning applies to homosexuals.

I believe these sorts of decisions should be mostly left up to commanders who know what it takes to keep their people alive. These decisions should not be dictated by politicians in DC.

Re:I'm wondering on what they base this notion....

[markass530]

I'm guessing you've never served in a combat roll in the military? It's not that it WILL be a distraction, it certainly can happen. thats enough. And there will be paperwork. And briefs. And mandatory training. The list goes on and on.

Re:I'm wondering on what they base this notion....

[Anonymous Coward]

They could strike fear in the hearts and minds of our enemy. We need a special division of the mentally questionable!
Give them fangs, I say!

Re:I'm wondering on what they base this notion....

[mark-t]

My point is that absolutely *ANYTHING* that may be different about a person from the people around them could potentially be a distraction to others... what makes a person's sexual orientation so unique? How does it differ from anything else that a person might say or admit to? As far as I can see, it doesn't... I don't see how sexual orientation factors into it any more than anything else that could potentially make certain people feel uncomfortable or distracted.

Re:I'm wondering on what they base this notion....

[markass530]

because the military is unique. the situations you end up in. The living situations you endure. the tasks required of you etc etc

Re:I'm wondering on what they base this notion....

[mark-t]

And again, on what factually based study is that based? I don't argue that differences can very be distracting, but there are an endless number of things that could do this. What makes a person's sexual orientation distinct from any other aspects that make us unique? Saying "because it's the military" is just an appeal to authority, which is, I'm afraid, not valid as any sort of logical proof.

I don't understand

[countertrolling]

How's this going to end the wars?

Re:I don't understand

[windcask]

War. Singular. Iraq is "Mission Accomplished," finally. Sort of. If having 50k non-combat troops still there can be considered over.

But to answer your question, it really doesn't have anything to do with it. Dems know their time is running out, so they're trying to get as much 'social progress' done as they can. We'll be out of there by 2014, and hopefully we can have a functioning Afghani government by then. We'll have a long-term mental health crisis to deal with amongst combat troops when this is all over.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Attila Dimedici]

Then how come just about every gay rights group is some variation of a "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered" rights group?

"reform"

[BeanThere]

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?

Gays are not a protected class.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Gays are not a protected class.

[jjohnson]

I stand by my statement

I'm sure you do, Anonymous.

political systems

[falconwolf]

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

California's deficit

[falconwolf]

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

Re:California's deficit

[northstarlarry]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Gross expenditure, especially comparing unadjusted dollar amounts over a twenty-year period, is meaningless by itself. Per-capita would be a start, so what's the change in population over that period? The government may have taken in a lot more money over that time, so what's the change in revenues? Especially, what are the ratios of revenue to expenditure? How's the economy: what has the GDP done? How much does the state government have in its "savings account"? How much is that changing? (If I'm reading that table correctly, it looks like there was a reserve fund well in the black over most of the period you mention.)

Re:California's deficit

[falconwolf]

Per-capita would be a start, so what's the change in population over that period?

You didn't go through the state of California webpage I linked to did you? Just now the first link I clicked on on that page was to Schedule 6 — Summary of State Population, Employees and Expenditures. The pdf has the per capita numbers. Since you didn't bother to look I won't bother to answer the rest of your questions either.

Falcon

Re:California's deficit

[northstarlarry]

I did read the single PDF you linked to:

The state budget [pdf] [ca.gov]...

I also indicated that I had done so: "(If I'm reading that table correctly..."

There's no links to anything else on that page. The link that you've just now provided is for another single PDF, on a different server than the link from your original post. Maybe you intended to point to a page that had a number of links to budget documents, but you didn't, and you didn't supply any other information in your post.

You didn't present any useful evidence for your argument, and I pointed that out. Why should I do your research for you?

Same arguments, recycled.

[MarkvW]

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).

California's economic problems stem from a number

[falconwolf]

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

"Timothy" is prolific today

[Anonymous Coward]

ALL the stories on the front page today are originated by "Timothy." Favorites much?

US military

[falconwolf]

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

politics

[falconwolf]

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

state militaries

[falconwolf]

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

Re:state militaries

[slashqwerty]

The National Guard is still under the federal government's control. Without federal control I think we would have seen numerous wars among the states while our national military would have been far less effective.

