The Pentagon’s transformation on gay soldiers
It hasn’t been that long ago — about 16 1/2 years — since Bill Clinton’s relationship with the Pentagon was permanently warped by his efforts to keep a campaign pledge to allow gay men and women to serve openly in the United States Armed Forces. The outcry from the military and its supporters was such that you’d have thought Clinton had promised to make Hillary a four-star general.
Looking back on all that, it’s nothing short of remarkable that the current issue of Joint Force Quarterly, a scholarly publication put out by the Pentagon, includes an essay that calls for ending the ban on allowing gays to serve openly. In fact, the essay, written by Air Force Col. Om Prakash, who currently works in the office of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition.
That doesn’t mean every military officer supports his point of view. Indeed, inclusion of the essay in a Pentagon publication is hardly a stirring endorsement of gay soldiers by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Nor does it suggest that the discriminatory and destructive “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy can be dropped without controversy. Already, certain mossbacks are gearing up for another tirade against gay soldiers, despite Prakash’s conclusion that dropping the ban wouldn’t have a negative effect on combat readiness.
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, has already prepared her talking points. “Society may have changed but the need for good order and discipline has not changed,” said Donnelly, who opposed allowing gays to serve openly in 1993. (Donnelly’s think tank is private; it is not affiliated with the Pentagon.)
But inclusion of the essay in a journal with a Pentagon imprimatur does show that top military officers no longer view the subject of gay soldiers, serving openly, as a non-starter. The battle for full equality for gays and lesbians has come a long way in a relatively short period of time, even in the nation’s most tradition-bound institution.
Citing studies that show the financial impact of just ten years’ worth of “don’t ask, don’t tell” as between $190 million and $363 million, Prakash concludes that the policy is “a costly failure.” However, he believes the biggest cost lies in the way the policy undermines a fundamental military tenet, integrity. “A law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of ‘equality for all,’ places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve.”
Prakash’s essay gives scholarly authority to a conclusion that many military officers had already reached. Last November, 104 retired military leaders signed a letter calling for an end to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, supports dropping the policy. And Colin Powell — who, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Clinton, was among those opposed to allowing gays to serve openly — has called for a review.
While Prakash notes that some soldiers would undoubtedly react poorly to a change in policy —”Disruptive behavior by anyone, homosexual or heterosexual, should never be tolerated,” he writes — those cases might turn out to be rare. After all, many soldiers, sailors and marines are young adults who are less likely to view homosexuality as their elders do. “The average 18-year-old has been around gay people, has seen gay people in popular culture, and they’re not this boogey man. . .” said, Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
With wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s frustrating that the military still enforces a policy that punishes brave men and women who want to put their lives on the line for their country. But the tide is turning. Don’t ask, don’t tell will be abolished, assigned to the dust bin of history alongside “colored” water fountains and waiting rooms.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
112 comments Add your comment
El Jefe
October 9th, 2009
5:16 pm
As with allowing women to server with men during boot camp and in combat, there will be trouble.
Only in the Marine Corps do the women train separately.
Truth
October 9th, 2009
5:53 pm
Having retired from the military. I can honestly say that anyone working in the Pentagon is out of step with the troops. They are primarily political animals trying to advance their careers. That’s why it is known as the Five-Sided-Wind-Tunnel.
Anyone publishing “juried,” scholarly articles are even more suspect.
Reality Check
October 9th, 2009
8:31 pm
It’s always amazing to me how folks who never have served, choose to use the military for social engineering. The broken glass for doing this upset the good order and discipline of many units.
Tom Middleton
October 9th, 2009
10:09 pm
Cynthia, if it weren’t for Blacks, Southern Whites, Filipinos, and Mexicans, there wouldn’t be a United States military, and they all get along just fine. For everyone’s survival and success of their common mission, they figure it out and do extremely well.
But there’s a huge secret everyone sort of suspects but no one wants to talk about openly: There have always been gays and lesbians in the military as well, and they have always served willingly and bravely with the same patriotic fervor of everyone else. (Note to gay-bashers: This “patriotic fervor” is something we all have, not just gays and lesbians. Let’s hope so anyway.)
So where’s the problem if we just face up to reality and realize that “patriotism” has nothing to do with skin color, gender, national origin, and now sexual orientation? There isn’t one because it’s always been this way, and it won’t be changing anytime soon because of some backward thinking, self-loathing military officers, enlisted men, or retirees.
If I told you that George Washington was gay, would you believe me? Well, didn’t he love the men in his army more than most husbands love their wives? Well, that’s what the history books very strongly suggest – the principal reason he was able to hold his rag-tag army together long enough to beat off the British who kept coming!
And what if I told you that every single gay and lesbian in the military today is not only capable of that same kind of spiritual love toward those with whom he or she serves and their common purpose, but already has it, would you believe me then?
Like I said, it’s always been this way, whether we can recognize it or not. And when it comes to gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, it’s time. In fact, it’s always been time!
Kamchak
October 9th, 2009
10:25 pm
And when it comes to gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, it’s time. In facy, it’s always been time!
Amen–or as Episcopalians say—-so say we all.
Kamchak
October 9th, 2009
10:29 pm
fact–the word is fact–not facy. Geez…
snort
October 9th, 2009
10:31 pm
“Anyone publishing “juried,” scholarly articles are even more suspect.”
Ah yes…anti-intellectualism at its best. Obviously, educated people who do research on specific topics are less qualified to discuss them than random people who only have opinions. That just makes sense!
Truth
October 9th, 2009
10:32 pm
Tom,
Do you have any data to substantiate your demographic profile of today’s military (Blacks, Southern Whites, Hispanics and Filipinos)? How do you know if someone is a self-loathing officer, enlisted or retiree?
Truth
October 9th, 2009
10:42 pm
snort,
I don’t know, but I’m thinking you missed the context in which the comment was made. If someone is going to set policy, I want them to have been in the field and have the best interests of the mission at hand in mind. It has nothing to do with anti-intellectualism.
Those that can’t; teach. Those that can; do. Now that’s anti-intellectualism.
snort
October 9th, 2009
10:51 pm
mmm…Truth.
For one, the Journal in which the article was published is a premiere journal for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The institution that published it – the National Defense University, is a graduate-level school devoted to military education, specifically cross-branch education. It’s overseen by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It’s participants are almost exclusively high-ranking officers who have or are pursuing advanced degrees. So…they obviously have the best interests of the mission at hand.
