Not just the party of no, the party of hell, no!

Should the economy turn for the better and not become a double dipped recession,Obama will be re-elected in 2012.The Republicans will be left out in the cold.On the other hand,should the economy refuse to turn,then Obama’s finished.That’s my take on the situation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred Barnes on Mother’s Day? EWWWW, Jay.

• Link
• Report this comment

So for the 8 years of the Bush Administration, did the Social Democrat Party ever say No?

• Link
• Report this comment

Happy Mother’s Day!

And to all you liberal women out there, Happy Whatever Day!

~~~~~~

bookman- Maybe this is above your pay grade, but Obozo was the #1 Most Liberal Senator during his brief time in Congress, what are you talking about with this “strategy?”

We could could become aisle reaching moderates and meet you half way, we would still be 50% better than the democrat party.

It is not a strategy to act on your beliefs, it is what you are expected to do.

And I expect that Obozo will implement his full fledged marxism the first chance he gets.

What right minded Conservative would not oppose that?

• Link
• Report this comment

So you Bush haters always pop up and describe, like Jay the drone, his presidency as “failed”.

Just what exactly did he fail at?

He led us toward the path to victory when the rest of the world turned away in shame from the genocide and brutality being conducted by a madman on a daily basis, by seeing to his removal and the establishment of a permanent democracy in Iraq – no failure there.

He was relentless in pursuit of the terrorists after 9/11 – no failure there, unless of course you are a rollover simpering lap dog democrat, who supported the war on terrorism immediately after 9/11 until elections rolled around, then you were against it. (see John Kerry…)

He gave us huge deficits as he spent money that he did not have, at a greater scale than any Democrat in history, spent on social programs and various entitlements, so the slobbering left should be happy with that and not describe that as a failure, should they? Do they feel that massive deficit spending is their venue and theirs alone?

Oh well, it may have been a very unpopular presidency, especially to the left, but failed? I think not. Rewrite your own life history if you want to Jay and claim that your massive personal successes are what brought you to this self-strangling and failing rag known as AJC.

You media people are really good at changing the facts to suit your little reality.

Maybe that goes a very long way in explaining why all of the left wing ‘media’ outlets are failing financially, and in a massive way as well.

Lets see you spin that little fairy tale into how it is not your fault … “it’s the internet, it’s access to news on an immediate and unprecedented way in global history, blah, blah, blah.”

Maybe it’s more like cartoon books – people merely got tired of reading outrageous fiction, and seeing a once proud venue become just another political lap dog.

• Link
• Report this comment

I happen to think that the only thing keeping Hope & Change from being re-elected is a full-fledged depression, or a major terrorist attack.

The dumbed-down electorate is too enthralled with the American Idol Presidency to vote out “Mr. Cool”.

Style over substance is the rule of the day for America.

And Gelding, America’s vibrant future is rooted in our PEOPLE, not our GOVERNMENT. We understand all too well what these policies of bailouts and lack of personal responsibility are going to do to this country. It is a shame that you libs don’t take a longer view instead of the instant gratification you need.

So chalk up a big, fat NO for me as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

Boy the whiners are out today.

I always wonder why people listen to right wing pundits, who have been proven wrong so many times. If you pay any attention at all to Barns, or Kristol, or Limbaugh, you deserve the failure that will inevitably come your way.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lines 3 and 4-

So if the Islamic lunatics are wiping out our large buildings, slaughtering and beheading innocent civilians, shouldn’t we be doing more unto them than just waterboarding?

Yeesh, what a simpleton.

• Link
• Report this comment

Check out this gathering of haters, extremists and idiocy-

Obama Likes Wanda Sykes Joke About Rush Limbaugh — ‘I Hope His Kidneys Fail’

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/336173.html

Let’s all pray this morning for these bozos, may the Lord take away their anger, hate and rage and give them some of the “hope” they say they long for.

