^^ sounds to me like she just wanted out of her commitment and wanted to get a gubment loan easily for college.

5/14/2010 7:59:51 PM

For this page, a few example of why its time for a change:

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/Mike-Almy/

Quote :

"During my career, I deployed to the Middle East four times. In my last deployment, I led a team of nearly 200 men and women to operate and maintain the systems used to control the air space over Iraq. We came under daily mortar attacks, one of which struck one of my Airmen and also caused significant damage to our equipment. Towards the end of this deployment to Iraq, I was named one of the top officers in my career field for the entire Air Force. In the stress of a war zone, the Air Force authorized us to use our work email accounts for “personal or morale purposes” because private email accounts were blocked for security. Shortly after I left Iraq -- during a routine search of my computer files -- someone found that my “morale” was supported by the person I loved -- a man. The email -- our modern day letter home -- was forwarded to my commander. I was relieved of my duties, my security clearance was suspended and part of my pay was terminated. In my discharge proceeding, several of my former troops wrote character reference letters for me, including one of my squadron commanders. Their letters expressed their respect for me as an officer, their hope to have me back on the job and their shock at how the Air Force was treating me. Approximately a year after I was relieved of my duties, my Wing Commander recommended I be promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, even though the Air Force was actively pursuing my discharge. But instead, after 16 months, I was given a police escort off the base as if I were a common criminal or a threat to national security. The severance pay I received was half of what it would have been had I been separated for any other reason. Despite this treatment, my greatest desire is still to return to active duty as an officer and leader in the United States Air Force, protecting the freedoms of a nation that I love; freedoms that I myself was not allowed to enjoy while serving in the military."

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-former-navy-petty-officer-third-class-jose/

Quote :

"Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to. They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission of homosexuality."

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-chief-hospital-navy-corpsman-brian-k.-humb/

Quote :

"After a strong push by my faithful defense team, the board ruled that I could keep my retirement benefits and be discharged honorably. I served for 22 years and wanted only to fulfill the remainder of my time. A promise I made to my country. The criminal investigation by NCIS took all but six months. But one person -- a JAG officer -- spent the next eighteen months and countless man hours attempting to have me discharged with a reduction in rank and no retirement, all because I was gay. Sir, those two years were frankly, mental hell, all because one person felt I shouldn’t be in the Navy, a service I loved and still love today."

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-lcpl.-danny-hernandez-usmc-separated/

Quote :

"My discharge came from the fear that my sexual orientation was going to be revealed by a third party; a group of unknown Marines who threatened to use my sexuality as a way to retaliate after a dispute in a bar. I had spoken with two fellow Marines from my unit; both of whom I trusted. They calmed me, told me that it wasn’t a big deal, and reassured me that everything was going to be fine. I returned to drill only to find out that the two Marines – the Marines I confided in -- had mentioned it and word had reached my 1st Sergeant and Commanding Officer. They told the two Marines to submit written statements detailing everything I had told them. When I walked in to my 1st Sergeant's office the first question out of his mouth was, "Are you gay?" I answered honestly. The investigation was now underway."

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-a-soldier-returning-to-baghdad/

Quote :

"my unit is extremely undermanned. We're working around the clock in Baghdad. My commander informed me that the Army cannot afford to lose me. I was told that they would prepare my discharge paperwork, "stick it in a Manila envelope, and keep it in a desk -- for now." One moment they wanted to throw me out and the next they are hiding evidence to keep me in. My comrades now know that I am gay, and they do not treat me any differently. Work runs as smoothly as ever, and frankly the only difference I see -- besides my pending job loss -- is that I am free of the burden of having to constantly watch my words and ensure my lies are believable. Having this out in the open makes things a bit less stressful. But it's also clear the Army is only keeping me around until they are done with me. After I have served my two deployments -- and only a year shy of separating from the military honorably -- I suspect they will kick me to the street. It's bad enough that there is a law that denies tens of thousands of service members from serving with integrity, but it's even worse when such a law is carried out with such inconsistency, without any warning of when it might come down. If my suspicions are true, my discharge will move forward after my deployment. I am good enough to serve in war, but not at peace?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aubrey-sarvis/air-force-boots-their-25_b_205553.html

Quote :