Re:state militaries

[budgenator]

Right now the National Guard has it's own form of Separation of Powers, each Combat Division has key Units stationed in separate States. A Battalion is reasonably intact geographically each Unit may be housed in a single armory or in several armories; the next level a Brigade is geographically distanced from the Battalions. Our Brigade had 3 infantry Battalions in South Eastern Michigan, our Armor Battalion was in the South West side of the state, and it's physical assets were a 2 hr drive North of their home armory and physically near the Brigade headquarters and the Artillery battalion was also in SE Michigan Also with its gun located 2 hours North and everybody's Ammunition was a 2 hours drive North. Our Division Headquarters was located in Illinois and it commanded Brigades in Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.
This set up gave each Governor a credible militia for emergency activations due to civil disturbances or natural disasters yet unable to field a credible force for military adventures against neighboring states.

John McCain Says:

[KermodeBear]

"This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels [...] [We have the] most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. (source)

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.

Re:John McCain Says:

[Anonymous Coward]

You CAN do this in a business (if your state hasn't written it into their code) and nothing will happen. Yeah they might sue, but they'd lose the original case since there's no statute providing protection and they'd have to try to win on appeal (good luck anywhere south of New York and good luck if the business has any money whatsoever).

DADT has been a non issue with me (granted I'm not in the military, although not having an emergency escape route out of the service anymore if I drew a front line position with a bunch of fundie fucks who would sooner frag me for jesus than watch my back makes it less and less likely I'd ever consider serving). ENDA and a Civil Rights Act extension are what I care about.

Re:John McCain Says:

[rhomp2002]

You are very wrong. The rule all along, including WW II and Korea, was that gays could be kicked out just for being gay. Why do you think so many people used that excuse to get released over the years. All DADT did was make it possible for gays to serve so long as they did not make it obvious that they were gay. The underlying rule was still if you were gay and found out, you could be kicked out. DADT meant that if you did not admit to being gay and they did not have concrete evidence of your being gay you could stay in. Now unless they have changed the UCMJ you are back to being kicked out for just being gay. Have not read the law to find out if they were smart enough to also change the UCMJ while they were repealing the DADT. I bet the senators don't know that either since it has become a practice of this congress and senate to pass it to find out what is in it. Stay tuned to hear them say that what was passed is not working the way they thought it would or they did not know that was in the bill. Queue the results of the Obamacare bill to see what I mean and the 1099 problem and the fact that Obama has had to put up waivers for all his pet unions so that they are not subject to Obamacare restrictions. Same could happen with this bill.

sexual orientation

[falconwolf]

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

Men are wolves.

[pizzach]

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.

Re:Men are wolves.

[lessthan]

What did he do?

Re:Men are wolves.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fun to tease the homophobes. It works because you're bothered by it. We don't think you're horrible, just a little misguided. Up until now, we've had a choice: be gay or join the military. Not all of us think that sex is necessarily a topic of public discussion, but it rankles to suppress a part of your personality in order to fit in anywhere. Getting kicked out of the military for being gay (as about 23,000 people during DADT have), that is dishonorably discharged for being a faggot is not the way to treat patriots in defense of this country.

Your irritation with your roommate is a pretty poor excuse for any sort of discrimination.

P.S. You may want to think about ways that the military has to enforce discipline. I'm not really sure that 'discipline' means anything other than not causing a scene in public, either---have you been around many soldiers lately?

Re:Men are wolves.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it to with you about what happens between two adults? Take your homophobic beliefs and go back to your stone age.

Re:Men are wolves.

[Omestes]

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.

In college I was stuck with a rutting bull 19 year old body-building, footballing playing, hip-hop DJing heterosexual. It annoyed the living shit out of me too, especially when he slept with very young girls 3 feet away from me, and wooed them with idiotic conversations about high school football glory. He did it when I had friends over, he did I had female friends over, he did it when I was trying to write an 80 page capstone paper. I probably would have been just as annoyed if he was gay, and sleeping with guys, he was an uncouth moron, and last I checked anyone can fall into that category regardless of their sexual orientation.

On the other hand my old neighbor was a raging lesbian, and was absolutely awesome. She was very much overly sexual, but damn amusing about it, to the point of having a very large collection of scissors, and loudly complaining to me and my girlfriend, outside here open bedroom window, that who ever she was sleeping with my be severely developmentally disabled. She continually tried to get my and my girlfriend to go out with her to her favorite gay country bar... I'm still somewhat sad I never took her up on it, it would have been highly amusing.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Trillian_1138]

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,

You do realize that DADT was implemente by CLINTON

[Anonymous Coward]

People keep forgetting that DADT was created under the Clinton administration.

This is a good start

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is a good start

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you speak up?

I can't hear you with all those gagging sounds you're making.

Maybe try taking Glen Beck's cock out of your mouth.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[divide overflow]

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.