However, that is really irrelevant, since what you SAID was “Anyone publishing “juried,” scholarly articles are even more suspect” I’m not sure how you can honestly claim that this statement is not an indictment of the Academy in general…there is certainly no mention of “the best interests of the mission”, either explicit or implicit, here. Nor is there any the rest of the text of your statement.l
Kamchak
October 9th, 2009
11:00 pm
Do you have any data to substantiate your demographic profile of today’s military (Blacks, Southern Whites,Hispanics and Filipinos)?
Google is your friend.
Let’s see if Ms. Tucker allows links.
TnGelding
October 9th, 2009
11:10 pm
Mossbacks? Good one!
Well, the real sexual problem in the military is hetero, and the Pentagon knows it. I remember feeling sorry for the “rainbow” squadron that consisted of enlistees in th USAF that had been culled out to be sent home for various reasons. They would press their faces aginst the windows as we marched by. Many of them should never have made it past the recruiters, but they had quotas to meet.
Let them serve openly, and expect all members to uphold the strictest sexual behavioral standards. Punish those that don’t equally.
TnGelding
October 9th, 2009
11:19 pm
How many are Southern whites? I think it has more to do with socio-economics than race. Of course the military tradition runs deep in some families. It’s certainly an honorable one.
Tom Middleton
October 10th, 2009
1:10 am
TN, Kam, and whoever else: This sounds kind of rude and I apologize beforehand, but what is it they say about the three kinds of lies? There are lies, damn lies, and statistics? I agree.
And if you don’t care for my general assessment of the military make-up, go in and check it out for yourselves. For those of you who’ve never been in the military, there’s no substitute for experience and seeing it up close and personal. It actually can be a very good thing.
And if you were in the military like me and still don’t agree, then try it again with your eyes open or try it sober. P.S. I’m a Southern White, and we all knows us when we sees us!!!!
Oh, and Truth, if you hate someone or something outside of yourself, it generally means you also hate that part inside, you use to identify with that someone or something. So when I say “self-loathing,” I mean that hatred is a double-edged sword which hurts everything it touches, but in this particular instance, it hurts the hater far more than that which is hated.
Bill
October 10th, 2009
2:42 am
We’re elevating every kind of immoral behavior under the sun to the status of normality as it is. So why not allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military openly?
EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP
October 10th, 2009
3:22 am
NOTICE AT LEAST THE GAYS AND LESBIANS GO OFF TO WAR TO FIGHT,WHILE THE SISSY UNDERCOVER GAY REDNECKS ALWAYS DUCK ANY MILITARY SERVICE,LIKE BUSH,CHENEY,RUSH(GAY)LIMBAUGH AND SUXBY SHAMELESS!
TnGelding
October 10th, 2009
4:02 am
Tom Middleton
October 10th, 2009
1:10 am
I more or less agreed with you.
Bill
October 10th, 2009
2:42 am
Sodomy is sodomy, be it between hetero- or homosexuals.
Jason
October 10th, 2009
4:10 am
The interesting thing is not one person has ever been able to provide evidence why a gay or lesbian person is unfit for the military. Prejudice and hate is the reason why gays cant serve openly.
clyde
October 10th, 2009
5:22 am
I served in the military long before don’t ask don’t tell and even then I didn’t ask,mainly because I didn’t care.I still don’t.I don’t care about your religion,either,so don’t tell me about that,I don’t want to know.
What does serving openly mean?Are you looking to hold hands with your buddy when you walk through the barracks?Is it this kind of openly?Or are you only looking for the openly where you walk up to every soldier in the company and declare that you’re gay? What are gays looking for here?What is openly? Why do you have this compulsion to declare your gayness when I really don’t care?Do you perhaps think you’re better than me?
There are no gays in my world at the moment.The ones that lived around here have lond since died of AIDS,and no new ones have appeared on the scene,and so far no laws have been passed requiring me to actively seek a gay for conversational purposes.I suppose that will change ,though.
There is a new law just passed which includes gays on some list of groups protected from hate crimes.That gives you more protection than I now have against the wrongs inflicted by the people of the world and I don’t care for that.I like equality,not special treatment.I’m open about that.
ck hall
October 10th, 2009
6:14 am
As America continues to lose it’s traditional values which made it great, why not add to that loss by openly supporting queers? These “new” values cannot be forced upon America!
Ben
October 10th, 2009
7:03 am
Amen, the homosexuals should remain in their closet and leave rest of us alone. I don’t know why radicals like CT continue to try push these perverts into the mainstream; they are not and will never be. I’m a combat veteran of the Panama invasion(Just Cause) and I speak for many in my generation(generation X 40+ years old) who don’t want this sickness and perversion to spread any further.
Bill
October 10th, 2009
7:32 am
This is not so much a matter of evolving moral values, but rather a steadily accelerating devaluation of morality. Those who hold themselves to the highest moral standards are now being maligned for it. And those who debase themselves by their unbecoming conduct are applauded for it. But decency is always worth pursuing whether anyone likes it or not.
Eric
October 10th, 2009
7:45 am
Clyde, CK, Ben, I really feel sorry for you. It’s true that hatred, in and of itself, harms the hater and has virtually no effect on the hated. You’re wasting that energy and poisoning your soul. I assume that you probably identify yourselves as Christians and that’s so hypocritical. What a shame.
Scarlett
October 10th, 2009
7:57 am
Fiddle-dee-dee. Gays, gays, gays. This gay talk is spoiling all the fun.
Del
October 10th, 2009
8:45 am
Accepted open homosexuality in the military is an ideological pipe dream on the hard left and among homosexual activists themselves. The good Col. Om Prakish’s views aren’t reflected among field grade officers and within the enlisted ranks. Up and down the chain of command or in other words those who actually fight the wars. See Truth’s comments. Obama, who has displayed considerable indecision on military matters, won’t be changing the current law of “don’t ask don’t tell” during his administration because he knows the political consequence and the extreme disruption it would cause in the military, particularly while we are engaged in a war. As long as it’s still the little guy with the rifle and the guts who fights for his own survival and who has to fight for the survival of others in order to make it himself, accepted homosexuality in the military won’t occur. It is interesting that some who purport to be veterans on this blog disregard all of this.
