General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2247220

    Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

    Locked

    by maxwell edison ·

    Disclaimer: My personal position is two-fold:

    One: A person’s sexual preference and/or practice is his/her own business. I don’t know whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice or birth, nor do I care. It’s not my business what you do; it’s not your business what I do.

    Two: Serving in the military IS NOT a Constitutional right. The military can indeed [i]discriminate[/i] for a variety of reasons (sorry, you have flat-foot), all of which are implemented for the purpose of maintaining the most effective military force possible. If you disagree, please show me the exact article of the Constitution that shows me to be wrong. The mission of the military is to be the most effective fighting force – no more, no less.

    Having said that, whether or not gays are allowed to serve in the military is a question that I would pass on to the military experts; I’d yield to their opinion.

    What’s yours?

    Edited to change the title and add the following content:

    http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=337373&messageID=3376274&tag=content;leftCol

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2872970

      “The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”

      by jamesrl ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      Quote from one of Canada’s former Prime Minister, Pierre Eliot Trudeau.

      I’m sure there have been many gay people who have honorably served in the military throughout history. Alexander the Great was one example. I’m sure there are many others.

      The argument that it may cause dissension in the ranks, I think should be behind us. Similar arguments were made about Blacks in the military and women in the military and yet many militaries around the world have coped, as have many effective militaries that allow gay people to serve.

      In the Canadian Constition’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not allowed. I know that the US hasn’t reached that stage yet. Perhaps its time it should.

      • #2872968

        Are race and gender really synonymous?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to “The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”

        ?

        • #2872941

          I’ll take a shot.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Are race and gender really synonymous?

          In terms of legal protection, yes. No one has a choice in either, or about a physical handicap; and current psychological thought is that sexual orientation isn’t voluntary either.

          We bar discrimination on the basis of religion, a 100% voluntary choice. We should certainly extend that protection to those areas where no choice is involved. Obviously, physical requirements of a job may dictate some level of ‘discrimination’ on the basis of a person’s inability to perform; if the job legitimately requires lifting 300 pounds onto a 7″ shelf, I’m out.

        • #2872934

          I will go farther

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to I’ll take a shot.

          I am not one who is of the opinion that sexual orientation is a choice. Sexual behaviour is a choice, but I think you are born with an orientation.

          But all are protected under our Charter in Canada, and in most of the “western democracies”.

        • #2873909

          In this case they should be

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Are race and gender really synonymous?

          Discriminating based on skin colour, should be as adversely opposed as discriminating based on shoe size, sexuality, eye colour or any other stupid reason to stop someone serving their country.

          If they discriminate against gay’s, there will still be and always has been, gays in the military. They just won’t say anything about it, as always.

          However, show me where personal sexual preference, specifically gay sexuality, has stopped a military body from operating effectively.

          I don’t mean soldiers getting PO’s and not wanting to share quarters or fight beside them, that has nothing to do with the gay soldiers at all but the ignorance of others fighting with them.

          Perhaps they should screen out members who can not accept the gay lifestyle instead?

      • #2873120

        Dissention in the ranks

        by kevaburg ·

        In reply to “The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”

        The problem with gays in the military (and I have served for a considerable amount of time in the British military to now be able to form an objective opinion) is the same as the problem with having both sexes serving in the same forces.

        Where these people work together in high risk environments, a high risk also exists of forming/establishing relationships at whatever level.

        If the time comes whereby one half of a partnership has to make a decision for the greater good, could that person make the decision to the detriment of the partner?

        Furthermore, could both partners be relied upon not to make decisions that could endanger their comrades?

        This of course, is purely hypothetical, but does raise problems of relationships within the forces. The American forces have a “no relationship” rule whereby serving members cannot form relationships with other serving colleagues, but women are still allowed to serve. So why not gays?

        Could the problem be that the American forces are full of sexual homophobics that feel there is quite simply no place for homosexuality as a priciple? If so, then they are practising a discrimination that I am sure is against something in their constitution. If not, then why not?

        I am not homosexual. It simply does nothing for me. I am however, aware that there are people that are. Is it up to me to marginalise these people for their beliefs or opinions? We are not allowed to discriminate against people for religion (a personal preference) and we are not allowed to discriminate against people that have a polical opinion different to ours (against our rules of democracy) and to that end, even the Neo-Nazis have a party that is allowed to rally and vie for parliamentary seats. So why disciminate against gays?

        Great minds, such a Alan Turing, have been lost thanks to societies complete lack of understanding for people that want to simply live their lives the way they want to.

        Lets accept that not everyone wants what we want and get on with living and give everyone the same rights.