"Air Force Boots Their 25 Million Dollar Aviator Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach, a fighter weapons systems officer, has been flying the F-15E Strike Eagle since 1998. He has flown numerous missions against Taliban and al-Qaida targets, including the longest combat mission in his squadron's history. On that infamous September 11, 2001, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach was handpicked to fly sorties above the nation's capital. Later he flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has received at least 30 awards and decorations including nine air medals, one of them for heroism, as well as campaign medals for Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He is now a flight instructor in Idaho, where he has passed on his skills to more than 300 future Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force weapons systems officers. Since 1987, when Fehrenbach entered Notre Dame on a full Air Force ROTC scholarship, the government has invested twenty-five million dollars in training and equipping him to serve his country, which he has done with what anyone would agree was great distinction. He comes from a military family. His father was a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, his mother an Air Force nurse and captain. Lt. Col. Fehrenbach has honored that tradition. And the Air Force is about to discharge this guy, a virtual poster boy for Air Force recruiting, because he is gay?"

http://www.sldn.org/content/military-stories/

Quote :

"A decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist, I was discharged from the U.S. Army under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," though my accuser was never identified. I was "outed" by a stream of anonymous e-mails to my superiors in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C. An eight-month Army investigation culminated in my honorable discharge from the Army - less than four years after I enlisted, motivated by a sense of duty to my country in the days following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."

Quote :

"Then, last October the annual inspection of my base, Fort Gordon, Ga., included a perusal of the government computer chat system; inspectors identified 70 service members whose use violated policy. The range of violations was broad: people were flagged for everything from profanity to outright discussions of explicit sexual activity. Among those charged were my former roommate and me. Our messages had included references to our social lives — comments that were otherwise unremarkable, except that they indicated we were both gay. I could have written a statement denying that I was homosexual, but lying did not seem like the right thing to do. My roommate made the same decision, though he was allowed to remain in Iraq until the scheduled end of his tour. The result was the termination of our careers, and the loss to the military of two more Arabic translators. The 68 other — heterosexual — service members remained on active duty, despite many having committed violations far more egregious than ours; the Pentagon apparently doesn’t consider hate speech, derogatory comments about women or sexual misconduct grounds for dismissal. My supervisors did not want to lose me."

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/03/13/today-in-un-american-activities

Quote :

"Police in Rapid City, South Dakota, looked through the window of a home and spotted an Iowa marriage license sitting on the kitchen table. They were at the home to serve an arrest warrant to one of two women who lived there. The other woman who lived in the home—a woman who wasn't wanted for anything—happened to be a sergeant in the Air Force. The Air Force sergeant wasn't in trouble with the law, the sergeant hadn't broken any laws, her marriage license and her military career had no bearing on the case. But the Rapid City police officers—just for shits and giggles—let the Air Force know about the Iowa marriage license and Sgt. Jene Newsome's nine-year military career is over."

5/15/2010 12:34:10 AM

I totally agree that the policy needs to be revised. It was a step in the right direction and maybe an appropriate incremental step when it was implemented. It's now time to take another step forward.

As I've said before, it's not really a hot button issue for me, but I think that maybe keeping the DADT policy in place could be a good way to handle it, but with significant revision to the enforcement.

Alternatively, all I'd really like to see accomplished is to (a) not open the door to a bunch of lawsuits and EO complaints when gay servicemembers feel slighted and want to blame it on the faggotry, and (b) not have soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines running around acting like fruits.

Obviously it would be like anything else--10% will cause 90% of the problems--but if we get rid of the DADT policy, I'd like to see steps taken to ensure good order, discipline, and military bearing.


break, break:

LtCol Fehrenbach still has an active email address. I don't know if they decided to not kick him out (i.e., drag their feet until he can retire at 20 years with an honorable discharge), or if they just haven't purged his email address. As a side note, I've mentioned that he was a flight school instructor when I was a student; it also turns out that my current boss used to be in his Strike Eagle squadron.

the guy mentioned above where his command told him that they would "stick it in a Manila envelope, and keep it in a desk -- for now", referring to his discharge paperwork. He fears that they will "use him" for a deployment, then kick him out. I've heard of that happening to a couple of Marines who tried to get out of deploying again by smoking pot--they ended up deploying and then getting kicked out as soon as they got home. On the other hand, I recently had a Marine who got in some trouble (minor larceny...stole some stuff from Target). We, too, were very undermanned, and I grudgingly decided to let him deploy with us, putting his discharge paperwork "in a Manila envelope, and...in a desk -- for now." He'd be done with his contract and up for an honorable discharge not too long after we returned; I told him that if he kept working hard and stayed out of trouble for the rest of his time, we'd never submit the paperwork. If he fucked up at all, I'd just add it to the list and completely annihilate him.