Donovan
October 10th, 2009
9:03 am
Gee, thanks for your liberating two cents, Comrade Tucker. We shall file it in the trash can of freedom to speak stuff. Don’t get me wrong…gays have a place in our society. We need them as interior decorators and floral design artists. However, common sense should tell you that we don’t need these type of people who march down our streets on their parade days dressed up like women or females dressed up like men protecting us in the military. Clever adversaries know that offering sexual inticements to gay people rack up far greater dividends than the offerings to hetrosexuals. Homosexuals are far more aggressive in their sexual patterns than straight people. It is was it is.
BlondeHoney
October 10th, 2009
9:21 am
“Self-loathing officer”? Truth, you sound like the typical union member in my company, always bashing management at every turn just because THEY are self-loathing and jealous of management. I am the very proud mom of an officer is the United States Navy and based on the intelligence you display in your comments, I have no doubt he is a far better person than you in every respect; he is something you obviously are not, and that is a true leader.
Ben
October 10th, 2009
9:27 am
I’ll bet you that Colonel Prakish is one of those career bureaucrats who’s been sitting on his behind turning out paperwork for the “peacetime” army and been co-opted by the homosexuals as their advocate and mouthpiece(no pun intended); because he definitely doesn’t write like a real world field commander who understands what a serious disruption his kind of policies would promote.
BlondeHoney
October 10th, 2009
9:28 am
Oh, and one other thing…you cannot be a leader and a hater. Which is what Truth, Donovan, Del, and others are. My son is not a hater…he is a leader of men and women in the United States Navy and their sexual orientation, to him, is irrelevant to performance. As it should be.
TnGelding
October 10th, 2009
9:46 am
ck hall
October 10th, 2009
6:14 am
Too bad we can’t all be perfect like you. We’re all human and deserve to be treated as such.
TnGelding
October 10th, 2009
9:51 am
God might not make any mistakes, but Mother Nature does. Why should they be forced by the majority to live less than full, rewarding lives? Live and let live.
Del
October 10th, 2009
9:56 am
BlondeHoney
I’m sure your son serves our country honorably and I’m also sure that as a good officer he knows that celebrating someone or some groups sexuality would most certainly have a damaging effect on morale, discipline and unit cohesion. He doesn’t concern himself with sexual orientation because it’s not a subject for discussion within the military and that is how it should remain. The homosexual community seems to have the need to flaunt their homosexuality that many inside and outside the military consider to be a perversion. The current don’t ask don’t tell policy was adopted to let homosexuals serve, so long as they didn’t flaunt their sexual orientation. BTW…thank your son for his service.
DannyX
October 10th, 2009
9:58 am
I have no problem reading the ugly posts by Ben, Donovan, Del and all the others. Their opinions represent a very small minority of the population now. As an older man, I have seen their views go from mainstream, to where we are now.
Where we are at now is really remarkable. Things will change, unfortunately for people like Ben, this change is right around the corner. DADT will be gone within a year or two, no question about it.
Keep it up Donovan! Have at it Ben! But do so knowing that a super-majority in this country now support gays serving openly. The latest Gallup shows that 70% of the American population now support gays serving openly. Heck even a majority of Republicans support repeal of DADT.
Its the likes of Ben and Donovan that are out of touch with the public.
Patrick
October 10th, 2009
10:04 am
The only people who comment on editorials are people that are incapable of forming their own opinions. This person’s entire job is to be “controversial” so you people will read her column and argue and fight. This so called “journalist” doesn’t care if you agree or disagree. She only cares that you read her column so she can keep her job. You people are really a very sad group.
And to clarify, I am commenting on the pathetic losers that comment on editorials, not the editorial itself. There is a difference.
What's good for the goose...
October 10th, 2009
10:16 am
In the interest of equality, we should do away with any gender separated facilities in the military. Because a hetro-sexual woman’s discomfort of showering with a straight male who might have a sexual attraction to her should receive no more consideration than a hetro-sexual male’s discomfort of showering with a gay male who might have a sexual attraction to him. Equal cuts both ways. And if everyone maintains strict sexual discipline, then there should be no problem.
BTW if you think gays can’t be good warriors or military leaders, consider that Alexander the Great–who conquered most of the known at the time–is accepted as gay by historians. A person’s ability to fight or follow orders is not determined by what gender they like to cuddle up with after the battle is over.
Bill
October 10th, 2009
10:19 am
It’s naive to think that deviant behavior will not effect performance and social cohesion no matter what form it takes, no matter what the social context. I think everyone has undesirable traits to some degree and most people, I think, work at overwhelming those traits with their better attributes in order to make a fitting contribution to the mission at hand. How then, will welcoming homosexuality into the military establishment contribute anything but additional strain on morale. Military life is stressful enough. Why burden it with yet another distraction? Soldiers are asked to deal with all sorts of abnormal situations, both in training for war and in waging it. What good could possibly come of making them work alongside individuals whose sexuality is also abnormal? It makes no sense no matter how ardently homosexuals claim to want to serve their nation. If they really wanted to serve their nation, they’d be satisfied with the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy already in place. I suspect that their vociferous campaigns to push the gay agenda on the military is merely an effort to assuage their conscience. Sadly, aberrant sexual behavior is one of humankind’s many moral failures. Demanding that our nation’s military embrace it is pure folly.
TnGelding
October 10th, 2009
10:20 am
Patrick
October 10th, 2009
10:04 am
So why are you wasting your time chastising us?
You’re wrong. We have our own formed opinions from many different perspectives based on decades of experience.
TnGelding
October 10th, 2009
10:23 am
Bill
October 10th, 2009
10:19 am
And heteros aren’t capable of engaging in deviant behavior? Give me a break. They are the much bigger problem.
Bill
October 10th, 2009
10:28 am
Looks like Patrick up there got himself sucked into this opinion column. He couldn’t help it. Poor “sad, pathetic loser”, to borrow some of his own vocabulary.
Bill
October 10th, 2009
10:29 am
Gelding, read it again.
DannyX
October 10th, 2009
10:43 am
Where are the facts?
Tell us the horror stories. There must be thousands of them.
How have gays serving openly negatively affected the armed forces of Israel? Great Britain? In fact most western countries have removed all restrictions.
I will be waiting.
TnGelding
October 10th, 2009
10:43 am
Bill
October 10th, 2009
10:29 am
They aren’t bringing homosexual activity into the workplace. They just don’t want to have to hide the fact that they are homosexual. The military is being asked to accept it, not embrace it.
