The intellectual vacuum that surrounds DADT debate
There’s one quote that Associated Press has been running in a majority of their seemingly endless updates of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal;
In New York, home to one of the nation’s largest gay communities and a gay pride parade whose grand marshal this year was an openly gay, discharged serviceman, 28-year-old Cassandra Melnikow glanced at a news ticker in Times Square announcing the repeal and said: “Excellent! It’s about time.”
“I don’t see what difference (sexual orientation) makes in the fighting military,” said Melnikow, a public health researcher. “What’s the big deal?”
Then why were you homosexuals making such a big deal about it, if sexual orientation doesn’t make a difference?
I expect all of these people to be lined up outside their local recruiters’ station tomorrow morning;
At least Lady Gaga and Katy Perry are happy. That’s something we can all appreciate.
Category: Military issues
Has Dan Choi reenlisted yet?
So, now “flaming” is a civil right?
At least Lady Gaga and Katy Perry are happy. That’s something we can all appreciate.
==========
You know what I would like to see? I’d like the USO Tour to make a VERY public announcement that they have invited every single “celebrity” who was for repeal of DADT to now join the USO Tour to support the military and deployed troops. If Lady GahGah and Katy “I’m only famous, because I show off my boobs and naked body” Perry support the military so much, then prove it. Afterall, repeal of DADT was all about making the military better, right? Wasn’t the reasoning that — according to the Yahoo article I posted above — 13,000 troops were kicked out since 1993 from DADT, so keeping them now with the repeal would help the military? This was always about making the military better, right? This wasn’t just a selfish use of the military to get their social agenda passed, right?
Now that DADT is repealed, it is on the Left to step up. I expect them to support recruiting efforts in the military. I expect them to support ROTC on all college campuses. And I expect all these attention-whore “celebrities” to now join the USO to entertain their homosexual fan clubs.
So, what say you, “celebrities”? Savvy?
Jonn: There’s something well beyond an intellectual vacuum at play, methinks.
I will head up to Chicago and demand that ‘Da Bears’ let me be their quarterback next year. I can find a uniform that fits. I can talk the talk.
Nod to Andy below and elsewhere.
Does our favorite Harvard twit understand the DADT policy? She write this yesterday in response to Senator John McCain (not linking so she doesn’t whine about being “stalked” by TAH readers):
==========
A general in the military once told me, “Our men need no distractions.” They’re out there fighting, and there are soldiers losing limbs. There are soldiers out there in the field without legs. There are soldiers with no legs in the hospitals. Some of our soldiers are coming back to America WITHOUT LEGS. THEY HAVE NO MORE LEGS! Thank you.
Okay. So for one, I hope that it was clear to everyone in the Senate that this is not a bill to amputate soldiers’ legs, it’s a bill to allow nonheterosexuals in the military.
Also, I don’t really understand McCain’s reasoning.
Because guess what, John McCain? Every single one of those soldiers without legs was serving in a group full of STRAIGHT PEOPLE. If any of our “men” were distracted, then that’s the fault of straight people or people pretending to be straight.
==========
Does this Harvard twit understand that DADT was a policy that allowed homosexuals to serve in the military, just not openly? Does she really believe that DADT prevented homosexuals from serving? Or is she just trying to be clever somehow. (Cue Tyler Durden: “How’s that working out for you? Being clever?”) If so, how can someone that completely ignorant have been admitted into Harvard?
Until I clicked on that link, I’d no idea that Doogie Howser was gay.
I will now crawl back under my rock.
Addendum: Katy Perry and several other women actually did a VH-1 special in support of the troops earlier this month. The Jiffy-Pop freak was nowhere to be seen.
Speaking of intellectual stuff… Does one have to actually BE gay to qualify?
Katy Perry and several other women actually did a VH-1 special in support of the troops earlier this month.
Okay, good on her then. Credit where due.
At the VH1 thing, one of the singers shook my god daughter’s boyfriend’s hand. It made it on TV. He was mortified comparing himself to a little girl at a Hannah Montana concert. It was apparently not the way a USMC Lance Corporal should behave. I thought it was funny.
already heard from one moron quote in an AP story. He was discharged in 1997. He says he’s going to reenlist. Good for him. Except he states that he is going to demand back pay and promotions. Good luck with that jackass.
Message from a Marine: Don’t Break the Military
By Gen.Carl Mundy, USMC (Ret.)
Letter sent to the senate before the final vote from Gen. Mundy & video interview with Frank Gaffney @ link below
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18602.xml
A calm and reasonable view that I support 110%. I appreciate the opportunity to post it here. Thank you.
I apologize the post above got away from me before I keyed in the name.
I expect all of these people to be lined up outside their local recruiters’ station tomorrow morning;
I don’t. Nor do I expect Hah-vaaahhhddd, et al, to allow ROTC or recruiters on campus.