• Link
• Report this comment

Just got my notice from the Social Security Administration that they will make a $250 deposit in my account during the month of May. Boy, am I ever relieved, and stimulated. Like peeing in the ocean and expecting a rise in the water. Policies you can believe in…. who wouldn’t say no. I’ll just use the money to pay my latest tax hike. It will end up in the pockets of those “more deserving”.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, Happy Mothers Day everybody. I’ll be taking the missus out to Ryans and I’m warning you not to be in the food line when she’s there. You might could end up missing some fingers.

The Rev. Postlewaite will be preaching about the godlessness of this Obama this a.m. down at the Church of Holiness. He’s for everything we’re against. Obama, that is. Anyhow, we got a Patriotic Duty to say no to helping out the bums and giving out free health care and going against Free Innerprize with Socialism. Anyhow, the Rev. Postlewaite does the best he can but he’s no Rev. Jim Bob Buice. The Rev. Jim Bob could give a real stemwinder against the librul Democrats but the state won’t let him around kids no more so we have to take the pastor we can get. Or else make the church Adults Only.

Anyhow, I’d like to know what choice Bookman thinks us Conservatives have but to say no. If we go along with Obama the librul Democrats get all the credit if things go right. And only part of the blame if things go wrong. And so, much as I’d like it to be diffrent, we’re going to be out in the wilderness anyway, so we have to hope the country goes to heck in a handbasket so we can say we told you so and get back into office and pass more Tax Cuts and get Trickle Down working again.

Well, like Bear Bryant use to say, call your Mama. I wish I could call mine. Have a good Sabbath everybody.

• Link
• Report this comment

I wish I could call mine.

Me too, RC. Me too.

• Link
• Report this comment

Is this another blatant case of crooks buying crooks???

“Two Georgia insurance companies with the same boss funneled $120,000 — nearly 10 times the legal limit — to Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine’s campaign for governor, records in Georgia and Alabama show.

“The documents show Oxendine, who wields regulatory power over all insurance companies in Georgia, took the money through 10 Alabama-based political action committees set up by Donald V. Watkins, a director of Admiral Life Insurance Co. of America and State Mutual Insurance. Both companies are headed by prominent businessman Delos “Dee” Yancey III and are run out of the same building in Rome
“

• Link
• Report this comment

Until you sheeple wake up, the R & D will continue to be elected.
There were at least two “different” parties in the late USSR too.
Goverment will never yield to justice, only to expediancy.
At least the brave youth of the former USSR had the US to use as an example. Who are we going to have, when people finally get enough of the corruptocrats?

• Link
• Report this comment

Happy Sunday, Mothers!

And a warm and peaceful Sabbath to our Christian frauds here.

Being adamantly opposed to BHO’s policies, as Mike notes, is no reason to get one’s panties in wad. Having honest differences in opinion over policy is good for our republic. And when there is intellectual compromise and basic integrity involved, the nation generally wins.

But this new and unimproved Republican Party goes far, far, far beyond that. For decades now they have tried to con people into believing they alone were the great moralists of our age. (Well to the extent they want to censor/banish everything not their cup of tea, yeah, I guess they are). The great forward looking visionists of the Republic. The defenders of our futures and the party that was going to protect us against all enemies foreign and domestic.

But the hard cold realities and results are VASTLY different than the endless romanticized rhetoric from a hijacked and languishing party, who is in the midst of an identity crisis whose bedrock is denial. And an utter lack of responsibility, personal or collective, in acknowledging their longstanding and ever-growing abysmal track record. (i.e. the first 7:37)

Will the GOP rally and get back to the point where it is again a viable party with intelligent men of honor carrying it’s banner? A party that can somehow promote the best of our historic traditions? And actual American conservatism rather than this half-baked sham?

Let us all hope so, for the reasons cited above.

But it is nearly written in stone now – as long as it is headed by these shameful corrupted frauds, deadly bungling chickenhawks and hyper-conflicted puritans, there ain’t no way in hell…

The GOP’s new theme song

• Link
• Report this comment

“HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY”!!!

Believe it or not, history is being written everyday in this “Great Nation”. This is a new generation “GENERATION JONES”!!! There have been several experiments/research dealing with people and how they have influenced change on all levels. Most American people are concerned about SURVIVAL and what’s best for their families and friends.