I saw it the other way around

[KingAlanI]

...piggybacking on militarism's unfortunate popularity, towards better ends

Legislative+Executive

[KingAlanI]

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)

What does it matter?

[bledri]

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.

Re:What does it matter?

[markass530]

I had several gay friends in the military, so yea i know this, but thats why DADT works. So let 5-10 percent of the military men shower with the women, hell it could be a lottery. The Girls shouldn't care right? and I'm not speaking for myself, because I was in the military (Submarines and Arm Combat arms) I know how stupid people can be, and this will cause problems. Hopefully small ones, but more then the guys over there (lots of them my friends) need.

Another option

[KingAlanI]

I'd also rather have gays than have to hand out en-mass waivers to felons.

The Clouds is a satire / comedy play

[fantomas]

Aristophanes Clouds is a satire / theatre comedy. So some of the views shown by the characters will represent what Athenians thought was funny rather what was true so might not represent true views of the time. Don't take what's said as being the Athenian view of society. After all if you were to do that reading other Aristophanes you'd believe that all Greeks thought that rain was Zeus pissing through a sieve.

Other references from the time to cross references Aristophanes and strengthen your arguments?

  Though of course there is always a grain of truth in comedy.

  From my classical studies I remember reading that gay relationships were encouraged on the grounds that soldiers would fight harder for their lovers in the line next to them. This paper seems to cover some of that ground: "The Eros of Achilles: Homoerotic Bonding Among Combat Soldiers" by J Laskaris - Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 2000 - vol 10 p139 onwards.

Re:The Clouds is a satire / comedy play

[Kirijini]

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.

Well, that one's easy

[Moraelin]

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 ;)

Re:Well, that one's easy

[misexistentialist]

Does the guy trying to lose muscle to look to like a girl move into a support job? Will the army issue testosterone injections to get the girl beefed up for front-lines combat?

Re:Well, that one's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

They could do the same thing with black people, Mormons, and socialists; but that would be as stupid and ignorant as your suggestion. It's comments like yours that make social networking sites (like Slashdot) look very stupid and lame. Why don't you people go back to 4chan?

Re:Well, that one's easy

[Moraelin]

Does the guy trying to lose muscle to look to like a girl move into a support job? Will the army issue testosterone injections to get the girl beefed up for front-lines combat?

Is there a reason why either is even a problem? The army has tests and standards one must pass. If someone wants to fit a role and they don't qualify, they don't get it. It goes not just for guys wanting to pass for girls or viceversa, but also for guys/girls trying to pass for a sniper, or guys/girls trying to pass for a marine, and everything. The standards are already there. You have to be this buff to ride, basically.

Is there some inherent reason why trans people can't be held to the existing standards? Or better said, is there a reason why refusing them a priori is a better solution?

Seems to me like a non-problem basically.

Re:Well, that one's easy

[Moraelin]

They could do the same thing with black people, Mormons, and socialists; but that would be as stupid and ignorant as your suggestion. It's comments like yours that make social networking sites (like Slashdot) look very stupid and lame. Why don't you people go back to 4chan?

So your argument is... what? That we should keep the trans-gendered out of the army, because figuring a way to let them in would... what? Could apply to blacks, Mormons and socialists too?

Hate to break the bad news to you, my dear Neanderthal, but in the meantime we do allow blacks, Mormons and even socialists in the army. Sorry, buddy, the 40's called and they want their BS scare back. Actually, sorry, even earlier than that. They had black units in WW2. Heck, even WW1.

But, tell you what, I'm a nice guy... I'll meet you half-way. I'll move to 4chan when you lot scared of gays and trans-gendered move into the 20'th century. I'm not even unreasonable. I'm not even asking for 21'st century or late 20'`th. I realize it's too big a leap. You don't go cold turkey on stupidity. But at least moving into, dunno, the 60's would be kinda nice.

Re:Well, that one's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break the bad news to you, my dear Neanderthal, but in the meantime we do allow blacks, Mormons and even socialists in the army.

In WWII there were special units for blacks, and other units for Jews. Some people don't think segregating people into special groups a good idea, because it fosters prejudice and re-enforces their "special"-ness.

I've got an idea; lets only recruit mentally mature people into the army so we won't need to worry about protecting those people who are deemed too different to work with.

Re:Well, that one's easy

[chrisautrey]

It's even easier than that. Many "barracks" today are actully dorms, often with single or shared rooms and semi-private bathrooms. Men and women already live in the same building.

Recruitment obstructing

[KingAlanI]

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?

Freudian psychology here...

[KingAlanI]

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"

Re:Freudian psychology here...