Del
October 10th, 2009
10:53 am
DannyX
What you’re predicting with the DADT is, as the saying goes, the equivalent of “sh****G in one hand and wishing in the other” after you finish wishing and rub your hands together you still get doo doo all over your hands. No DannyX 70% of the American people do not support open homosexuality in the military, or for that matter any form of flaunted sexuality anywhere. The majority see the military as the defense institution it is that protects our security and don’t see it as a place for social re-engineering. i don’t see where the gelded one see’s heterosexuals as the real problem in the military or anywhere. That comment certainly comes from far out left field or from out of the closet.
DannyX
October 10th, 2009
11:08 am
There you go again Del. This is why I just love to read the comments here. Del you have not based anything on reality, not one thing. You have nothing.
I know this makes your head spin Del, but please try to follow here. Provide us with something tangible. Something real.
I have provided evidence, do the same. The last 2 national polls taken this past summer show strong support for gays serving openly.
Your assignment Del?
1. Show us the damage done to the armed forces of all those countries that have allowed gays to serve openly.
2. Find a recent poll that refutes the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans favor repeal of DADT.
You have nothing Del. History does not support you on this issue and the American people don’t either.
clyde
October 10th, 2009
11:25 am
Eric @7:45,
I don’t know where you get the idea that I’m a hater.I asked some questions and stated some facts.That’s not hating.Because I disagree somewhat with what’s going on with gays,that means I disagree.That’s all it means.
Bill
October 10th, 2009
11:27 am
Gelding, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is the acknowledgement you speak of. But legitimizing it in military service is tantamount to embracing it. Barracks life is no place for individuals to be openly gay, the workplace notwithstanding. The present policy at least prohibits gays from openly proclaiming their sexual preference and discourages them from openly displaying themselves as gay. If such behavior is to be acknowledged, then it must remain secretive for the sake of morale. The policy is a regrettable compromise and a retreat from the strict atmosphere of discipline required of military personnel. It has emboldened the gay community to push its agenda into areas it doesn’t belong. Our military community, charged with our nation’s defense, is the wrong place for it, much less for giving it equal status with natural sexuality. At the very least, make homosexuals pretend to be “straight” for the sake of the men and women with whom they must, at close quarters, associate. It’s a minimal concession in exchange for the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which gives them the opportunity to serve with their heterosexual counterparts.
Bill
October 10th, 2009
11:50 am
We’re all flawed. No question about it. But instead of sanctioning yet another form of immorality, i.e., homosexuality, we would do well to cultivate higher, not lower, moral standards. Who cannot but agree that a military that champions high moral behavior among its troops is militarily superior to other military entities? That gives us the crucial edge over our enemies more so than our advanced weaponry. When the best elements of our nation are put together, the American soldier is equipped to fight with effective commanders, effective weapons, effective tactics, and effective attitudes. It takes all of these to defeat our enemies and defend our homeland. Why would anyone want to weaken our moral standards yet more than they have already been weakened? They need to be strengthened. Homosexuality does not strengthen our moral backbone.
DannyX
October 10th, 2009
12:16 pm
Oh yes morality, another topic you ‘deep thinkers’ can’t get a grasp on. What an intriguing issue to bring up when discussing the military.
Take the Iraq war for instance. Nothing can justify the loss of life there. Sorry, despite all the changing stories on why we started a war there, this war is a far more a moral issue for soldiers and Americans in general than gays in the military. Not even close.
Thousands of US soldiers followed orders and were responsible for the killing of innocent victims, which of course is a part of every war. Somehow though our soldiers can’t handle being seen naked in the shower by a gay guy?
Does killing innocent Iraqi’s strengthen our moral backbone?
Bill
October 10th, 2009
12:48 pm
Oh, the poor, amoebic DannyXs of America. What will become of them? If only we had never suspended the draft, then maybe they could learn a thing or two about the world in which we live and how it operates.
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
October 10th, 2009
1:09 pm
Well, my small-minded so-called conservative friends, being next to a gay person or working with a gay person isn’t going to make you any gayer than you already are.
Bill
October 10th, 2009
1:15 pm
Trash: Is that how you got the way you are? I think you just made your own case against having homosexuals in the military.
Spartann
October 10th, 2009
1:26 pm
Hey Donovan….
I’m tryin to figure out if you’re a pius clergyman or terrified heterosexual ….
I’m an Interior Decorator and I can put together a real swell floral arrangement too……
After reading your post, I can guarantee you won’t rack up any dividends with Me…
So bat your lashes at Me all you want girl friend .. I just might have to take you out back and whoop your keister ….. Then drag you off to one of them parades you hate……. I like the floats the best, how bout you???…. …
DannyX
October 10th, 2009
1:38 pm
Bill @ 12:48, surely you can do better than that. Again, “Does killing innocent Iraqi’s strengthen our moral backbone?”
It’s not a question of Republican vs Democrat, conservative vs liberal, atheist vs Christian. It’s a question of morals.
Public Option Doing Swell
October 10th, 2009
1:56 pm
As pandemic flu continues to kill more Georgians where our political leaders on TV? No where to be seen. They can pop up over the slightest political trivia but when something actually begins to kill their constituents there is nothing from them.
Sonny Purdue, Issacson and Chambliss are completely silent.
Where is the new Surgeon General whose only tool is a bully pulpit? No where to be seen.
And has the Cox AGC written one editorial yet on the urgency of getting the H1N1 vaccine as it becomes available in your physician’s office this week (at least for people up to age 49 for whom the nasal vaccine is approved)? NO
Has the AJC written one editorial yet making it clear that people above 49 should get vaccinated with the shot as soon as it is available to them? No.
Has the AJC written one editorial yet making clear the location for free vaccination per Metro county? NO
Does the AJC write editorials all the time that don’t involve the thread of death like political endorsements? You betcha.
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
October 10th, 2009
1:58 pm
Now Little Billy, just because I’m one of the few guys you know that hasn’t had a sleep-over with your mommy doesn’t mean I’m gay.
Public Option Doing Swell
October 10th, 2009
1:58 pm
CDC: 76 children dead of swine flu as cases rise
Link not provided because Cynthia Tucker’s computer acumen resides in the stone age. Will she make sure her daughter learns what a link is?
ATLANTA — Health officials said Friday that 76 U.S. children have died of swine flu, including 19 new reports in the past week — more evidence the new virus is unusually dangerous for the young.
The regular flu kills between 46 and 88 children a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That suggests deaths from the new H1N1 virus could dramatically outpace children’s deaths from seasonal flu, if swine flu continues to spread as it has.
We’re well ahead of that already with H1N1.