Four years from now, historians will write about how America turned the pages to a new way of “EXPRESSION” driven by “GENERATION JONES!!

• Link
• Report this comment

“I wish I could call mine.”

“Me too, RC. Me too.”

Same here.

No wife mother, mother mother, or even grandmother anymore. So I can work on the woodshed I’m building and come in here now and then to try and talk sense into these dang liberals.

For you all that are fortunate enough to be with your mothers today, make the best of it.

You never get used to a world without your mother in it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Joey,

“So who among us Jay-blog-members really believes that Jay wants the Republican Party to be revitalized and successful?”

A strong reasoned opposition party is in the best interests of this nation. Please note I quantified it with reasoned. Opposing something just for the sale of opposing is not reasoned and accomplishes little. Sometimes you need compromise, and sometimes you need unilateral control over an issue.

A weal ineffectual opposition party who decided to oppose everything regardless of merit is detrimental to the nation, because true discourse cannot be has, and true compromise when needed cannot happen.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R,

“America’s vibrant future is rooted in our PEOPLE, not our GOVERNMENT.”

I would submit our vibrant future is rooted in both. Our past successes are due in no small part to our system of government.

• Link
• Report this comment

In issues that effect minuscule portions of our population(sex rights, abortions, guns,……) the R&D party puts on a good show of partisanship.
The issues that effect us ALL(killing our kids through war, torturing, and stealing,expanding corruption) the R&D is remarkably non-partisan.
God, please save us from non-partisanship.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you think the Bush presidency was a “failed presidency” (and neither I nor any rational, thinkig person does) just wait for the stagnant growth and hyper inflation that will kick in in 2010 and after as the second half of the Obama Depression. Also, it is almost cetain that the US will be hit by terrorists after Obama eviscerated and demoralized the intelligence community.

• Link
• Report this comment

So, I thought there was supposed to be a conservative column starting up. Either I missed something or it didn’t happen. Maybe the check bounced? Or…April Fools joke?

km

• Link
• Report this comment

Whiner, the world would be much better off without you. You just suck.

• Link
• Report this comment

The country would be a whole lot better off if people of all stripes would just stand up for what they believe and let the chips fall. I think that’s what the general public does on the whole. The politicians might be better off if they followed our lead instead of spending their whole lives trying to “position” themselves. I just believe what I believe; sometimes it’s popular and most times it’s not. So be it.

• Link
• Report this comment

jt @ 11: 12,

Yes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Susan-
Your candor is refreshing.

• Link
• Report this comment

یکدیگر با روح برادری رفتار TAXPAYERافراد بشر آزاد به دنیا می‌آیند و از
افراد بشر آزاد به دنیا می‌آیند و از دید حیثیت و حقوق با هم برابرند، همه دارای اندیشه و وجدان ADAM ANT?????

• Link
• Report this comment

Dogs Against Whiners- Whiner, the world would be much better off without you. You just suck.

Yeah, too bad my mom wasn’t a lib who would have aborted me, eh?

Since it is too late for that, all you can do is hope my kidneys fail, huh, POS?

• Link
• Report this comment

POS – more love from the faux Christian of the group…

• Link
• Report this comment

Swearing again on the sabbath. How many more commandments will you break today Andy?

• Link
• Report this comment

Ray @ 11:25,

I’m really enjoying my tax cut. If you don’t want yours, I’ll be glad to take it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Somalidawg… You make more sense when you write in Arabic or whatever!

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, you lost my attention after “donning his skirt and grabbing pompoms”.

You can’t make a reasonable argument without denigrating the right, can you? And you expect people to take you seriously?

I look forward to the day that the AJC is bankrupt and you are out on the street.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here you have a Republican party that gets trounced in the last two elections because the independent voters, the ones who actually determine the outcome of elections, have decided the Republican party has drifted too far to the right. As a result, they decide to push the party even farther to the right. Here we also have a Republican party that preaches fiscal responsibility, smaller government and individual liberty. Oddly enough, the only time you hear them talk about these issues is when the Democrats are in power. It might help their credibility some, if when they are in power, actually practiced what they say they stand for. Not to mention the fact that their tax cut, supply side economic policy has proven itself to be a failure. So, do we get anything new from the right? No, just more of the same. Stupid is as stupid does.