It sounds like that could be kinda like what they did with this kid--they'd rather not kick him out, but they can't totally look the other way. If he plays it cool, he'll probably be alright. If he makes life difficult for anyone or causes any problems, his ass is gone.

5/15/2010 5:56:55 AM

Quote :

"Alternatively, all I'd really like to see accomplished is to (a) not open the door to a bunch of lawsuits and EO complaints when gay servicemembers feel slighted and want to blame it on the faggotry, and (b) not have soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines running around acting like fruits. "

Two things:

1. I'd like clarification on what this quoted point means.

2. How are standard harassment and disciplinary procedures not sufficient when someone is out of line? There hasn't been a single news report of a gay servicemember asking for special treatment, such as what you've described above.

5/15/2010 7:45:07 AM

Quote :

"There hasn't been a single news report of a gay servicemember asking for special treatment, such as what you've described above."

Well no shit. Who in his right mind would ask for special treatment due to his homosexual orientation with the law as it currently stands?

I don't want people to get a bad FITREP, or get passed over for promotion, get kicked out for some unrelated reason, or get reprimanded for not conducting themselves with halfway decent military bearing, etc, and then play the gay card. This is, in and of itself, not sufficient reason to keep the current policy, of course...it's just a concern I have.


As far as the other half of what I said, I personally don't really care if someone is homosexual--openly or otherwise. I mean, I think that gay buttsex is fucking gross, but whatever, if that's your thing. In fact, I'd rather them be open--that's something significant that I'd prefer to know about someone I deal with regularly, especially if, say, it's a 19-year old kid that I'm in charge of and responsible for the development and welfare of.

Furthermore, I'm fully aware that not all homosexuals prance around and act fabulous. Got it. I also realize that not all homosexuals have an ax to grind. No shit. These types are a minority, but it doesn't take a great number to be a pain in the ass. My acceptance of a more constrained DADT policy is really just to keep a lid on stuff like this--not at all to take action in any way against the majority of well-intentioned gays who just want to serve their country, see the world, and kill some people who suck.

If there's a better way, let's do it. I mean, if I were king for a day, I'm pretty sure I could come up with a good solution...but my guess is that if DADT is done away with, some of the concerns will just be chalked up as growing pains rather than actually dealt with. My "real-world", easy, practical, 70% solution is to just take some of the teeth out of DADT as a safety catch against the handful of moralist, anti-homo types who refuse to temper the enforcement with common sense on their own...but leave something in place against the handful of problem-fags against whom such a policy is useful.

Not the best solution, but it would alleviate a big chunk of the problem without introducing other problems.

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 10:25 AM. Reason : ]

5/15/2010 10:10:12 AM

^ dude there are plenty of straight dickweeds.

Quote :

"These types are a minority, but it doesn't take a great number to be a pain in the ass."

being gay has nothing to do with it (ok sometimes literally a PITA but I digress)... There's no higher percentage of douche bags in the gay community than there are in the straight community.

5/15/2010 10:22:37 AM

Quote :

"My "real-world", easy, practical, 70% solution is to just take some of the teeth out of DADT as a safety catch against the handful of moralist, anti-homo types who refuse to temper the enforcement with common sense on their own...but leave something in place against the handful of problem-fags against whom such a policy is useful."

I just don't see why you think that there needs to be a separate set of regulations to address gay people specifically. Are the UCMJ and manuals on harassment really that unsuited to handle cases involving gays? Extra policy shouldn't be necessary to handle disciplinary actions that involve homosexuals, unless you think existing non-gay-oriented policies are insufficient.

5/15/2010 10:33:47 AM

Quote :

"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

5/15/2010 10:51:27 AM

^^ oh, no, i'm not talking about sexual harassment. i think the current policies are quite sufficient to deal with that, and I think that would be no more of an issue (and possibly less) than hetero sexual harassment.