And no, Choi probably won’t be allowed to enlist, not with the mental issues he’s had of late. Trust me, MEPS takes a pretty dim view of being in a mental ward.
I don’t. Nor do I expect Hah-vaaahhhddd, et al, to allow ROTC or recruiters on campus.
==========
Well, I should have prefaced my expectations with “if I believed liberals/progressives to not be hypocrites, I expect…”, which I don’t. This was never more than just a first step to get the ball rolling on the rest of the LGBT agenda, and had nothing to do with improving the military.
So here’s some more intellectual vacuum- We can’t get something as simple as an ammunition upgrade (5.56mm) because there’s not ENOUGH of an improvement to justify the cost- this result comes from years of studies and millions in acquisition time. Not a SINGLE study done on the improvements a homosexual declaring his sexuality would bring to the military. Just a lot of “it wouldn’t be that BAD” or “it shouldn’t matter” or “majority of soldiers are in favor of it.” Completely irrelevant. Where’s the logic-over-emotion that should prevail in the military? ROE changed to save your life (literally) takes forever, but the REMFs are tripping over themselves to implement this admin change.
Another strain of irrationality surrounding the repeal of DADT are some of the sky-is-falling responses from opponents. On the one hand, gays are going to absolutely over run the military – well isn’t that what you want, more recruits? On the other hand, it’ll lead to a mass exodus of soldiers. Which is it, a massive influx, or a massive efflux?
Joe, dear little misguided delusional sap. Ever heard of “quality over quantity”?
And no, those who have been pissing and moaning about not being able to join, still won’t join. It will, however, cause a lot of good people to walk.
NHSparky,
I sincerely hope not. Sometimes the fear of something is worse than the fact of it. I hope that’s the case here….
On the one hand, gays are going to absolutely over run the military – well isn’t that what you want, more recruits? On the other hand, it’ll lead to a mass exodus of soldiers. Which is it, a massive influx, or a massive efflux?
==========
Okay, well, for the sake of argument, let’s take each ‘side’ at their word.
The LGBTs claim that they did this so that more homosexuals could join the military and/or good soldiers who are homosexuals would not be kicked out due to someone violating DADT.
We know that 1% of the general population joins the military. So we could give a VERY generous estimate that 1% of the LGBT population would now join the population.
(Unless of course you want to make a claim like Army Sergeant that just like homosexuals are little angels compared to heterosexuals when it comes to bad behavior, so too are homosexuals more inclined to join the military than heterosexuals).
The LGBT community in America makes up about 5% (generous estimate) of the general population. So the most influx of new recruits we could reasonably expect is 1% of 5% of the American population. The American population is ~300,000,000. Let’s say only half of that is even eligible for the military, 150,000,000. So 5% of that is 7,500,000 homosexuals. 1% of that is 75,000.
So, the estimated influx of homosexual recruits is 75,000.
On the other side, I think the polling results showed that 20% of current members would leave the military? Wikipedia shows that our current military strength is 2,455,837. 20% of that would be ~491,000.
Even if we estimate that only half of that would leave, 245,500 is still > 3Xs as many as the possible new homosexual recruits.
So taking everyone at their word, this is a net loss for our military strength.
Michale in MI,
I appreciate the quantitative approach you take, a nice change of pace from all the hysteria. I agree with the figures up to a point. One unknown is if all 20% the respondents to the survey who said they would leave will actually leave. Some may mull it over for a while and change their minds (esp. with the economy the way it is), some may find that the actual change in day-to-day military life is much more trivial than they expected, some may rethink their hard-and-fast opposition to homosexuality. If you take opposition to integration as an example, many die hard white segregationists have softened their line over the years, and even become friends with black people who they railed against decades earlier. So admittedly it’s a big unknown, but my guess is that the exodus won’t be as large as feared. At least I hope not….
So admittedly it’s a big unknown, but my guess is that the exodus won’t be as large as feared.
==========
Agreed. At the same time, the influx of new recruits due to the repeal won’t be as large as some claim either.
So it is a big unknown.
My major problem with the entire situation — beyond the fact that I simply disagree with the repeal — is how this was handled. There was no reason to do the studies and take all the polling of the military, since they planned to repeal all along. The polling and study was just all done for show, with a predetermined result of what the ‘study’ would conclude.
So, there should have just been a vote on DADT repeal sometime over the summer or just sometime before the election and then be done with it. Instead, we had this issue drag out for months for no good purpose whatsoever.
It was clear from the get-go that repeal was going to happen whether people wanted it or not, whether it was good for the military or not. All one has to do is look to the comments of some military leaders who have stated that if people don’t like the policy, tough. Either deal with it or get out. And then statements made to already “expressly prohibit” heterosexuals from using separate showers, etc from homosexuals.