        • #2873118

          Might be more a case of lots of closet cases in the brass

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Dissention in the ranks

          They want to pre-emptively shut up the recruits, so they don’t start shooting off their mouthes about the readings on their “gay radars”. :p 😉
          Well, it’s as good an explanation as any, right?

        • #2873103

          Responses.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Dissention in the ranks

          “If the time comes whereby one half of a partnership has to make a decision for the greater good, could that person make the decision to the detriment of the partner? Furthermore, could both partners be relied upon not to make decisions that could endanger their comrades?”

          The same questions could be asked of married heterosexual soldiers with civilian spouses, (regardless of the soldiers’ genders).

          “The American forces have a “no relationship” rule whereby serving members cannot form relationships with other serving colleagues,”

          Where did you get that? I know plenty of US service members who are married to other service personnel. I have two pairs of in-laws with both spouses having been on active duty while married. What they can’t be is in each other’s chain of command.

          “Could the problem be that the American forces are full of sexual homophobics that feel there is quite simply no place for homosexuality as a priciple?”

          Possibly. It’s also possible the members of Congress who passed DADT (only a handful of which have been in the military) are the homophobes.

        • #2873096

          I think you missed my point

          by kevaburg ·

          In reply to Responses.

          I didn’t word what I said about the “no relationship” rule very well did I? I see your point there but I wasn’t referring to service personnel with a civilian spouse. I was referring to a situation whereby both partners are involved in the same conflict and fighting alongside each other. This happened in the first Gulf War where a soldier fell for a medic in his section. One of them knew where their duty lay but the other was more concerned about the partner. That isn’t a situation you would encounter with a civilian spouse.

          A policy of DADT is about as ignorant as a policy can get. Instead of discriminating against someone directly, we will tell people that it is OK as long as we don’t know anything about it.

          And as far as I can tell, most Americans seem to think that is acceptable!

      • #2854409

        What about The Natural Order of Things?

        by carlo.di.giorgio ·

        In reply to “The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”

        One of the reasons US haven’t sunk to the level of the rather small and too liberal nation of Canada could be that in USA there are still a good number of normal people who do not defy The National Order of Things. I find amazing to read this trendy expression called ‘sexual orientation’ invented by the liberals. Gender/Sex is not an ‘orientation’ but well defined physical and psychological structure, which is absolutely not subject to trendy liberal orientations, liberals cannot remake according to their distorted vision of human physiology and nature.
        By the way, homosexuals too were born of a man copulating with a woman during Her ovulation days, women being subjected by nature to monthly menstruation. Both humans different in nature but equal in dignity were created with specific sexual organs, which become in time perfectly in harmony to copulate with each other. Also great geniuses can be mildly or heavily neurotics!

        • #2854396

          The Natural Order of things?

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to What about The Natural Order of Things?

          If you want to look to nature, then are you trying to tell me that no other animals other then humans have same sex relations? Really? Care to think that through?

          I’d like nothing better than to not define people by ANY singular charecteristics. But as long as people descriminate against others based on those charecteristics, then we need to define them. I look forward to the day when no one cares about what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.

          BTW, I’m not a liberal. As a Canadian I’m definately not a Liberal.

        • #2854341

          Lizards and other animals without good vision or smell

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to The Natural Order of things?

          sometimes attempt sexual intercourse with members of their own sex. But humans are intelligent enough to distinguish even if handicapped, so do not have the excuse of the animals.

          I know that sexual inversion occurs among animals, who sometimes when so affected do weird things (apparently whales do some odd things with their snorkels) but, again, we are the rational animal and know what things are for, so even sexual inversion is not an excuse.

        • #2854340

          You’re not a farm-boy obviously…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Lizards and other animals without good vision or smell

          Know horses? Even mares go dry-humping other mares from time to time…
          I guess they don’t teach that in convert school :p

        • #2854333

          A gay pitbull is always good for a chuckle

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You’re not a farm-boy obviously…

          My Buddy’s pit used to try to bang my pit all the time. As soon as it came in the yard, my dog would sit and look at it with those, ‘please, no’ eyes.

          But hey, we are “evolved” and are supposed to restrain ourselves from such sins as we should know better, don’t you read the bible?
          Well I guess that throws ‘evolved’ out of the window, maybe we are just going against God’s design then, yeah that makes a lot more sense, don’t do it because God says so. 😀

        • #2854336

          In short

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Lizards and other animals without good vision or smell

          We are supposed to KNOW BETTER? 😀

        • #2873472

          That’s right nt

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to In short

          nt

        • #2873458

          Laughable – you didn’ trecognize the flood of sarcasm?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to That’s right nt

          If there was any sense, reason or fact behind your theory that it is a decision people make one day, you’d have a point.

          Do you REALLY think people CHOOSE to be a minority? Have sex with someone they are not naturally attracted to?