Public Option Doing Swell
October 10th, 2009
2:01 pm
What in the world is it with you and liinks Cynthia? All those talking head shows you make sure to appear on use twitter, and links outside the Wazoo. Can you convey to us what you have against links? They’re useful. Bookman allows them. Wooten allows them. I wouldn’t waste a second reading the high school level Wingfield that you all pay.
What is your aversion to links? AJC uses them all over their website so why don’t you allow links on your comment section? A link puts a post in permanat moderation on your blog Cynthia. Wake up.
DannyX
October 10th, 2009
2:18 pm
Or gosh Bill, let’s play the moral armed forces game.
Four soldiers are talking, who gets kicked out?
A) Soldier “A” admits he had 3 DUI’s.
B) Soldier “B” admits to a felony murder conviction.
C) Soldier “C” admits a past felony sexual assault.
D) Soldier “D” admits that he has been in a same sex relationship for 18 years.
The answer of course is D. All the others can be granted waivers, they can openly discuss their felonies without fear of reprisal. Check out the list of whoppers you can get away with and still serve.
Another classic example of “morals” in the armed forces.
Public Option Doing Swell
October 10th, 2009
2:45 pm
The information that Craig Schneider and Sheila Poole printed in the AJC several times this week that at county health clinics no one would be turned away is wrong. They are following the CDC’s guidelines that come directly from the CDC ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunication Practices), and the public clinics will use age preference as to high risk groups first as supplies becomed available. Last week they were only offering the vaccine to individuals 2-4 years, their care givers, first responsders including police and fire people, and medical persoonel. Very few of those took advantage of that however–a dismally small number did.
What the AJC should make clear and hasn’t yet is that:
Last week county health clinics in Georgia had next to no parents or caretakers show up to get the H1N1 nasal vaccine for the 2-4 year olds and caretakers targeted.
This week, that vaccine will begin to arrive in physician’s offices, and shortly afterward as supplies allow it will be offered by CVS, Wallgreens, Walmart and stores with pharmacies, schools, possibly employers etc.
The Medimmune nasal vaccine does not have mercury derivatives in it contrary to right wing websites that are long on BS and short on any medical training whatsoever in infectious diseases.
It does not I repeat does not and cannot give an individual H1N1.
It has approximately a 1/34000 mild side effect profile which includes nasal congestion and fever as the chief symptoms and again 1/34000.
It takes 10 days to become immune because that’s how long it takes for antibodies to form in response to what is a live attenuated vaccine.
It is completely safe but ignoring it if you’re ages 2-49 is completely stupid since some cases result in death and a several weeks struggle to keep you alive. That’s not the vast majority or bell shaped curve of them fortunately, but deaths are picking up and have already exceed the seasonal flu deaths we see in children!
Soon after at the end of this week or possibly into the next week, the shot form of the vaccine will begin to be distributed. This is the vaccine for you if you are over 49 years of age or pregnant and you should check your county health department’s website or Georgia Department of Community Health’s (DCH’s) website for updates on when the shot which can be used for these two groups and for infants from 6 months up to 24 months.
If you are an adult and in target groups for higher risk for seasonal flu or H1N1 so called novel flu, you are urged to get the vaccine as early as you can, and you will be a preference in the public clinics offering it.
Infants under 6 months aren’t being vaccinated because immunity for them is conferred if their pregnant mother is vaccinated.
Having said this, Georgians will be right at the top unfortunately at ignoring this vaccine or refusing to get it, and I predict supplies in this state will be plentiful because of this. I also predict fatailaties will be toward the top of rankings as have developing cases here although I hope not.
So called political leaders could do a much better job of educating and urging people to get this vaccine. Over the years there have always been pictures of them getting this or that health procedure to set an example, but none are showing up now.
I have not seen one editorial in the AJC–the only large newspaper in Georgia– urging people to get the vaccine or educating them as to the facts surrounding it and what the relative indications are for the two forms of the vaccine for each age group as has been done above.
Del
October 10th, 2009
2:52 pm
DannyX
No offense intended but you can’t make my head spin and I only accept assignments that are profitable. I think you must at least be 20 something or 30 something, which means you should by now understand a good bit about human nature….the good the bad and the ugly. Homosexuality is perceived as strange and different by the majority of young American males serving in the military because the greater majority are predominately young heterosexuals and frankly can’t relate to your desire for open homosexuality because they don’t understand it and really don’t care to learn. Just not their priority. Young men in their late teens and 20’s comprise most of those serving in a combat infantry MOS or infantry support MOS. I’m sure you must have some inkling of this but men can and do get severely wounded in combat and that means they bleed. Blood to blood contact can and does spread HIV. How do you think an Army medic or Marine Corps corpsman would feel trying to stabilize a wounded trooper when his own open cuts and wounds are exposed to someone covered in blood laying on the battlefield who may be HIV positive. There is no way the military can test personnel frequently enough to guarantee the prevention of that scenario. Another scenario could be a squad or fire team leader who has a sexual attraction or relationship that causes that leader to avoid putting someone out on an LP or out on point both dangerous assignments in an already dangerous combat environment. The sex drive is strong and that could lead to favoring different troopers over others and that condition even if just perceived would lead to a serious breakdown in morale, unit cohesion and discipline. Those are just a few facts of the real world military that hasn’t changed and won’t change as long as you have young men carrying weapons into combat and putting their young lives on the line. I don’t know about polls that show with accuracy the attitude of American’s on this subject, however, the only poll I would accept as accurate is if a complete polling of all military personnel serving on active duty would be conducted. Of course I already know what the result of such a poll would reveal. I’ve served in the USMC both infantry and recon. I know it well and try as any group might the culture runs deep. I would suggest that you either enlist and see it all up close yourself or have the wisdom to just accept what you cannot change and on that final note I’ll just move on and let you have the last word.
DannyX
October 10th, 2009
3:36 pm
Of course Del what you spout is pure unsupported nonsense, confirmed by the Pentagon publication. You can pretend all you want.
When it happens, and it will happen soon, all armed forces personnel will be expected to do what they did when our armed forces integrated, follow orders.
Again, come up with some evidence our armed forces will be harmed. You all have presented a horrible case for not allowing gays to serve openly.
-Almost every country in the western world allows gays to serve openly. Not a single country has reported a problem, not one.
-The American public, by a super majority, favor allowing gays to serve openly.
-The “moral” argument turns out to be a joke.
-Our armed forces need them. Gays are serving NOW, by the thousands.