• Link
• Report this comment

There have been more historic shift elections over the last 100 years than the sort Barnes is suggesting. The period between 1900 and 1932 saw a total of six Republican Presidents and one Democrat(Wilson). 1932-1968 saw a period with 4 Democratic presidents and one Republican (Eisenhower). From 1980-2008 we had three Republican Presidents and one Democrat (Clinton). These shifts tend to occur during some period of upheaval of some kind. The 1900-1932 shift was largely over America’s role on the international scene. 1932-1968 started with the Great Depression, and kicked off the period of the growth of the middle class, and the cold war. The last period was the result of the middle class finally coming to full economic power in the United States and the end of the cold war. Now another period of economic crisis, if history repeats itself, will kick off another period in which one party wins most, if not all elections. This is really not a Carter presidency in which Carter inherited a large number of problems that came to a head during his administration. The only time we have seen these sort of single term presidencies where parties switch seem to occur during periods in which no great crisis, international or economic, seems to be occuring.

• Link
• Report this comment

No, the MRI or NMR had been around since the 1930’s used for chemical spectroscopy. The process still used a photographic process to capture the images. After NASA had developed the digitization of these images, using another device enhanced for NASA. the “Charge Coupling Device” MRI images were captured through a digital process and in 1970, a doctor used thus device for the first time for medical purposes:

Felix Bloch and Edward Purcell, both of whom were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1952, discovered the magnetic resonance phenomenon independently in 1946.

In the period between 1950 and 1970, NMR was developed and used for chemical and physical molecular analysis.

In 1971 Raymond Damadian showed that the nuclear magnetic relaxation times of tissues and tumors differed, thus motivating scientists to consider magnetic resonance for the detection of disease.

In 1973 Magnetic resonance imaging was first demonstrated on small test tube samples by Paul Lauterbur.

In 1975 Richard Ernst proposed magnetic resonance imaging using phase and frequency encoding, and the Fourier Transform. This technique is the basis of current MRI techniques.

In 1977, Raymond Damadian demonstrated MRI of the whole body. In this same year, Peter Mansfield developed the echo-planar imaging (EPI) technique. This technique will be developed in later years to produce images at video rates (30 ms / image).

Edelstein and coworkers demonstrated imaging of the body using Ernst’s technique in 1980. A single image could be acquired in approximately five minutes by this technique.

http://www.med.nagasaki-u.ac.jp/radiolgy/MRI%20of%20the%20FOOT/MRI-CDNUH/nf-history.html

It was NASA that linked up the NMR CAMERA (still using photography to capture the images) to another NASA enhanced device, the “charged coupling device” (which is lies at the heart of every digital camera) to create much more enhanced DIGITAL image. Until this combination the MRI was virtually useless for medical purposes because it required long exposures, and fast ones as well. Essentially the first MRI’s had to take a movie of the body inside of them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lets put it this way. There is a good reason that we are hitching rides it space in Russian Soyuz Capsules and its largely budgetary. The X series was killed at the X-15, too expensive, before the project reached it last planned stage, the X-20, a hypersonic aircraft that went from the groud to orbit. We opted out with the space shuttle. Which is being abandoned for what is essentially a new series of capsules, a cross between the Russian Soyuz and the Apollo capsule, called Orion.

The simple problem of keeping humans alive for a mere week to go to the moon and back created many problems which needed solutions in almost every fied of science, but most important was the “human factors” part of the space program. Almost all of our current medical sciences are based on the need to figure out how to keep men alive when you essentially explosively blow them into orbit. The original idea was simply to create acombined jet and rocket aircraft that would use jets to get them to the top of the atmosphere, and when there was no oxygen left for the jets, rockets to boost them into orbit or beyond.

Again, it was budgetary, rather than scientific considerations that killed the take off from earth and land on it like a regular airplane that required the less optimal solution for doing this. We could have been to Mars and back by 2005 had it not been for the “What the hell are we doing sending men into space” crowd.