I'm more concerned with some asshole acting like this guy:



I mean, what're we gonna do, make a rule against being "too gay"? Yeah, there are already rules in place that govern your appearance (even down to civilian attire, etc), but none against "acting like a fruit." What will happen is that someone like that will, ummm, not thrive in the military. He'll (rightfully) get schwacked on evaluations when it comes to certain things (not necessarily job proficiency, etc). That's no different from other people who don't want to conform to the military way of life (I mean, I don't totally fit the mold in some ways, but I recognize that I'm a voluntary cog in the machine and part of my job, as long as I choose to remain in this career, is to color within the lines sometimes when I don't want to). However, I don't want us to have to deal with lawsuits and appeals and shit because that motherfucker cries about getting discriminated against due to his "sexual preference" (even though it's not about where he likes to put his weiner--it's about him acting like a queen.)

There are people from all sorts of other cultures who get forged into the mold to a large extent when they join the military. You aren't asked to erase your identity, but neither can you have pothead posters in your barracks room (whether or not you still smoke). You can have those Dancing Bears on your car, but if you act like a starry-eyed hippy who isn't grounded in reality, you will not go far in this organization. You can skateboard all you want, but you can't wear earrings and stupid looking baggy shorts, even if you're off base on your own time.

See what I'm saying? However, nobody is going to file a lawsuit when he gets hammered on an evaluation or passed over for promotion and claim that it's because he's a skater. How long do you think it'll take for it to happen with the claim that it's "because I'm gay"?

If you offer a way to ensure that gays will shut the fuck up and assimilate into the military way of life (i.e., act just like the gays who serve now do, except with the freedom to be honest about their love for shaved man-ass), and to bring people back into line with minimal headache when they lose their minds and forget that they're in the military, then I'm down. Let's do this. Otherwise, I stand by my previous position of "eliminating 80% of the problem today without introducing other issues is better than eliminating 100% of the problem tomorrow, and opening the door to a variety of other issues."


***Either way, I don't care all that much and think the military will do fine. Barring homosexuals hasn't significantly negatively impacted our combat effectiveness (which is the bottom line in this business), and I think that we'll still be the best in the world with gays serving openly. I'm just saying that if we're reviewing the policy, let's do what makes the MOST sense.


**** Plus, if you are going to come out of the closet in the military, prepare to be fucked with. Everywhere I've seen in the military has a culture of incessant ball-breaking. It isn't because people hate you or whatever--they're going to fuck with you about something, and if you make it known that you're gay, that's going to be one of those "somethings." Please don't be that guy who files a complaint and fucks up someone else's career because you aren't thick-skinned enough to take your turn as the butt of jokes. Just fire back with some clever material of your own. The first time you ever breathe a word about making an EO complaint (unless you are legitimately being subjected to truly hateful hazing) will probably end the jokes, but it will permanently exclude you from membership in the good-motherfucker club, and you will not go far.

Unfortunately, it only takes a few dumbass apples to fuck things up for everyone. Women, for example, have this problem to an extent. A few instances of special treatment, and BAM--there's a grudge. A few hypersensitive EO complaints, and BAM--everybody bites their tongues when females are around, not wanting to say or do anything that could possibly land them in trouble. It's not at all uncommon for commanders and senior enlisted to absolutely insist that a witness--preferably female--be present any time a female servicemember is called into the office for any negative reason--a few guys got their careers fucked up over bullshit accusations, and now people are on pins and needles. Are 95% of women in the military perfectly fine? Hell yes. The other handful fucked it up for everyone. Is it paranoia? Yeah, probably...but have I personally seen people get screwed by it? Yes.

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 12:38 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 12:52 PM. Reason : Interestingly, racial tension in the military is just about ZERO. Better than society at large.]

5/15/2010 12:24:52 PM

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 12:36 PM. Reason : screw it, your minds made up]

5/15/2010 12:32:54 PM

I wouldn't say that. I mean, ultimately, I'd like to see the policy go away, everything work out, and it be a great American success story and model for the rest of our society (see: racial integration of the military). On the other hand, I don't think it's quite as simple as waving the magic wand and saying "DADT is dead. Period."

I mean, yeah, it can be done that way, with zero caveats or thought given to how to mitigate potential issues, and I'm sure it will work out, but I'm not sure that's the most prudent way to handle things.

Also, there's the catching flies with honey approach. I think that it's important that the military (collectively) perceives that they're taking this consensually for the right reasons, rather than having it jammed down their throats by a Democratic Congress and Administration to satisfy a political agenda.

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 1:02 PM. Reason : so to speak]

5/15/2010 12:59:09 PM

^ so the military is more upset about having gays rammed down their throats by democrats (no pun intended...), but they brush it off when a war killing thousands of their friends are rammed down their throats by republican administrations...?