          And why is homosexuality ALWAYS related to the physical act of having sex?

          Is it not possible that someone would seek comfort, friendship and alliance that develops into love for the same sex but is unable to feel such emotion toward the opposite sex?

          It’s not all about men lusting after men or women lusting after women, it’s about relationships, companionship, partnership, who you want to spend your life with, who you like to share special moments with.

        • #2854326

          Good smell or vision?

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Lizards and other animals without good vision or smell

          Try dogs – if you haven’t seen this, you’ve been blind – and last time I checked dogs had better smell capabilities than we do.

          The most scientifically studied animal groups that have same sex behaviour are chimpanzes.

          If I follow your logic, gay people are less intelligent that straight ones. Is that what you mean? Really?

        • #2854313

          Should have stuck to the Pervert message

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Lizards and other animals without good vision or smell

          At least then you just looked “opinionated”, let’s say.

          Now you’re just outright stupid.

        • #2854305

          See

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Should have stuck to the Pervert message

          this exact and entire message of his was available between the lines of what immediately preceded the “pervert” line.

          Too warped to be able to hide.

        • #2873510

          no serious anthropologist would consent to this…..

          by carlo.di.giorgio ·

          In reply to The Natural Order of things?

          old argument used by gay lobbyists. What you allude to could only be observed among domesticated animals which have lost most of their natural instincts by leaving so closely to single humans and being dressed to behave as if they were sort of humans. I suggest you consult the famous work of Alfred Adler if there is an English translation, in case you are not familiar with difficult German
          DAS PROBLEM DER HOMOSEXUALIT?T – Fischer Verlag. Adler, Founder of the Individual Psychology, dismisses categorically any genetic links to this phenomenon defined as neurotic sexual perversion originated by distorted upbringing, social trends, especially promoted by modern media and above all inculcated into themselves by repetitive auto training ??somatization??. All known homosexuals can fit in perfectly well in Adler’s discourse. Basically, they have their own history behind and that is understandable, since by sound and balanced upbringing and education men should only be spontaneously attracted to women and women to men. All arguments of those who tolerate this neurotic phenomenon as acceptable life style can be easily dismantled on all fronts. The vast majority of world population and serious religions consider homosexuality a dishonorable vice like many others affecting humans. It is only in liberal West where it is nowadays not only tolerated but even promoted and this explains why the West is elsewhere considered decadent. All previous societies affected by such perversion have fallen apart and decayed?

        • #2873450

          Still serious

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to no serious anthropologist would consent to this…..

          First of all, I’m far from a gay lobbyist. I’m a businessperson, I’m a father, I’ve been a conservative political activist.

          As to your assertion that only domesticated animals exhibit same sex behaviour, you obviously didn’t read my writing about chimpanzes. Those were wild chimpanzes.

          As for Adler’s theories, I’ve met many homosexuals who had fine upbringings and are decent human beings. If there is anyone who is perverse, its those who chose to obsess about the sex lives of others and charectise a human being solely on their sexual orientation.

        • #2873703

          An important distinction must be made

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Still serious

          between on the one hand sexual inversion of the erotic instincts, a condition sometimes called “homosexuality”, and pseudosexual activity (a.k.a. gross indecency a.k.a. sexual perversion a.k.a. mutual masturbation) such as cunnilingus, tribadism, buggary or fellatio; when such activity occurs between members of the same sex it is sometimes called “homosexuality”. If we condemn gross indecency by people who experience sexual inversion, a fortiori we should condemn it by two-sex couples, who have the option of sexual intercourse.

          Having a sexually inverted eroticism does not compel one to engage in gross indecency, i.e. it does not compel one to become gay. There are indeed societies of sexual inverts determined not to become gay, e.g. Courage (www.couragrc.net).

          I am afraid that the Pentagon mixes the two meanings of “homosexuality”, although the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as currently applied seems to apply more to gross indecency than to sexual inversion. It is unfair that soldiers practising this kind of behavior are not expelled if they practise it with members of the opposite sex, for their guilt is greater.

        • #2873683

          JASON !!!!

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to An important distinction must be made

          You converse with Santee about his style, yet let freaks like this spread their unveiled message of hatred?

        • #2873682

          ‘Subtlety’

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to An important distinction must be made

          over substance. Utterly lacking in metaphor and imagination, as well. It passes.

        • #2851117

          It’s the beginning of a beautiful friendship

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to An important distinction must be made

          between the Inquisition Fanboy and the Sharia Fanboy.