In other words, this was always a done deal. The military never had a choice in the matter. All the polling and ‘studies’ were just done to push this issue to the lame-duck session, so that politicians would not have to be accountable for their votes.
We had 4 E-8s drop their 4187s for retirement this morning. Each said they couldn’t sit and watch what was coming. Two of them came in from leave. I don’t know anyone who is afraid of gay soldiers, what they are afraid of is the climate that this repeal is gonna create. The DoD is gonna make gay and lesbian soldiers a protected class and will give them all the benefits that come with that status. If you dare to question the wisdom of this, you will be denounced and your career will go into the toilet. You won’t have to actually be a homophobe, the allegation is all that will be necessary.
Anyone who is or has ever been a service member in any branch knows as well as I do that we will do with this as we do with all the other social engineering that the assholes in congress have foisted upon us. We will shut up, ruck up and drive on. But is there not some point at which the normal, decent, average service member’s beliefs and rights and expectations are protected, instead of continuing to expect them to cater to every protected or special interest group with an axe to grind?
A point to be made here is that if the typical homosexual can wrap their head around what makes the military function, namely subordinating yourself to the needs of the greater whole and its good (namely mission accomplishment) then they can get the job done. But many homosexuals cannot, and will not do that. They expect others, particularly normal people, to cater to their unique variety of perversion. Get a few of them in the military and things will become very stressful in those units unfortunate to receive them. Bradley Manning is a sterling example of the damage they could do, and what set him off was an argument with his faggot girl/boyfriend.
I don’t know anyone who is afraid of gay soldiers, what they are afraid of is the climate that this repeal is gonna create. The DoD is gonna make gay and lesbian soldiers a protected class and will give them all the benefits that come with that status. If you dare to question the wisdom of this, you will be denounced and your career will go into the toilet. You won’t have to actually be a homophobe, the allegation is all that will be necessary.
==========
I think this is the key right here. And it goes back to my point about how this was handled. I think most people are fine with homosexuals, but they are not fine with homosexuals being a special protected class. And it is evident that they will now be a special protected class based on the comments of military leaders. The one said that if people did not like the repeal, then they should leave the military. Another said that heterosexuals should be “expressly prohibited” from being able to use separate showers, etc from homosexuals. Nothing of the sort exists for heterosexual male-female interaction in the military. But now homosexuals get special protections and privileges.
Most people can deal with sacrificing some rights when they join the military and can deal with a certain amount of Political Correctness. But everyone has their line at which they get fed up and choose not to deal with it anymore. We’re going to find out soon if people have finally had enough of the PC-ificiation of the military, that they either don’t join or get out.
Just a couple of sincere questions here. In the late 40’s/early 50’s, the armed forces were integrated. Many of the same concerns were voiced, many were perdicting gloom and doom. My questions:
1) Were there similarities with the current situation, or are they qualitatively different situations?
2) 50-60 years later, are the armed forces, and the U.S., better off with an integrated armed forces?
2) 50-60 years later, are the armed forces, and the U.S., better off with an integrated armed forces?
I think a better question/comparison would be whether we are better with females in the armed forces. Since this is a sexuality issue, not a race issue.
Considering that women get special privileges in the military — ie, they are not required to meet the same standards as men, they can get out of whatever they want by getting pregnant, etc — and many have never liked/still don’t like that, I can see the same problems happening with integration of open homosexuals.
Female military members are treated differently than male military members and now homosexual military members will be treated differently than heterosexual military members.
Joe says:
1) Were there similarities with the current situation, or are they qualitatively different situations?
One dealt with integration of genders. The other is decriminalizing a crime (disobeying an order) by canceling the order (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell). Very different issues and one will have huge second and third order effects.
Another way of evaluating this:
Should we allow the poor to serve? Ok, let’s authorize/order the integration of the poor into the Armed Forces.
Should we allow people who steal to serve (assumption that they steal because they cannot pay for it)? Ok, let’s make it legal to steal and order the integration of theives into the Armed Forces. Previously, thieves could serve, but whenever they were caught disobeying the order (Do not steal), they were discharged. Now they can serve openly and if you discriminate against them (they are self-avowed integrity violators), then you will be punished.
Not sure if the analogy holds water in all points, but it was the first thing that popped into my head.
Anytime a decision ends in quantifying the damage done by said decision instead of counting the profit gained is a net BAD choice. Only time will tell. However, the military (and our boss, the NCA) mishandled this pretty criminally. Normal folks/organizations do background and research when lives are at stake. I’m afraid in the emotionality of this particular decision, and the pressure from the civilian authorities, we’ve skipped that step. I’ve seen the ONLY survey done, and it was crap. Assuming that NOTHING negative will come of this (impossible) we still haven’t met our own standard of planning. Unwillingness of senior leaders to fall on their sword (exception-USMC Comm) led us to where we are.