5/15/2010 1:24:55 PM

that could be its own 10 page thread...

but the oversimplified answer is that it's the "to satisfy a political agenda" part that would have people pissed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-brooks5jan05,0,5406519.column

the Military Times magazine had a similar poll a couple of years ago that showed the military not NEARLY as much of the GOP stronghold as people think.

My own seat-of-the-pants assessment is that the military leans right and leans Republican, but it's very much a more libertarian sort of Republicanism. I think that's partially a generational thing, but partly a function of the types of people who join the military.

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2010 1:35:15 PM

I was just being a dick to be honest...

But i don't see why the would be so much outrage over that, when the military accepts MUCH worse things that they don't like, because it's what they are ordered to do.

I don't think either there are enough flamboyantly gay people drawn to the military to cause the problems you described. And unlike women, there shouldn't be any situations where the gays are given some privilege (women on the other hand are different than men, and anyone who gets upset at realizing this fact is an idiot). I'd also guess that gays are used to handling some ball-busting (no pun intended...), and there are ways to handle people (gay or not) who can't that don't require what still amounts to institutional discrimination.

I'm not aware of many estimates of gays in the military, but maybe we do need a more transitional policy, but this would be counterproductive if it's not clear that it's just transitional.

5/15/2010 2:08:33 PM

Quote :

"And unlike women, there shouldn't be any situations where the gays are given some privilege (women on the other hand are different than men,"

Obviously it's not an issue of different fitness test standards/events, or ramps on the obstacle course's tall obstacles, or "hey, the gay guy wants us to divvy up some of his heavy gear for this hike, because he can't carry it. Fuck that, I wish the best for him, and I know it sucks, but he's gotta learn to pack that ruck around like everyone else."

I mean things like "Hey, this course has 6 tests. You get one mulligan. If you fail a 2nd test, you're out...unless you're female gay--then you get an extra failure before you get the boot."

Quote :

"and there are ways to handle people (gay or not) who can't that don't require what still amounts to institutional discrimination."

True. I'm saying that we need to actually [i]do it[i/].



[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 2:25 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2010 2:23:12 PM

sarijoul:

Quote :

"i'm sorry theduke. but this just sounds bigoted. and you sound like you're ceding to bigoted people. and that's pretty sad because i usually respect your opinion, especially on matters like this."

On the last page I just said something like I agree to disagree, because I think you had some understandable yet addressable concerns, and I'm not one to call out people often for saying fag on a student message board since I'm content to just think someone is an immature idiot without saying it, but after reading this page... just whoa, I'm starting to agree with sarijoul.

goalielax:

Quote :

"after serving with people who were gay and in the closet about it, I can say it only causes a disturbance with homophobes. just like blacks only cause disturbances with racists. it's bullshit we stamp out racism in the military but let homophobia drive regs"

General Colin Powell who served under Bush, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who served under President Bush and President Obama, Admiral Michael Mullen the highest ranking officer in the United States armed forces, and General David Petraeus who obviously knows a little something about the current conflicts, all agree that DADT needs to be repealed. And the Commander-in-Chief says he supports DADT repeal. The main discussion amongst legislators isn't matter of if, its a matter of when.

5/16/2010 1:56:03 AM

Wait, after all that I wrote, agreeing with you in the big picture, but saying that I have a couple of concerns that I'd like to see addressed rather than simply saying "POOF--DADT is gone", you think I'm a bigot just because I said "fag" a couple of times and posted a picture of a dude in a pink miniskirt for hyperbolic effect/humor? Was it a little insensitive? Sure. Bigoted? Get the fuck out of here...you're missing the forest for the trees. I would've thought that the difference between me and the resident homophobes would be glaringly obvious. If I need to present arguments on this subject like a formal thesis to avoid hurting anyone's feelings, I guess I can do it, but I'd rather not tip-toe around and have a little fun.

______________________
Dude, you people are going to be hurting in the military if that's all it takes to get your panties in a bunch. If, for example, someone came out of the closet in my squadron, I think there might be a honeymoon period where nobody fucked with him about it, but then it would be like anything else. The one-liners, double-entendre, and practical jokes would fly...10x worse than anything I said on this page--and not with any hateful intent.