On the other hand, the Russians have already TESTED the equivalent of our planned X-20 Dynasoar. It is called the Buran:

The only orbital launch of Buran occurred at 3:00 UTC on 15 November 1988 from Baikonur Cosmodrome Site 110/37. It was lifted into orbit unmanned by the specially designed Energia booster rocket. The life support system was partially installed and no software was installed to run the computer display screens.

The Buran took off the same way the X-15 did. It was lifted into the stratosphere on the back of the largest aircraft ever constructed, Antonov An-225, and then flew into orbit under its own power. It was rendered inoperable when its hangar collapsed on it in 2002.

The shuttle orbited the Earth twice in 206 minutes of flight.[2] It performed an automated landing on the shuttle runway at Baikonur Cosmodrome where, despite a lateral wind speed of 61.2 kilometres (38.0 mi) /hour, it landed only 3 metres (9.8 ft) laterally and 10 metres (33 ft) longitudinally from the target.

The further development of the Buran was stalled, of course, by the Reagan ramping up of the cold war and his reversal of detante.

Many economists in the late 1960’s and 70’s predicted that without the need to spend enormous portions of their economy on the military, the Soviet Economy would pass the United States sometime early in the 1990’s and the Soviet system would be able to provide a better standard of living for its citizens than Americans enjoyed by 2005. It was this, more than anything, that instilled the Reaganesque return to the Cold War defense buildup.

It is often noted that the Soviet economy, from the 1930’s – 1960’s was seeing huge increases in GDP, many times greater than those in the western world. Of course it is often pointed out that there was a great cost in human life under rulers like Stalin, but it is rarely noted that during our own period of industrialization, from 1965 to 1919, there was pretty much the same sort of suffering and abuse of worker in the United States. A lot of workers died in the tenements and of health problems caused in the factories of the early American industrialists as well. There was really little choice in America when it came to earning a living. The industrialists of the American industrial revolution had just as much control over the standard of living of the average tenement dweller in America, and many who came to America, had a sense of being lied to about the “streets being paved with gold” but who had spent all they had getting here, with no means of returning home. Those who worked in our early factories probably didnt live better than those who worked in the industries of Soviet Russia, and didnt have much more choice than those who lived under the Soviet regime either. It was just as much “work or die” here as it was there.

We just had about a fifty year head start on the Soviets when it came to industrialization, and our economy had reached full industrialization by about 1919, a mere two years after the Russian Revolution. They had a lot of catching up to do, and they did it rather faster than we did.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bud Wiser

May 10th, 2009
7:37 am

Bush a huge success:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/857bstgi.asp?pg=2

• Link
• Report this comment

Lets put it this way. Before Obama, during the past 29 years, this nation has had 3 republicans as head of state, and one Democrat. Essentially during this period, America has been in a period of largely Republican ideas and ideals. Even Clinton had to move away from the more left leaning ideologies of the Democrats who preceded him and take on a centrist political philosophy. No matter what the leaning of any Democratic president, Republicans will assert that they are either leftists, or socialists, when in fact, most Democratic Presidents have been rather conservative Democrats. The recent head of the Democratic Party, was chosen almost every year in the “top five most fiscally conservative governors in the United States” by the Cato Institute virtually every year that he was governor. Yet Dean instituted the nations first state operated health care plan for all residents who did not have employer based health care, as well as presided over the nations first Civil union for gays legislation.

Republicans really do not do well when it comes to real economics. Their economic philosophy ignores the human realities of any economy. Its all paper and theory with them. Republicans look at a sick economy like an accountant would. Democrats look at a sick economy like a doctor would. Republicans insist that a sick economy will always heal itself. Democrats assert that there are times that an economy needs a doctor, medicine and sometimes even radical surgery. Sometimes its necessary to put the patient on life support. Other times, its necessary to cut away parts that no longer work.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, are you suffering from some kind of opiate dimentia? The Party of “Hell No!” was the Democrats in this country for 8 years. Don’t you get it you moron? The party that is in power always accuses the party out of power as beiing obstructionist. That is the way the politicians play you and everyone else in this country. You make an excellent parrot Jay. By the way, you are a hypocrit.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama will not necessarily be left in the cold if the economy does not turn around. The depression continued on well into FDR’s presidency he did not finally eliminate all the losses to the economy that occured under Hoover until well into his second term. By 1937, the economy had recovered all the losses incured in 1929, and while unemployment was still high, the economic indicators were such that the recovered economy would start lowering unemployment on its own. GDP had returned to the same levels they were on the day before the stock market crash of 1929, and once this occured, rehiring would soon follow, so FDR returned to the policies he started his presidency with, which was balancing the budget. As he started withdrawing from his New Deal programs, and started on a more fiscally conservative policy of balancing the budget, the economy slipped back into recession.