          Let’s hope they get a room before they come out of their respective closets, otherwise we’ll all need some corrective laser eye-surgery!
          And electro-therapy to “fix” our mnemonics :p

        • #2873585

          mine was a suggestion to read Alfred Adler and …..

          by carlo.di.giorgio ·

          In reply to Still serious

          not jump into conclusions. Adler still is The Authority in Individual Psychology by observing as a medical doctor 1000’s of patients for long years. I have been a passionate reader of Anthropology and Psychology in all major European languages, I master as first, since my adolescence and intensively during my Oxford years. In the 80’s I also observed as consequence of limitless perversions since the liberal 60’s how many homosexuals had become victims of the pest many believe they themselves were responsible for infecting humanity in first place. In the early 80’s they were falling in the 1000’s like flies and despite ‘plastic’ precautions they still represent nowadays the most vulnerable section of humanity. The tragedy, however, is since then the catastrophic widespread of the terrible disease among many innocent victims (women and children) mainly in Africa, whereby the real and permanent cure cannot be the palliative usage of condoms but abstinence and strict observance of high moral standards, which are always in accordance with the laws of nature.
          To conclude this discourse I would say that the US and all other nations are well advised to ban homosexuals as unfit to serve under their banners.
          Cheers!

        • #2851149

          You…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to mine was a suggestion to read Alfred Adler and …..

          You’re the Pope!
          Whatshisface… “Maledictus DCLXVI”… no… “Pope formerly known as Angstschweiss” … no, not that one either. Ah well, at least I know who you are, in principle at least :p

        • #2851000

          The most vulnerable section of humanity?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to mine was a suggestion to read Alfred Adler and …..

          LOL, you really are a numpty when it comes to reality, logical thought and reason, aren’t you?

          To think that Oxford has churned out the likes of you is horrific and a real kick in the pants to someone who is proud to have family that has received the world class education that prestigious institution is renowned for.

          You refer to HIV as a pestilence that has spread due to perversion and how these “perverts” represent the most vulnerable section of humanity.

          What about smokers and alcoholics?

          Is cancer not still one of the US’ major killers? 430,000 people in the US die each year form smoking related illness. Since the discovery of the HIV epidemic, an estimated 600,000 have died. Considering that number is amassed over 30 years, it is safe to say that the perversion of cigarette smoking kills MANY times more people than HIV does.

          There are an estimated 17,000 new cases of people ‘LIVING’ with HIV in the US each year, there are an estimated 700,000 new cases of terminal lung cancer due to smoking in the US each year.

          Now there’s a perversion that also tracks back to Columbian aboriginals that kills many times more people than this “perversion” that you keep referring to.

          That is also ignoring the fact that HIV is not just a gay disease, and has little or no impact on the topic of gay military members, unless orgies have now become a part of basic training.

        • #2871204

          Adler

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to no serious anthropologist would consent to this…..

          died in 1937, only 9 years after the discovery of genetic transformation, and 7 years before the determination that DNA was responsible for that transformation. For most of Adler’s life, genetics was understood primarily through Gregor Mendel’s observations.

          How can somebody from an era with little more than rudimentary genetic knowledge be considered an authority on what is or is not genetically-determined?

        • #2871153

          Can’t help it, Nick

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Adler

          I, too, studied intensively Adler, along with Freud, Brenner, Brill, Jung, and the rest.

          Came away thinking even before all what we think we know about genetics and epigenetics, “These guys don’t have a clue!”

          They go around in circles, along with Kant and his brethren.

          Means you get to roll up your own sleeves — assuming any of this matters — and do it yourself.

          I did. I do not appreciate anyone who fastens himself, for want of his own wits, to anything, this [b]carlo[/b] guy included.

        • #2871014

          from the language used there are serious doubts…

          by carlo.di.giorgio ·

          In reply to Can’t help it, Nick

          about qualifications needed to counter argue
          Alfred Adler, who wrote his work on Homosexuality in a very difficult German, to my knowledge never translated into English. Are you a psychiatrist and psychologist with long years of medical practice? Can you read and understand German?
          I am showing my real name while you hide behind fantasy and have no real serious arguments about the dynamic of the phenomenon. By just repeating the trendy ”pensee unique” of the western liberals and homosexuals you can hardly dismantle the simple truth that humans are fallible creatures and prone to deviations of all sorts, from mild neuroses to psychotic perversions of appalling nature.
          Good bye!

          …that guy Carlo… as you put it very politely!

        • #2851282

          Carlo

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Can’t help it, Nick

          I see so many things going on in your post that I cannot even call you, “wrong”.

          You are, just, out there, indistinguishable from your subject.