...or option "B" would be to file an EO complaint, igniting a shitstorm. That would stop it, but it wouldn't be worth it in the end, in my opinion (unless there was legitimately hateful stuff going on, which (a) would need to be stopped, and (b) people would agree).

_________________________

Quote :

"The main discussion amongst legislators isn't matter of if, its a matter of when."

Not just legislators--I'd say also for the senior military leadership...and I'd say, more importantly, how, not just when. The devil will be in the details--it will have ramifications beyond the immediate and obvious.


[Edited on May 16, 2010 at 3:15 AM. Reason : ]

5/16/2010 3:11:33 AM

Quote :

" Not just legislators--I'd say also for the senior military leadership...and I'd say, more importantly, how, not just when. The devil will be in the details--it will have ramifications beyond the immediate and obvious."

countries where gay and lesbian members have been allowed in recent years, there has been a whole lot of nothing as far as problems go. it's been a non-event.

5/16/2010 2:37:45 PM

do those countries also have the asininely litigious society that we have?

5/16/2010 2:38:40 PM

would you trust any answer that didn't fit in with your ideology?

5/16/2010 2:58:05 PM

^ he wouldn't be aaronburro if he did that.

5/16/2010 3:00:17 PM

One step closer:

Quote :

"Equal rights activists scored a major victory today, as the Senate Armed Services committee voted 16-12 to give the Pentagon the power to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell--a policy that bans openly gay people from serving in the military. However, numerous obstacles still remain, including an explicit threat from multiple Republicans that they'll filibuster the legislation when it reaches the Senate floor. Maine Republican Susan Collins joined 15 Democrats in adopting the repeal plan as an amendment to the 2011 Defense Authorization Act, which should receive a floor vote next month. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) was the lone Democrat to vote 'no' with the Republicans. The House is expected to adopt similar language later tonight or tomorrow."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/senate-panel-votes-to-end-dont-ask-dont-tell.php

5/27/2010 9:17:56 PM

w00h00!

5/27/2010 9:27:00 PM

Quote :

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. ” - Robert C. Byrd, 1944"

Quote :

"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened. - Robert C. Byrd, 2005"

5/28/2010 12:08:49 AM

One BIG step forward:

Quote :

"House approves repeal of gay ban in military WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday delivered a victory to President Barack Obama and gay rights groups by approving a proposal to repeal the law that allows gays to serve in the military only if they don't disclose their sexual orientation. The 234-194 vote to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy reflected a view among many in Congress that America was ready for a military in which gays and straights can stand side by side in the trenches."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7026085.html

5/28/2010 10:46:25 AM

The military is so gay.

5/28/2010 10:53:56 AM

those 194 no votes will look bad for the 'pubs

5/28/2010 11:03:35 AM

Quote :

"...or option "B" would be to file an EO complaint, igniting a shitstorm. That would stop it, but it wouldn't be worth it in the end, in my opinion (unless there was legitimately hateful stuff going on, which (a) would need to be stopped, and (b) people would agree)."

A Navy veteran called NPR in support of DADT because a sailor on his ship came out and was eventually murdered. There had been prior incidents to that, people would punch him while he was sleeping, etc. But a repeal of DADT will actually help with those extreme cases. Right now if someone's being legitimately harassed, there's nothing they can do to stop it. You'd have to admit you were gay and possibly get kicked out. (Supplanter posted one earlier that I read about in Navy Times where a gay sailor underwent some unbelievable abuse but never owned up for fear of getting kicked out)

5/28/2010 4:52:56 PM

Quote :

"But a repeal of DADT will actually help with those extreme cases. Right now if someone's being legitimately harassed, there's nothing they can do to stop it. You'd have to admit you were gay and possibly get kicked out. "

Concur.

Also the biggest reason for my previous statement:

In fact, I'd rather them be open--that's something significant that I'd prefer to know about someone I deal with regularly, especially if, say, it's a 19-year old kid that I'm in charge of and responsible for the development and welfare of.

5/28/2010 5:00:01 PM

Adm. Mullen speaking to troops at Ft. Bragg yesterday...

Gays figure in talk to soldiers
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/06/03/512722/gays-figure-in-talk-to-soldiers.html

Quote :

"One soldier stood and asked Mullen whether politicians and policymakers in Washington understood the problems that gays in the military would present. Specifically, he said, unit commanders will have to watch out for sexual assaults, hate crimes, fraternization and morale issues. Those are disciplinary problems that are not tolerated now, Mullen said. "We are a disciplined force. We have standards," Mullen said, although he noted that his visits with soldiers in the field have proved to him that sexual assault and harassment are far too prevalent. Keeping those standards, he said, "is our charge, no matter what happens" regarding the policy on gays."