Del
October 10th, 2009
3:50 pm
Danny I know I’m reneging on the last word, however, you can still have it. I wasn’t talking about morality I was talking about reality. My question to you is why aren’t you serving? I’m not one who will celebrate your disappointment when your dreams are not fulfilled. Perhaps in the next 1000 years or when wars are no longer a reality.
Tom Middleton
October 10th, 2009
4:09 pm
Danny X@12:18: The answer of course is D.
Congrats, DannyX. You made the perfect objective argument, but $10 says they still won’t get it. There are those who believe in freedom for all people and those who don’t, and guess in which group they belong?
Maybe we should use some of the economic stimulus money to print up copies of the Declaration and Constitution to give them for bedtime reading.
That’ll give them something to do in their beds at night besides lie there imagining what others are doing in theirs. Thanks at least for trying!
Ben
October 10th, 2009
5:21 pm
DannyX
We’ll see just how much of a “super majority” supports allowing homosexuals to openly serve. I can tell you that a majority of the men that I served with oppose such an arrangement. I graduated in Ranger School class 10-88 and the “super majority” of those men opposed open homosexuals; most of them are in the middle-upper ranks of officers and non-coms(Colonels and above) today. The last time that I spoke with them was back in May at Ft. Benning at the Best Ranger Competition and the young men that they lead today are as opposed to it as I am.
Now it must also be stated that the Rangers, SEALs and Special Forces are part of SOCOM and they’re not going to tolerate such a change. Of course they’ll salute and say “yes sir” but believe me, such men will find a way around such a disruptive order even if it is forced upon them. They are adaptable on the battlefield and they will surely adapt to fadish civilians interfering and trying to disrupt their units.
Ben
October 10th, 2009
5:30 pm
Oh and Danny X, don’t put too much credence in Pentagon publications. Such publications are written by desk bound individuals who have probably never commanded troops in the field or even commanded a training company and don’t understand what goes into building a unit’s morale and cohesion. Also, Ft. Benning and the other actual field commands are a long way from the Pentagon dilettantes.
DannyX
October 10th, 2009
6:00 pm
Wow, Ben. It’s kind of a no-brainer that there will be some resistance, some of you will throw big tantrums and disrupt things. To think that those threats should halt progress on the matter is absurd. Just like every other change.
Look at the female ranks. There have been and still are reports of abuse and discrimination. Of course you also sound like the old segregationists that insisted Blacks would never be accepted. You are repeating ages old arguments.
Of course there will be those cowards that would rather quit than serve with openly gay soldiers. Sounds like those people and those that disrupt the process really aren’t that concerned with national security.
Sorry Ben. As we speak, President Obama has all the wheels in motion to set up the eventual repeal. People in power are now devising new policy. They are well aware of what they will face. Of course you know that those that oppose the the repeal of DADT have no vote in the matter.
In the long run this issue will be seen as a non-issue as it is in every other country that allows gays to serve openly.
Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York City, stated, “It’s a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.”
Of course there are those traitors that wish to weaken us by keeping gays out.
Del
October 10th, 2009
6:28 pm
Ben
Rangers are outstanding…Semper FI BTW….don’t forget about USMC USSOCOM we’re there too.
Kamchak
October 10th, 2009
6:31 pm
Tom Middleton
I wasn’t questioning your statements about the make-up of the military. I posted a link to show Truthiness boy that if he was interested in refuting your claim, he was sitting at a computer with a almost inexhaustible supply of data.
I’m with you–DADT has been a catastrophe as policy.
Ben
October 10th, 2009
7:05 pm
Oorah Marine, I’m glad there’s someone else on this board who understands the military culture and knows what a looming disaster this thing has the potential to become. Social engineering outsiders like DannyX think that they can just snap their finger and forcefully order our soldiers to accept their deviant ideas and immoral behavior but I’ve got news for them; you have to respect and accept the authority of those over you and if open homosexuals are appointed as command officers and non-coms over serving combat line troops==just imagine that picture and the unit disruption and chaos that’s gonna follow.
Oh and Danny remember that politicians blow in whatever direction the wind goes and I just don’t think that the President is willing to spend the political capital to force this thing through. But we will see.
Ben
October 10th, 2009
7:17 pm
If there is a legal change, it will have to originate in Congress and I just don’t see those guys changing that law because when they recess before Christmas everything after that will be a reelection consideration. But the President has it within his authority to change military policy for his term and the next president can change it back.
What do you think, Danny?
DannyX
October 10th, 2009
7:19 pm
you have to respect and accept the authority of those over you and if women are appointed as command officers and non-coms over serving combat line troops==just imagine that picture and the unit disruption and chaos that’s gonna follow.
you have to respect and accept the authority of those over you and if Blacks are appointed as command officers and non-coms over serving combat line troops==just imagine that picture and the unit disruption and chaos that’s gonna follow.
you have to respect and accept the authority of those over you and if open homosexuals are appointed as command officers and non-coms over serving combat line troops==just imagine that picture and the unit disruption and chaos that’s gonna follow.
NEXT
Tom Middleton
October 10th, 2009
7:22 pm
Ben
I think most soldiers in the heat of battle are concerned about only two things: Are they and the others in their unit alert and do they know how to ready, aim, and shoot straight. And since these have nothing to do with their mommies standing them in front of the toilet and teaching them how to pee, then wee-wees have nothing to do with it.
If you can look at a well-trained, highly motivated soldier and all you can see is a homosexual, then you’re the one with the problem, my friend, and in my opinion, the Rangers (and all the rest of us) are much better off that you’re out!
Tom Middleton
October 10th, 2009
8:06 pm
Kam
I’ve got it and thanks mucho!
Del
October 10th, 2009
8:12 pm
Ben
I took some time to grill and eat a steak. You may recall the steak, eggs and french fries before an operation. We sometimes called it the last supper because we new that something was going down. I can’t believe the p**S complected sh** t that pretends to know the personalities in a combat unit and rant because of their petty ideology, while we have our people fighting and dieing . Can’t stand it…I’m out.
Jack
October 10th, 2009
8:30 pm
I have it on pretty good authority that Hillary really will become a four-star general. And that will solve all the military problems.
Joan
October 10th, 2009
8:44 pm
Well I guess you have to ask, or someone has to tell, if you are to get your ration of sexual relations while in the military. Maybe the answer is to just avoid the whole question, and allow homosexuals to wear a pink ribbon on their helmet–kind of a quiet message to those who care.