        • #2871104

          that’s the point because Adler dismissed genetic links…

          by carlo.di.giorgio ·

          In reply to Adler

          and based his conclusion that homosexuals were neurotics on direct observations of patients, knowing inside out the history and background of each of them. He concluded that Homosexuality is a neurotic vice acquired in the course of certain life circumstances, as humans learn to practice all sorts of defects and vices, hardened by continuous training to get deeper and deeper in oneself. You have numerous examples of this dynamic in almost all human activities: positive and negative alike. In certain cases the disorder can be cured with psychotherapy and methods such Autogenic Training by I.H. Schultz, though very often it’s seated too deep. Adler says that it’s like trying to make out of a coward a courageous man. This modern legend of covering human misbehavior by claiming GENETICS is to be outright dismissed. Alfred Adler was not so deficient when observing his patients very well known to him at times when the debate was alive. The actual word ”Homosexuality” appeared for the first time in 1914 on an American magazine: The Homosexual Problem. Fashion and social trends are nowadays the main learning source of this phenomenon, like drugs usage and all exotic and punky exibitionism since the 60’s, mainly in Anglo-Saxon countries spread later all over the Western World via media and tourism. English Public Schools for Boys were famous for early learning of the perversion. Later in life many of those students ‘converted’ to normal behavior when they had become more proficient in approaching the by far more appealing opposite sex: Women.

          NickNielsen I suggest you have a deep reading of Adler’s work: Das Problem der Homosexualitaet and then you will see how genetics can be the answer. Cheers!

        • #2870985

          So now you’re saying…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to that’s the point because Adler dismissed genetic links…

          [i]NickNielsen I suggest you have a deep reading of Adler’s work: Das Problem der Homosexualitaet and then you will see how genetics can be the answer. [/i]

          Adler was wrong and genetics [u]is[/u] a factor? Make up your mind.

          Given the times, and the prevailing attitudes toward homosexuality, I’m not surprised his homosexual patients were neurotic. What I question is whether Adler’s homosexual patients represent a valid sample of the homosexual population of the time. People who are comfortable with their lives and sexuality aren’t very likely to consult a psychologist or psychoanalyst, so his patients do not represent an entire population. Basing any conclusions on his limited sample may have been good psychoanalysis, but it’s lousy science.

        • #2870977

          Seeing as he died before DNA was discovered

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to that’s the point because Adler dismissed genetic links…

          I’m not sure its entirely relevent, as we have grown leaps and bounds in genetics since Adlers death in the mid thirties.

        • #2870968

          Are your tastes as mutable?

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to that’s the point because Adler dismissed genetic links…

          From what memoirs I have seen of gay men in magazines and movies, I see that many of them never are attracted to “the far more appealing opposite sex,” as you put it. My nephew, for example, loves to be with girls, but only so he can talk about clothing and boys. When it comes to sex, he and girls are never in the same room. I don’t think he will ever find happiness satisfying “normal” appetites. To his mind, what he does and wants is normal, and irresistable.

          Apparently you think that he has chosen to be homosexual. He could change, you say; he perhaps just never wanted to develop mature tastes and find happiness chasing the superior female form. What he wants is a matter of choice, you say, not identity.

          Well, if that’s true, I imagine you are also prepared to want men sexually, to feel desire when looking at them and satisfaction when getting them. If you think there’s no difference between my nephew and a straight man, then you’d agree there’s no difference between my nephew and you, and that his willingness to engage in perversions could just as easily be yours. Or, maybe you think you’re a little more complicated.

          For my part, if I were looking down at some guy’s bony butt, and up his hairy back, seeing his idiot face smiling over his shoulder at me, I could not find myself aroused. The thought of it makes me slightly ill, and not the least bit excited. I never went for it as a boy, and can’t see how I ever would as a man. However, if that were a lady in the same position, I would be willing to admit new and delightful possibilities. It’s the essential element of excitement for me, the difference between compulsion and revulsion. It has steered my life. If I were gay, and if that fascination were as strong, I could not help but be guided by it.

          So, I don’t begrudge gay men their ugly tastes. I can’t stand the idea myself, but I’m dominated by my own instints, and recognize as justice that they must reconcile themselves to their own.

          If you’re a Christian, contemplate that God made us all, and God don’t make junk.

        • #2851331

          Corageous coward…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to that’s the point because Adler dismissed genetic links…

          That’s a simple transition. Push the right button.

          If you want to see homosexual neurosis, you have to find a homosexual who believes what he does to be wrong. That happens in cultures with strong dogmatic indoctrination… as the indoctrination is reduced, so is the neurosis.

          But I guess, if all us hetero types lived in a culture where we had to hide our preferences, and feel dogmatic guilt on account of what we like… I guess that’d make us a bit neurotic. Our entire self-image would be entirely different than now, and we would have to invent ways of expressing ourselves that would differ entirely from the homonormative hegemony that’d surround us.
          Being forced into rebellion for no good reason is enough to throw any one off the bend.