6/4/2010 10:46:56 PM

Quick, curious read:

http://tinyurl.com/2e5bwjf

7/17/2010 10:03:42 PM

Lt. Dan Choi Discharged Under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
July 23, 2010

Quote :

"ALBANY, NY (WAMC) - As a Republican gay rights group challenges the military's 'Don't ask don't tell' policy, Gay Activist and former soldier Dan Choi is finally discharged from NY National Guard."

http://tinyurl.com/2bxbe57

Why does Barack Obama hate gay people?

7/23/2010 5:42:47 PM

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/22/exclusive-records-show-military-surveyed-troops-attitudes-towards-jews-in-1940s/

Quote :

" Military Surveyed Troops’ Attitudes Towards Jews In 1940 # “There is nothing good about Jews.” (Agree: 86%, Disagree: 13%) # “Jews are out to rule the world.” (Agree: 27%, Disagree: 73%) # “The Jews always get the best of everything.” (Agree: 30%, Disagree: 70%) # “You can always tell a Jew by the way he looks.” (Agree: 61%, Disagree: 39%) # “Jews are the biggest goldbricks in the Army. (Agree: 51%, Disagree: 49%) # “A Jew will always play you for a sucker.” (Agree: 48%, Disagree: 52%)"

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/20/old-surveys/

Quote :

"These surveys show that the same attitude pervaded the military: 3/4 Air Force men favored separate training schools, combat, and ground crews and 85% of white soldiers thought it was a good idea to have separate service clubs in army camps ... While smaller, these racial polls share some common questions with the DADT survey. In fact, in some instances one can even replace “negro” for “gay” and end up with today’s questionnaire."

Given this great history of biasedly worded polling (not to mention that CBS has polling has proven the language used in the military push poll this time around will bias results) what is the point of the survey? Only 7% of troops supported integration and they did it anyways. Its a 4.5 million dollar survey for something they are planning to do regardless of the results. Seems like a waste.

7/23/2010 5:46:31 PM

^ Are you ignoring my post?

7/23/2010 5:51:06 PM

Quote :

"I'm more concerned with some asshole acting like this guy:"

They shouldn't let blacks or women in the military because I'm concerned about someone acting like this:

or this:

Quote :

"Why does Barack Obama hate gay people?"

Yeah, we all know how much Barack loves DADT

7/23/2010 6:07:20 PM

^ Obama must be okay with DADT--he hasn't put a stop to prosecutions and investigations while the DADT review continues. He has the power to do this right now and if you dispute this please do so now.

[Edited on July 23, 2010 at 6:14 PM. Reason : Not to mention that REPUBLICANS are fighting this. I'm sure some of you want to overlook this fact.]

7/23/2010 6:12:49 PM

^hold on, I'm going to jump to conclusions before I have any idea what's involved

no wait, I'm not a complete moron, I'll leave that up to you.

7/23/2010 6:16:00 PM

^ Does Obama have the authority right now to put a stop to prosecutions and investigations while the DADT review continues? Yes or no?

7/23/2010 6:19:05 PM

I must not have made it clear in the last post, I thought I did, maybe I need more bracket-b

I DONT FUCKING KNOW THE INS AND OUTS OF EXECUTIVE REVIEW LAW, I'M NOT A LAWYER, FURTHERMORE I'LL BE WILLING TO BET THAT OUTSIDE OF BIASED BLOG POSTINGS AND NEWS ARTICLES, YOU DO NOT EITHER.

7/23/2010 6:21:35 PM

^ Will you accept Time magazine as a credible source? From page 5 of this very thread:

Quote :

"Obama did pledge — as he has before — to end the Pentagon's 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy. But once again he said nothing specific about how he plans to do that and didn't acknowledge that he already has the statutory power to instruct the Pentagon that investigating service members' sexuality is not in the best interest of the armed forces. Also, he said that gay relationships can be 'just as real and admirable' as straight relationships, but he did not say gay couples should be treated equally. Obama, after all, still opposes equal marriage rights."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929687,00.html

7/23/2010 6:29:26 PM

Quote :

"hold on, I'm going to jump to conclusions before I have any idea what's involved no wait, I'm not a complete moron, I'll leave that up to you."