No matter what Obama does, the Republicans still have to offer something other than their tax cutting, trickle down theory of economics. Even if the economy has not recovered, Obama has a similar advantage to the one FDR had, in that FDR’s policy was that if he tried one thing, and it didnt work, he would try something else, oftentimes something very different than the first thing he tried. FDR in fact was the longest holdout on the advise that Keynes was giving him and his economic advisors. For his first year or two, FDR was a firm beleiver that all he had to do was balance the budget and the economy would fix itself. It was his economic advisors who first took to the ideas of Keynes. Roosevelt firmly beleived that increasing the deficit was no way to fix the economy. While he was a social liberal, he was a very fiscally conservative Democrat until he was elected to the presidency and had to see if that fiscal conservatism was actually effective. It wasnt,and Roosevelt was rather unlike Republican conservatives. He was rather willing to let go of his own assumptions and try someone elses when his own ideas were not proving effective.

Neither Reagan or Bush 43 had this quality. If one large tax cut didnt work, their answer was simply more of the same. Another income tax cut. When those didnt work, they raised other taxes, regressive taxes, rather than take the advise of their own appointees and raise the top income tax rates.

Obama will be seen trying one thing or another as one thing works and another fails. Obama still relied on income tax cuts, largely to the lower 98 percent, rather than a firmly Democratic increase in government spending for the wealthy. But it may be that if there is not a great improvement in the economy by 2012, it will largely be blamed on his relying too much on the idea of tax cuts, rather than more targetted government spending.

The Republicans will simply be offering to go back to their old ways, and this will not be enough to win them an election. They are going to have to modify some of their most core beliefs in order to convince the public to support them again and to trust them.

• Link
• Report this comment

oh Pogo,

why don’t you go jump on your stick.

funny how republicans always try to rewrite history.

• Link
• Report this comment

The realities of running government end up being different after you get into office, rather than afterwards. But when you listen to the Republican solutions, its more of a cookie cutter solution than real ones.

A lot of money is going out the door but when you look at Obama’s first budget and Bush’s last, much of the money going out the door is involved in taking care of the mess that Bush left behind.

Either or. The public can be tired of bailouts, but they would be more tired if two out of every three of them saw the their bank deposits vanish, or the huge amount of time it would take for the FDIC to pay them bank if these banks failed, and two out of every three dollars deposited in a bank in the United States, is in one of those banks that the government is bailing out. The amount of money the government would have to have FDIC pay back to those depositors would exceed, by many times, the cost of the bailout. The amount of money deposited in just TWO of the largest American banks exceeds the amount spent on bailing out 19 of them, with Bank of America having a bit less than 600 billion in deposits, and JP Morgan Chase having about 440 billion. Thats a trillion there. Wachovia has 315 billion, Wells Fargo, 263 billion, Citibank 210 billion, Washington Mutual, 202 billion. Thats getting close to 2 trillion in deposits. A lot of depositors to be paid back and thats just the six largest banks, what their deposits were before the economic crash. And while the FDIC pays most of these deposits back, it takes at least six months before they do under normal circumstances. If all go under at once, it would probably take much longer to be paid back, unless the FDIC just defaults on the entire debt, or goes into some form of bankruptcy, which means every creditor gets paid back before the depositors, and the depositors sort of divide what if anything remains, or the courts determine some percentage they must pay back. That was the reality of the Great Depression, and why it lasted so long. There was nothing protecting your deposits before the New Deal.

So take your pick. Lose everything in the bank, or bail the banks out so that your money will be there the next time you write a check, or use an ATM card.