        • #2873410

          No serious anthropologist.would consent to this…..

          by carlo.di.giorgio ·

          In reply to The Natural Order of things?

          …old and misleading argument misused by gay lobbyists. What you allude to could only be observed among domesticated animals, which have lost most of their natural instincts by leaving so closely to single humans and being dressed to behave as if they were sort of humans. I suggest you consult the famous work of Alfred Adler, if there is an English translation available, in case you are not familiar with difficult German:
          DAS PROBLEM DER HOMOSEXUALITAET
          – Fischer Verlag -.
          Adler, Founder of the Individual Psychology, dismisses categorically any genetic links to this phenomenon defined as neurotic sexual perversion originated by distorted upbringing, social trends, nowadays since early 80’s especially promoted by modern media and above all inculcated into themselves by repetitive auto training ”somatization”. All known homosexuals can fit in perfectly well in Adler’s discourse. Basically, each of them have their own history behind and that is understandable, since by sound and balanced upbringing and education men should only be spontaneously attracted to women and women to men. All arguments of those who tolerate this neurotic phenomenon as acceptable life style can be easily dismantled on all fronts. The vast majority of world population and serious religions consider homosexuality a dishonorable vice like many others affecting humans. It is only in liberal West where it is nowadays not only tolerated but even promoted and this explains why the West is elsewhere considered decadent. All previous societies affected by such perversion have fallen apart and decayed.

        • #2851146

          You’re wrong.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to No serious anthropologist.would consent to this…..

          Zebras, Dingoes and other undomesticatables too.
          You’re just making up straws to grasp at as you go along.
          I now have to decide whether you’re intellectually dishonest or simply dishonest or a lying scumbag. I’ll get back to you with the results 😉

        • #2851125

          Adler… without that one book

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to No serious anthropologist.would consent to this…..

          would be a fart in a bottle floating in a paranthesis.
          Now, he’s “important” mainly on account of being abused to support flat-earthers and intelligent design nutters and the fearers of teh ghey.
          Nobody cares about Adler. Except you and your ilk, and you and your ilk are not interested in psychology except where it can be twisted to support your prejudices and religious dogma.

        • #2851032

          this is my final reply on all current comments on the subject….

          by carlo.di.giorgio ·

          In reply to Adler… without that one book

          about who should decide whether homosexuals should be allowed to serve under the USA banners. My modest opinion is rather radical: The military themselves and not elected politicians should have the final say. Before the creation of the USA the pre-Columbian aborigines (hence away from Judeo-Christian-Moslem cultures) with homosexual tendency were considered unfit as warriors and were relegated to domestic tasks. I believe that in every single language and/or dialects there are funny and descriptive names for those who divert from the sexual norms dictated by The Laws of Nature. After reading a few of the comments signed by AnsuGisalas I would suggest him to consider seriously to seek help and advise from health professionals.
          Thank you, AnsuGisalas, for your colourful contribution, which describes vividly your own orientation.

        • #2851027

          I trow

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to this is my final reply on all current comments on the subject….

          That Ansu lives a rich life of mind, and that you do not. Yours has all the appearances of lockstep.

        • #2851021

          Ah yes… you’re unaware of my “condition”, Carlo…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to this is my final reply on all current comments on the subject….

          See, I speak to you as you speak to others.
          I add some gravel sometimes, and sometimes chalk, but by and large I give you my impression of you.
          If you think I talk crazy, it’s because you do.
          As for my orientation, in any space real or imagined, one such as you cannot know it :p

        • #2851014

          That is rather radical

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to this is my final reply on all current comments on the subject….

          There is a name for coutries where the military are an authority unto themselves and don’t answer to anyone. Its called a military dictatorship. In a democracy, we recognize the need for some method of control of the military. In the US, the President, elected directly by the people, is the commander and chief of the armed forces.

          For all your comments on unfit warriors, you ignore ancient Greece and Rome, which tolerated and even in some cases encouraged homosexual behaviour. Yet someone they were very successful militarily – ever hear of Alexander the Great?

          And we’ve already covered the animals in nature that display same sex behaviours.

          As for discriptive and funny names, many societies had that for people of different races or cultures, its nothing to be proud of, racism, xenophobia etc.

          I think Ansu has a healthy balanced view of the situation. I don’t know one way or the other his orientation. I wouldn’t judge Carlo to have the same.

        • #2851004

          You’re British

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to this is my final reply on all current comments on the subject….

          So you would most likely understand when I refer to Eric the half a bee and the man seeking a license for his pet bee Eric.

          With that taken into consideration, all I can say from reading many of your posts is that, “you’re a bleedin’ looney, mate!”

          While you defer the decision to the Military and not government, which is a completely valid argument, you then destroy any hope of retaining credibility when you resort to Aboriginals and their views of gay warriors. The required relevance to the US military just isn’t there.