Ben
October 10th, 2009
10:06 pm
Tom, you are right about the “heat of battle”; but the heat of battle doesn’t happen often for the majority of soldiers but once maybe twice in their lifetimes and the rest of the time is spent at the barracks and being in the peacetime army. Right now the peacetime military doesn’t tolerate open homosexuals.
As far as me being out; it doesn’t matter because the fighting “majority” believes as I do they just can’t say it because they’ve been ordered not to and that includes the mosquito wing private up to the most senior 4 star general(remember what happened to the general who called Clinton a draft dodging womanizer) . So push it if you want to but prepared for a hard push back.
Tom Middleton
October 10th, 2009
10:08 pm
Pink is about breast cancer these days, Joan. Maybe you should choose another color…or not!
Ben
October 10th, 2009
10:45 pm
Oh and don’t get too worked up about it the President can promise the moon but Congress is going to have to deliver and I just don’t think they’re going to stick their necks out.
Tom Middleton
October 10th, 2009
11:25 pm
Ben
Of course, Ben, change never comes easy. And in the military, sometimes the easiest (least difficult) way to bring change is to put leaders into position who understand the battlefield power of diversity.
If every soldier who volunteered was perfect, then we wouldn’t have to worry about it. All we’d need to do is put them in uniform when they enlisted and point them at the enemy.
But since every individual who might come under your command brings his or her own strengths and weakness, it becomes your job, not to destroy their motivation, but to build on it by increasing the strengths and eliminating as many of the weaknesses as military training will allow.
As since you were talking about adapting and improvising on the battlefield – what the unit is trained to do more of than anything else – then as their leader, you must become aware of who you have in your “talent pool” of soldiers.
For instance, who in your unit do you have that might go well beyond the call of duty to save the rest when all else has failed and disaster is looming large. Ben, I would be very surprised to find out you hadn’t done this at some point in your career.
And if you have, I’ll bet you’ve recognized that such bravery goes well beyond skin color, national origin, or anything else that used to be considered unwelcomed problems in the military. And all I’m suggesting to you, Sir, is that by eliminating gays as somehow bad soldiers because of your concern for unit morale and cohesion, you’re eliminating a whole group of people capable of being just as brave as you and everyone else.
What do you care what kind of person saves your life if you’re able to get back home to those you love the most. (I’ll bet you’d even pat that pink ribbon Joan sarcastically wants to put on their helmets.)
Ever heard of Alan Turing? He was a British citizen during WWII who was instrumental in breaking the Nazi code and saving thousands of men and women – men just like you, Ben, and those with whom you’ve served for so long.
Yes, he was gay and a true hero who was arrested for just being gay after the war, humiliated, and who ultimately committed suicide as a result.
So here’s my serious question to you, Sir: Would you have allowed Mr.Turing to serve under your command if you knew he was homosexual but otherwise qualified. His impeccable spirit was about doing the impossible, and he did exactly this and saved countless lives. Would you have welcomed him in your unit as a valuable asset or made him go away?
Ben, please don’t answer this if you don’t want to. All I ask is that you think about it a little, that’s all.
TnGelding
October 11th, 2009
1:15 am
Very persuasive agrument.
Bill
October 11th, 2009
2:07 am
There’s no question that a homosexual may be capable of carrying out his duties militarily, but the baggage homosexuality carries with it can’t justify tolerating that kind of liability in the ranks. The gay people are a minority but not of equal status with issues of gender or of ethnicity. There is nothing unnatural about being male or female, or of being a member of a particular minority ethnic group. Homosexuality, on the other hand is highly unnatural and must be understood as such. Homosexuals enjoy special rights as it is that take into consideration their unnatural demeanor. There are so many more heterosexual men and women who are willing to serve honorably that the loss of the homosexual element would hardly be noticed, Indeed, it would not be missed at all. Our military and our nation have much too much at stake as it is than to have to make yet more special concessions to accommodate a small and aberrant minority. Let them show their patriotic spirit, if they have one, by buying US Savings Bonds or something. Pushing their agenda on our military is not patriotism but an attempt to contaminate yet another institution with their indecent ideals.
Tom Middleton
October 11th, 2009
3:10 am
Bill: Our military and our nation have much too much at stake as it is than to have to make yet more special concessions to accommodate a small and aberrant minority.
Hey Bill, change is coming to the military. DADT is going bye-bye for good, and that “aberrant minority” you keep talking about is going to be just you and a few other insanely prejudiced people left wondering what went wrong.
If you’re in the military, Bill, it’s time to get out. If you’re out, then play it really, really smart for a change and don’t go in. Oh, and you can tell the gay recruiter I said that WE won’t be needing YOU in our “new and best military there has ever been,” OK? Tootles….
Tom Middleton
October 11th, 2009
3:24 am
Thanks, TN. That means a lot coming from you!
Gawingnut
October 11th, 2009
8:17 am
EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP
October 10th, 2009
3:22 am
NOTICE AT LEAST THE GAYS AND LESBIANS GO OFF TO WAR TO FIGHT,WHILE THE SISSY UNDERCOVER GAY REDNECKS ALWAYS DUCK ANY MILITARY SERVICE,LIKE BUSH,CHENEY,RUSH(GAY)LIMBAUGH AND SUXBY SHAMELESS!
Right! Just like Bill Clinton, too!!!
By the way; GWB had 336 hours as PIC in an F-102 Delta Dart in the National Guard. How many aircraft can you fly, tough guy???
Del
October 11th, 2009
8:40 am
Well according to reporting in the media B.O.danced merrily last night at the fairy gathering only delivering a well scripted speech probably aided by teleprompter. The homosexuals didn’t hear what they wanted to hear and guess what, they won’t. Their dear leader views them only as a voting block and he knows full well that he can continue dumbing them down with promises that he has no intention of keeping. So Tom, gelding, Danny have a great day.
Ayn Rand Was Right
October 11th, 2009
8:55 am
Equality is much more a right than healthcare or welfare. Who cares who you love, if you do your job. No more “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, it is government sanctioned discrimination.
Ayn Rand Was Right
October 11th, 2009
8:57 am
Bill – you sir, are an idiot.
Tommy
October 11th, 2009
9:34 am
Cynthia, what is the next bunch of crap you are going to insist to be foisted upon normal folks?