7/23/2010 6:30:26 PM

^ Will you accept Time magazine as a credible source? From page 5 of this very thread:

Quote :

"Obama did pledge — as he has before — to end the Pentagon's 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy. But once again he said nothing specific about how he plans to do that and didn't acknowledge that he already has the statutory power to instruct the Pentagon that investigating service members' sexuality is not in the best interest of the armed forces. Also, he said that gay relationships can be 'just as real and admirable' as straight relationships, but he did not say gay couples should be treated equally. Obama, after all, still opposes equal marriage rights."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929687,00.html

7/23/2010 6:32:33 PM

I think we're in a loop here...

7/23/2010 6:34:44 PM

^ You could stop it by simply answering the question. I mean, do you not accept Time magazine's assertion?

7/23/2010 6:46:31 PM

I did answer it, I have no idea what's involved.

7/23/2010 6:49:00 PM

^ Then how can you accuse me of jumping to conclusions when I based my opinion, in part, on the Time magazine article that I posted months ago and posted again for you?

The truth is obvious: I didn't jump to any conclusions. Barack Obama has betrayed most of his constituency by either flip-flopping on or not fulfilling numerous campaign pledges. And the more I draw attention to this indisputable fact, the angrier everyone gets with me--but not him. It's damned peculiar.

7/23/2010 6:58:25 PM

You have no idea what is involved regardless of what magazine you read. Do you really think reading one sentence from a magazine makes you an expert on this subject?

7/23/2010 7:28:31 PM

Quote :

"The truth is obvious: I didn't jump to any conclusions. Barack Obama has betrayed most of his constituency by either flip-flopping on or not fulfilling numerous campaign pledges. And the more I draw attention to this indisputable fact, the angrier everyone gets with me--but not him. It's damned peculiar."

Insofar as the topic of this thread, I agree with hooksaw's above statement. Obama is not a "fierce advocate" for repeating DADT. He is doing reasonably okay with extending rights to gays, but they amount to piecemeal and modest steps. The big items (DADT, DOMA, etc.) loom.

7/23/2010 7:52:24 PM

Quote :

"^ Are you ignoring my post?"

If you look at the time stamps, you'll notice we posted a little over 3 minutes apart. I was typing my post the same time you were doing yours. I left to go meet someone to see Inception immediately after clicking post. I had what google maps calls a 15 minute drive, but in rush hour traffic is actually a bit longer, to get from my place to the movie which started in 18.5 minutes from when I hit post, which considering line waiting time was something of a stretch. (I sat down in my seat about 3 seconds before the first preview began)

All this to say, no, I was not ignoring you post, but thanks for assuming the worst.

I just didn't see it because you hadn't posted it yet when I clicked reply to topic. Yes, I think the President is not doing enough. But I also recognize he has done more speeches calling for the end of DADT than Bush ever did, and more than President McCain & Vice President Palin would have ever done considering McCain still opposed DADT repeal.

7/23/2010 10:14:34 PM

^^ and ^ I appreciate the responses by both of you. And I understand your positions.

I want to be clear: I simply wish to point out the reality of Obama vs. the myth and/or hope of Obama and his rhetoric. I'm not suggesting that you have an epiphany because of some Obama flip-flop I post here and go running to join the Log Cabin Republicans! I realize that you feel you don't have an alternative to Obama concerning DADT--and you're probably right.

Concerning McCain, as I've posted numerous times here, he was barely my guy in '08 and I held my nose and voted for him--I wish I had other options. But let's face it, even though you may like Obama's words and the direction he appears to be going on DADT, the fact is that the DADT policy is currently being enforced--gays and lesbians, some that we desperately need, like Lt. Dan Choi, an Arab linguist, are being discharged from the military right now. The fact is that what is happening is exactly what would be happening if McCain were president--there's no difference to Choi and others like him.

And I would like to add that Republican gay rights groups are fighting DADT, too. This is a fact that gets conveniently brushed aside as some here and elsewhere rush to call Republicans homophobes or racists or some such. Those ignoring gay conservatives and their efforts on DADT are living in the murky world of their own old talking points.

[Edited on July 24, 2010 at 4:15 AM. Reason : PS: Hope Inception was good. It must've been--saw that it's passed the $100 million mark. ]

7/24/2010 4:09:39 AM