[rhakka]

If we didn't see another new high profile example of it about once a month, I might think it weird too. Now I simply accept it.

Re:Freudian psychology here...

[KingAlanI]

Don't doubt that it happens fairly often, but I wonder if those celebrity incidents are a remotely accurate sample, though.

Yes, but

[KingAlanI]

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.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Attila Dimedici]

Did you read the post I was responding to?

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

what about sodomy?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Just so I'm absolutely clear

[Rogerborg]

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?

putting women in the Army did doom our forces

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Gay

[Anonymous Coward]

Gay

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

metrix007 "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES"? LMAO

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916450&cid=34607078

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[FungiFromYuggoth]

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.

I'm confused

[assertation]

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:

While this does not permit homosexuals to openly serve,

And the Washington Post article linked to in the introduction states:

The U.S. military will for the first time in history allow gays to serve openly after the Senate voted Saturday to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that has required such troops to hide their sexual identity or risk being expelled from the services.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121801729.html?sid=ST2010121803394

What is the deal?

Re:I'm confused

[demonlapin]

I suspect, though I don't know, that there is a military policy against allowing homosexuals to serve openly. The thing about military policies is that there's a Commander in Chief who can override any of them by writing an order - this is how the military was racially integrated, for example. The story today is about a federal law, which the President can't write an order to ignore.

Gays are ALREADY in the military

[assertation]

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.

DOMA next

[durdur]

+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.

Just picture it

[Anonymous Coward]

A platoon of bull dykes with fixed bayonets, charging over a hill at some Islamic fundamentalist insurgents.

Technology News or Political News

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this article on Slashdot at all? I come to Slashdot for Technology news, not political/moral news! Guess I need to find a more technology news source somewhere else if articles like this continue.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[BlueParrot]

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.

National Guard

[falconwolf]

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

how high is this proority in "human rights" scale

[Anonymous Coward]

Why dont provide all gay people all they want, so we can concentrate on other questions like poor people and their health care,... and who really f*ck them...

this hole gay "show" is so fake.

repeal of Don't Ask, don't tell

[falconwolf]

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

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

descrimination

[falconwolf]

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

Re:descrimination

[stdarg]

Have you served in the military? I have and we had a bunch of rules about saying things some may find offensive.

No, I'm mainly going off people I know and movies and stuff.

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.

I guess it's just me, but I find that really sad. People are in life and death situations where they're being shot at, they're killing people, etc. As we become more civilized and modern, soldiers are being treated really badly. Now they even have to watch what they say during their down time lest they offend someone? I mean really, that is pathetic.

I'm not in the army so it doesn't really affect me but just the thought that some 19 year old kid might be prosecuted for saying something racially insensitive.. in a war zone.. it's just beyond retarded. And it's not like normal workplace rules because when you're deployed or living on a base it's like 24/7. When do you get to be a normal person?

Re:descrimination

[falconwolf]

just the thought that some 19 year old kid might be prosecuted for saying something racially insensitive.. in a war zone.. it's just beyond retarded.

No what's retarded, beyond retarded, is making disparaging remarks against someone who will be covering your back in a foxhole. You don't want to antagonize someone who's protecting you.

When do you get to be a normal person?

If you want to be a "normal person" then don't put yourself where you can't be one. There is no draft, enlisting is a personal choice. From the moment you enlist you are not free to do whatever you want, not without consequences. Hell civilians shouldn't put themselves in situations where they can't "normal" either. And what is "normal"?

Falcon

Re:descrimination

[stdarg]

No what's retarded, beyond retarded, is making disparaging remarks against someone who will be covering your back in a foxhole.

Awesome then it's not an issue because everyone in the army must love and respect each other. So why does it happen? Maybe different people have different thoughts about what is funny and what is inappropriate. Maybe different people have different levels of sensitivity to others, both in what they say and in how they react to what others say.

Having rules that cater to the most sensitive, irritable types makes it unbearable for everyone else.

If you want to be a "normal person" then don't put yourself where you can't be one. There is no draft, enlisting is a personal choice.

You could say the same thing to people who are looking for a tolerant, inclusive, cuddly PC environment. If you don't want to be exposed to "sexual harassment", if you are ultra sensitive to casual remarks, then don't enlist. Why is your ultimatum better than mine?

taxes

[falconwolf]

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

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The wealthy get caps on social security taxes, and get a LOT more influence with the government than the average person. I'm one of several hundred thousand constituents that are supposedly represented by my congressman. I'm not going to get to have a lunch meeting with him. He'll make time for a wealthy person that can contribute either more money or some other benefit to him. The wealthy have the kind of access and ability to influence government policies that the rest of us do not. They're obviously benefiting the most from the way things are being done as well, as their wealth keeps growing while the rest of the country's wealth remains flat or declines.