          America is a massive, democracy, a world super power, not a third world country where the military wear war paint made from mud and berries, life moves on people understand each other better, we have grown beyond such an idiotic mindset. With hundreds of years of development, hopefully we shall not revert to such in order to justify modern law.

          Several of your comments have lead in with straight up, opinions that have validity, you then destroy all hope of sanity and validity when you start on about Adam and Eve, Columbian aboriginals etc.

          For you to even assume you know someone’s sexual preference based on nondescript posts on line, is pure idiocy. Either way, Ansu’s “orientation” is of no interest to anyone here, it holds absolutely no relevance to the discussion or topic at hand, if it did, it would mean that his opinion were more qualified as he was speaking from first hand knowledge, which it seems nobody has here, unfortunately.

          Take off the grass skirt, put down the spear and realize you are living in the 21st century already.

        • #2851003

          in additıon I would like to enlarge my final comment…..

          by carlo.di.giorgio ·

          In reply to this is my final reply on all current comments on the subject….

          the US President is indeed the commander in chief of the armed forces and when there is no opposition to his policies he’s almost a Dictator and that’s why now he has lost that absolute power since the Republicans have regained the control of the House of Reps. Americans don’t like dictators, I hear in CNN reportages. As to Rome and Greece, what we are talking, is about the moral status at the zenith and subsequent decline of their might and corruption. With the Christianization of the immense territory under Roman rules homosexuality was no more tolerated as vices infiltrated from The East. Under Republican rules, ended with Julius Cesar, Rome was much more citizen/soldier power based on high standards. As for Alexander II there are more legends around his ‘orientation’ but the fact that he was married more than once, having a large harem of women and own children shows that the perversion was mental. Towards the end of his life he was prone up to severe status of schizophrenia and megalomania . Hence not a very good supporting example to demonstrate the validity of same sex ‘orientation’ of this historical figure. Actually, rather confirming Adler’s work that the phenomenon is due to neuroses and not genetics. In today’s Persia (Iran) one risks death penalty if caught in perverted sex, as it is the case in some parts of Africa, in the vicinity of wild animals!

        • #2850996

          Ah, an addendum!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to this is my final reply on all current comments on the subject….

          Nicely slipped in there, I guess you really aren’t done after all.

          I am sure a US member will correct you but CNN, is NOT exactly a source of information, CNN is the STAR or Enquirer of sensational news outlets, they create controversy for themselves to debate.

          Usually when there is no opposition to policies, the majority would be in agreement, therefore ‘dictatorship’ dos not apply.

          regarding Alexander the Great, you suggest “the perversion was mental” as he was also married and accepted women into his sexual life.

          You may very well be correct in that and other cases of bisexuality, where sexual preference is a matter of instant, sexual stimuli. Bisexuality was not really frowned upon, orgies involved people from both sexes of course and once exposed to such sexual pleasures, many found themselves quite comfortable. I would even suggest that many had no real preference when it came to sex but sought our their preferred life partner when it came to matrimony or long term relations. We all party, it doesn’t mean we are ALL alcoholics too.

          [i]In today’s Persia (Iran) one risks death penalty if caught in perverted sex, as it is the case in some parts of Africa, in the vicinity of wild animals! “[/i]

          If you are thinking that what happens in Persian society should offer any relevance to how we act in Western society, then how do we address beheading criminals and disparity of women. Should that archaic and repulsive mindset apply to us too?

        • #2861314

          Your reading of ancient history is a bit spotty

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to this is my final reply on all current comments on the subject….

          Ancient Greece had many examples of men engaging in same sex with other men, until the age of marriage. This included Sparta, which had to be considered the dominant military power (on land) and Athens (naval power).

          There is a fair amount of evidence that Alexander was bisexual. Of course he would marry to produce an heir, that was expected.

          In Roman society, until Christianity took hold, it was common for men to have same sex relationships, the only issue was that Roman citizens were to be shamed if they weren’t the “dominant” partner. Similar to Greece, Romans were expected to marry to produce offspring no matter what their preference.

        • #2861311

          It’ sstill that way in many cases James

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to this is my final reply on all current comments on the subject….

          as far as the dominant partner, even gay men prefer to be the pitcher rather than the catcher. Male dominance and masculinity thrives in the gay community too, no differently than in straight communities.

          Despite what many think, just because a man is gay it doesn’t mean he is effeminate. In fact I was in a situation years ago where I was left to wait in a friend’s apartment with some gay men were leading me on as a joke. They knew I was scared shirtless, as they were all HUGE, one guy was an NFL player two were CFL players and three others were personal bodyguards. I actually had no idea any were gay, yet alone all of them, and I am talking MASSIVE black men! They could probably smell the fear in me as one put a hand on my knee and smiled while saying, don’t worry, we are all hugs and kisses around here.