• Link
• Report this comment

Unfortunately, the homeless shelters in New York saw rather large cuts to their funding, in order to subsidize brie and chablis parties for the financial industry. On the other hand, there has been a huge resistance to slightly increasing the income taxes on the personal income of the fifty wealthiest New Yorkers, which would provide enough money to completely eliminate the entire deficit.

• Link
• Report this comment

NJ @ 2:43
MRI imaging uses radio waves along with a powerful magnetic field to generate images. It does not use X-rays. Check your sources.
Sorry everyone, I know this is way off topic.

• Link
• Report this comment

Andy

“Disciple” is a never ending quest. You speak of it as an end of an endeavor. When YOU begin that path, the evidence will be within your writing–until you learn to love yourself, you will continue to post things like “GFY” and “POS”.

• Link
• Report this comment

UpChuck- Oh, come on, don’t pout.

I honestly believe that lying is the greater sin and if you think about it, what is “Dogs Against Management” but a POS?

I’m just being truthful.

• Link
• Report this comment

As far as gays in the military, the Urban institute puts the percentagesw at around 12 percent:

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 20, 2004—Although the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy requires gay and lesbian service members to remain silent about their sexual orientation, it does not prevent them from enlisting, says a new Urban Institute study.

Nearly 20,000 gay men and more than 16,000 lesbians are estimated to be on active duty, representing 2.5 percent of active duty personnel. An estimated 65,000 gay men and lesbians are in uniform when those in the National Guard and reservists are included, or some 2.8 percent of all military personnel.

Demographer Gary Gates, in “Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. Military: Estimates from the Census 2000,” estimates that 1.4 percent of men on active duty are gay and 9.3 percent of women are lesbian. Some surveys indicate that among adults 4 percent of men are gay and 3 percent of women are lesbian.

Given the high service rates among lesbians, it is difficult to assess the impact of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, Gates concludes.

http://www.urban.org/publications/900751.html

Other studies that study the percentages by branches show that more gays enlist in either the Marines or Navy than the Army or Air Force.

Other studies done between the institution of dont ask, dont tell indicate slightly different figures.

Its not unusual that these percentages are higher than estimated for the general population. Given the fact that gays are placed in a situation where marriage and family is not as much an option as it is for non gays, it is not unsual for them to not only join the services, but to make it a life career choice. Many may marry, basically for cover and to enhance their chances of promotion (for some odd reason, marriage is considered a..plus when promotion to higher ranks in the officer corps is considered)

I personally know lesbians who are in the Marines and who married for the reasons cited as well as know a gay combat pilot who flew many missions in Vietnam. Its not at all unusual. Since dont ask, done tell was instituted about 12,000 service members have been discharged for being found out to be gay. One has to consider that not everyone serving who is gay has been discharged, and even that this 12,000 makes up a rather small percentage of those who are discharged.

Historically, it was not uncommon for the military to be a rather more largely homosexual occupation than it was something heterosexuals would choose as a career.

A 2007 poll of people in the military revealed that 45 percent of members in all branches knew someone in their own units who are homosexual.

A 2003 study found that there are a MILLION gay veterans in the United States. 17 percent of all gay men, and 8 percent of all gay women have served the the military:

… estimated 1 million veterans in the United States are gay men or lesbians. Recent surveys suggest that 4 percent of U.S. adults are gay or lesbian and that 17 percent of gay men and 8 percent of lesbians have served in the military. This means that of the 27.5 million veterans counted in Census 2000, 683,000 (2 percent) are gay men and 350,000 (1 percent) are lesbians.

http://www.urban.org/publications/900642.html

Thats a damned higher percentage than exists in the general population.

There are almost 300 million people living in the United States with 27.5 million of them being veterans. Less than ten percent total.

• Link
• Report this comment

With all of the talk about grading the first 100 days of Obama’s administration recently, I am curious as to how my fellow bloggers would grade the first 100 days for the GOP after the Bush era…

• Link
• Report this comment

The hottest date at the DC prom last night.

http://img14.imageshack.us/my.php?image=la8.jpg&via=tfrog

• Link
• Report this comment