Socialist healthcare and Obama

[falconwolf]

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

Re:Socialist healthcare and Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

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

No more so than Medicare, and the Tea-Partiers will have your ass if you try to take that away.

Guantanamo

[falconwolf]

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

Re:Guantanamo

[compro01]

I wish he would, but where will the prisoners there be taken to?

Run them through the civilian court system, same as any other accused criminals. I'm sure there's some space in the federal prisons where they can await trial.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[falconwolf]

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

Serving the purpose

[rcharbon]

Are you all now happily distracted from the recently implemented tax giveaway for the rich?

polygamy

[falconwolf]

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

Maybe military benefits is the real issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Too many diseases for military environment

[chromozone]

Homosexuals represent one of the greatest disease vectors in society and that alone is reason to keep them out of military. Emergency medical staff have to wear protective clothing because of AIDS. It makes no sense to inflict people with a known 44x(CDC) AIDs rate on soldiers who can't protect themselves from blood in battle. Homosexuals also account (CDC) for 10% of hepatitis A and 20% of hepatitis B. New syphilis cases are homosexuals 64% of the time (CDC). Anal infection with human papilloma virus (HPV) is "at near universal levels in gay men". Homosexual populations in cities are undergoing a huge epidemic of a new MRSA strain - a strain a research doctor in San Francisco said would be lethal to the general population if combined with VRE infections also taking place. The homosexual groups went after that doctor to silence her.

Homosexuality was never proven not to be a disorder. It was dropped as one under political pressure. Indeed GID (Gender Identity Disorder) still exists but will be dropped because of political pressure as well. Of course they will want the military to be forced to accommodate them as well. The behavior of homosexuality is not the same as race etc and deserves no special rights and protections. Like the hoax of global warming, the "homosexual behavior as civil rights issue" is more heat then light. Liberals push the agenda just like they support for terrorists over CIA, illegals over citizens, speech rights for pornographers but not the religious (unless they are terrorists etc). The Democrats pulled the rug from under US troops in 2005 and the left generally resent the military. Homosexualizing it is more important to them than making is safe and effective for members.

On a final note, a congressional report showed most soldiers who were discharged from military under DADT where homosexuals who reported themselves as a way to get out of the military. The idea that there are legions of soldiers waiting to die for the country but being witched hunted out is false. Indeed its a testament to how unintelligent America has become that Dems repeal DADT juts as story broke about an emotionally disturbed (he attacked an officer in Iraq etc) homosexual wiki-leaker betrayed the country because of his displeasure with military. Average people think the DADT thing is over now and they fail to appreciate the PC carnival that is about to fire up and how it will harm the military (and Americans love their military). Repeal of DADT will backfire in a major way. Homosexuals really should have left well enough alone.

"Flesh-eating bug spreads among gays"

"Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable," Binh Diep, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the study, told the Telegraph. "That's why we're trying to spread the message of prevention."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/flesh-eating-bug-spreads-among-gays/story-e6frg6to-1111115341040

You forgot #3

[IBitOBear]

#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.

Yes, the "populatiry contest"

[IBitOBear]

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.

Re:Yes, the "populatiry contest"

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

This isn't true either. if the media had it's way, It wouldn't have been McCain/Obama, it would've been either Romney/Clinton or Huckabee/Clinton.

Clinton was a huge media darling during the '08 campaign. Don't even get me started on the '10 elections.

progressive slashdotters

[necode]

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?

Re:California's economic problems stem from a numb

[dgatwood]

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).

Awwww....

[dfenstrate]

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?

Re:California's economic problems stem from a numb

[gordo3000]

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.

Yea Europe!

[t2t10]

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.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[migla]

So, I guess the next hurdle would be to get queer people refusing to classify themselves in binary genders accepted?

Re:California's economic problems stem from a numb

[gfreeman]

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?

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[zeroshade]

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.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[zeroshade]

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.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:California's economic problems stem from a numb

[falconwolf]

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

immigrants

[falconwolf]

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

Re:California's economic problems stem from a numb

[falconwolf]

Another person who doesn't read articles links are provided to.

Falcon

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[zeroshade]

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?

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[zeroshade]

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?

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[zeroshade]

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?

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[zeroshade]

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?

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Attila Dimedici]

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?

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[zeroshade]

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.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[zeroshade]

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.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Attila Dimedici]

That's nice.