I would again question the wisdom of this repeal. WHY THE FLYING F**K did this happen when WE DON’T EVEN HAVE A CLEAR POLICY ON AFGHANISTAN?!?!?!
And to be absolutely clear, SEX HAS NO PLACE ON THE LINE! There should not be women on the line, nor should there ever be Sexual tension. If you hesitate, even for a second PEOPLE WILL DIE. If you don’t make clear level headed decisions PEOPLE WILL DIE. If you show favoritism because of a “delicate” personality PEOPLE WILL DIE. If you are afraid of getting your squeeze or the people you’re attracted to killed you will in the end, wind up killing half your platoon.
this is not some social club that has a dress code. Its not a place for the “cute” or the “precious” The military is the instrument of the NCA. It is about making war, which is, in and of itself a terrible endeavor, but it has to be done, because there are some people out there that have no concept of “laws of war”. You think Jaysh al-Mahdi gives a good God damn about your “rights”? I don’t give a crap if you are “fully actualized” by wearing a uniform with a bunch of pretty ribbons. each of those should be earned by your blood sweat and tears.
USMC Steve, god forbid you should be told not to say “faggot girl/boyfriend” in order to subordinate yourself to the needs of the greater whole and its good.
Ironsides, there have been over 20 studies.
Joe says: Another strain of irrationality surrounding the repeal of DADT are some of the sky-is-falling responses from opponents. Considering the left has been using us as social experiments since the Clinton years and given the piss poor raise we’re getting this year it’s easy to feel like the sky is falling. What I resent is that this has nothing to do with “rights” of gay soldiers. It has everything to do with a Liberal agenda that is using us as pawns to get what the country as a whole won’t accept. gay “marriage”. With the repeal of DADT comes the DoD’s forced acceptance of gay “marriage”…now what do you think is gonna happen when a “married” couple reports to Ft. Hood, Texas or Charleston, SC or Minot AFB…all three states that don’t recognize gay “marriage”? Once again you’ll have Federal law trumping the will of the people of that state. Which is EXACTLY what the liberals want. We’re already being told that the current medical and retirement systems aren’t sustainable. What do you think the influz of potential HIV and AIDS patients is going to do to the system? Not to mention that anyone that pops HIV positive is automatically barred from overseas service. So what you’re creating is couple or three divisions of stateside chair warmers in each branch of service…forcing regular soldiers like myself and others to shoulder yet another overseas deployment. Which will drive down morale and retention across the board. Joe also says: On the one hand, gays are going to absolutely over run the military – well isn’t that what you want, more recruits? No…if you haven’t noticed the military right down to the National Guard is at 100%+ on their retention numbers. And all but the Army right now is downsizing. Finally Joe stutters: On the other hand, it’ll lead to a mass exodus of soldiers. Which is it, a massive influx, or a massive efflux? It will have the same effect on the military that Clinton’s ineptness did in the early 90’s. You’ll have all the quality soldiers with decades of experience… Read more »
Here’s another wrinkle to the open homosexuals in the military debate: The Military’s Real ‘Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell’ Problem
==========
Is that the Afghan Pashtun men won’t stop fucking each other and little boys:
The report described unease by U.S. Marines and British soldiers who felt they were being propositioned, or who were outraged by apparent acts of pedophilia by Afghan soldiers and police. It documented one case in which 12 of 20 Pashtun interpreters working with one U.S. Army unit had contracted gonorrhea from homosexual encounters.
And using young boys for sex creates a cycle damaging to boys and young men and also to the women:
Virtually all of the younger men who beat their wives (over their inability to become pregnant) had been former “apprentices” of older Afghan men, who used them for their sexual pleasure. Upon entering marriage, whatever the men knew of sex had been learned during their “apprenticeship,” at the hands of the older man. To put it bluntly, some of the younger Afghans were unfamiliar with the desired (and required) mechanics for contraception.
I can only imagine what’s going through the heads of the soldiers as they have to explain the birds and the bees in detail to young Afghani men.
==========
Well, since the American government and the US military have deemed homosexuality to no longer be immoral or deviant behavior, I don’t see we have any moral standing to say that what the Afghans are doing is immoral or deviant. Also, even without that new determination, liberals always say that we can’t impose our values on others. We have to respect their ‘culture’. If they want to beat their wives, participate in pedophilia and pass around gonorrhea via homosexual sex, who are we to pass judgement, right?
Michael,
Pedophelia and raping kids is a whole lot different than a consensual adult realtionship, and I think you know that. Quit taking things way out of context in a failed attempt to make you point.