Isn’t something that cannot reproduce in nature referred to as “unnatural?
clyde
October 11th, 2009
10:03 am
I still don’t know what serving openly is going to mean.Any input out there?
joan
October 11th, 2009
10:11 am
The bottom line is that the barracks-mates will decide what is right here. You can make any kind of law, but it will be enforced only so much. So, until gays outnumber straights in the barracks, they will just need to deal with whatever censure their actions bring upon them.
Del
October 11th, 2009
10:31 am
Clyde I don’t think it’s going to mean anything. At this point it’s more a question of what the homosexual community wants or expects. I don’t know maybe being able to parade around on and off base in their panties like the gay pride demonstrations in S.F and NYC. Maybe having sleep overs with boyfriends from other units playing drop the soap. Maybe during Troop Reviews when the command is given to present arms. Who knows!! It does seem foolish to want to openly flaunt sexual behavior of any form.
Ayn Rand Was Right
October 11th, 2009
10:48 am
Clyde – Serving openly means that you cannot be dishonorably discharged because someone produces letters you have written, sees you going into a gay bar, or living with a partner (off-base). Currently the issue is that great soldiers are dishonorably discharged because someone produces evidence that they are gay. This evidence does not need to have any involvement whatsoever with their service, because currently being gay is enough to be thrown out. These American citizens who fight for our countries freedoms, merely want the freedom to practice their preferences without fear of losing their ability to earn a living at the career of their choice.
I am certain that prancing around (or butching for that matter) in a base parade would be forbidden by the service, no differently than it would be for strait members of that particular community. The military takes a strong stance against being disruptive no matter who you are.
Equal rights now…do not force your religious beliefs on others. We have a right to freedom of (and from) religion, allow others to practice freedom from yours.
DannyX
October 11th, 2009
11:08 am
Tom, I too applaud your 11:25. Its exactly why I enjoy reading this blog. Reading the pro and con on this issue shows just how lacking those who are opposed to gays serving openly are in their arguments. If I may borrow from one of your posts, “Thanks at least for trying!”
Contrast that with Joan. Wow, some very intelligent thoughts there Joan. You know the Nazi’s made homosexuality a felony. They shipped off thousands of convicted gay “felons” to concentration camps. Too bad for the gays in Germany, the Nazi’s used Joan’s theory “… until gays outnumber straights,” and Joan’s labeling method, instead of “pink ribbons” gays were forced to wear pink badges.
Don’t worry Bill, those “sexual deviants” as you call them didn’t get off easy when the war ended. Nope WE shipped the gays that were in the concentration camp off to prisons in Germany where they spent another 20 years.
DannyX
October 11th, 2009
11:21 am
Then we get that gem from Del! Wow, I never thought of typing out the taunts of school children on a blog. “Drop the soap.” tee-hee.
Pink ribbons, soap dropping, phony morals and parades! I can’t wait to hear your arguments when the Congressional hearings start.
clyde
October 11th, 2009
11:25 am
Ayn Rand Was Right,
Thank you for your input.Not being gay,I don’t know the problems they face.If they’re being thrown out of the service because they’re gay,that’s not right.It needs to change.
joe matarotz
October 11th, 2009
11:32 am
It’s comforting to the gay community to know they have the full support of President Jimmy Carter II. Nothing will be done, though.
Ayn Rand Was Right
October 11th, 2009
12:00 pm
Glad I could shed some light Clyde. It’s truly a travesty that we actively pursue the denial of rights to American citizens in today’s world. Especially when we abuse our inalienable rights to do it.
Bill
October 11th, 2009
12:42 pm
An idiot, if that’s what I am, being by definition a person of deficient intelligence, is at least not a deviant. If given a choice, I’d rather be the idiot. They have little control over their behavior. It’s not their fault. Most of the ‘idiots’, as you call them, that I have encountered are harmless. They are to be pitied and treated with compassion, not detested, as some of you have demonstrated. Of course, mental deficiency isn’t a choice, but homosexuality begins with a decision. I am willing to bet that somewhere beyond that point it becomes an addiction. I don’t want to see homosexuals suffer the fate of those caught in Nazi Germany’s Arian fervor, as one of you have suggested. But I would be negligent if I didn’t oppose their attempts to advance their cause even if I did find myself to be in the minority. I don’t take my cues from any majority, but rather from my conscience.
Sparring with you of the opposite side of the ‘debate’ has been a disappointment. In fact, yours is not a debate at all, but a frenzied shouting match of insults and defectively coined arguments. There’s no benefit or opportunity in reasoning with that kind of attitude. You have convinced yourselves in a fog of confusion. Not with carefully crafted ideas. Rather than applying yourselves to the rigors of reason, you applaud one another and praise each other’s sarcasm. Your minds are subsequently shut tight and the workings inside your heads are embarrassingly crude and predictable. I’d take the mind of an idiot over that sort of mentality any day.
DannyX
October 11th, 2009
1:33 pm
Oh get off it Bill, you have been asked many times to defend your position in a fair rational manner. You chose to ignore the many arguments against your position. You got absolutely clobbered on the moral issue. You got absolutely clobbered and chose to ignore the fact that just about every single western nation now allow gays to serve openly. (The feared Israeli army’s position is that it’s a non-issue.) You ignored the recent polls that show a super majority now favor allowing gays to serve openly. That same poll show a majority of Republicans also favor the repeal. You were given evidence on how major social change has happened in the past and our armed forces have adapted you chose to ignore it. You were given the results of a study and chose to ignore them. You ignored the question on why the Constitution and Declaration of Independence don’t apply to gays. You use your own personal emotion to describe gays as deviant even though every major scientific study says otherwise.
Your sides idea of crafted ideas? Lets see, pink ribbons, dropped soap, “sexual deviants,” the absurd “special rights” claim, troop parades, flaunting their sexuality, fear of aids even though there are thousands of gays serving now, fear of being seen in the shower, even though they shower next to gays every day, and a strange belief that soldiers make policy and law, and if politicians and officers change those laws and policies in its in your right to ignore them.
Your idea of “special rights” is to not allow a gay soldier to openly talk about their legally married same sex spouse back in Iowa, hide their letters, not post their pictures, and hide their phone calls. If you are from one of the many states that now allow civil unions better not wear your ring gay soldier, that’s one of your “special rights.”
I just read that kids are coming out at a very young age now. I guess it’s their “special right” not to be able to fight for their country in the future. It will be their “special right” to not enjoy the benefits the armed forces can provide, like a career or a college education.
Your idea of special rights for gays is a reward for lying and hiding who they are back in their civilian “free country” life.