          They all started to laugh and the joke was clearly on me. They were actually such nice, kind and gentle guys but not effeminate, not bloody likely, they had me sweating good! 😀

          Ah, the lessons we learn as we grow.

        • #2861258

          No, Oz, he’s not British

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to this is my final reply on all current comments on the subject….

          He’s Italian. And not that good at it. All the Italians I knew had rational thought down pat.

        • #2861232

          Carlo, Carlo, Carlo…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to this is my final reply on all current comments on the subject….

          You’re very good at using incomplete sentence structure to obfuscate your missing points.

          Rome was relatively accepting of homosexuality during all of it’s rising period. Read Catullus, in italian too.
          Christianization marked the beginning of the end, or have you forgotten?

        • #2861312

          aborigenes cultures are very important to be studied….

          by carlo.di.giorgio ·

          In reply to No serious anthropologist.would consent to this…..

          as the most common practice in Anthropology. The same method used by famous anthropologist and psychologist like Carl Gustav Jung to go to the roots of the subject. The fact that cultures not influenced by Western conquerors used to have the same objections to homosexuality is by all mean a very solid argument to prove that the phenomenon is human but not genetics as humans, being intelligent creatures, can do whatever they are fancy even if that habit is dangerous and pervert like smoking and drinking above the tolerable limits. My words are directed to those who have raised opposition to famous psychologists works such as those of Alfred Adler. HIV became all of the sudden headline news in the early 80’s in association with numerous homosexuals, even celebrities falling ill and subsequently dieing. Considering the long years of incubation of the virus it can be easily related to the orgies of the tumultuous 60’s, the modern birth era of liberal and shameless perverted sex.
          Yes, smoking and drinking can be extremely dangerous but those ‘vices’ have never been associated to genetics, and are only the most common of the many humans indulge at their peril.

        • #2861295

          They have been associated with genetics actually

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to aborigenes cultures are very important to be studied….

          Smoking and drinking are said to both be related to genetics. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that alcoholism and smoking have a genetic component, but the actual gene that may be the cause has yet to be identified.

          Studies of laboratory animals as well as human test subjects indicate that genetic factors play a major role in the development of alcoholism and smoking habits, but just how much a factor remains undetermined.

          As for homosexuality and HIV in the 80’s, you fail to recognize that the virus has also been spread through heterosexual couples, possibly ORIGINATING due to homosexual activity but propagated through heterosexual sex as well. So we have two perversions as the cause for this outbreak and it is not solely limited to homosexual coupling or sexual perversion as you prefer to call it.

          [i]Considering the long years of incubation of the virus it can be easily related to the orgies of the tumultuous 60’s, the modern birth era of liberal and shameless perverted sex.”[/i]

          Why should ANY sex be deemed shameful? Not in your bedroom? I’m fine with that.

          You suggest it is easily related, perhaps it is for the sake of simplicity but not factually or solely. It’s always easy to associate but harder much to prove as fact.

          Judging by my views of US government, one would assume I was a liberal or democrat, however I am neither, in fact I am very conservative. Therefore such simplistic conclusion based on association is merely simplicity and far from accuracy, as you like to pose your comments as.

          Your concepts are just that, concepts, based loosely on association, not fact at all.

          Much of anthropology and science as a whole, is based on loose association, with very little substantiated fact but a collection of evidence that results in a viable conclusion…which you seem to feel is the same as fact.

          So far, you have posed little or no facts at all to support your conclusions. Yet you continue with your insistence as if you have.

          Your conclusions are merely your opinions but nothing more.

        • #2861257

          final good night to the sympathizers of techrepublic’s forum…

          by carlo.di.giorgio ·

          In reply to aborigenes cultures are very important to be studied….

          it’s bed time here in UK though in due course I’ll be back with my own translation from German into English of Adler’s understanding of homosexuality in Ancient Greece, as this bit needs to be properly interpreted and understood. My initial interest on this site was to stick to the current theme related to homosexuality in the US forces and for the time being I can say, JOB DONE!

        • #2861231

          No, it really doesn’t.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to final good night to the sympathizers of techrepublic’s forum…

          Nothing about Adler or any other 30’s thinker “needs to be properly interpreted and understood”. They have been done to death. It is the scientific method; each generation eats it’s forebears, then spit them out, defecate, burp – And then there’s nothing left of the classics but quotes and wordings.
          But Adler is hardly a classic. Even Sigmund Fraud couldn’t tolerate him.

        • #2854337

          LOL – Priceless!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What about The Natural Order of Things?

          You’d almost have a point about Canada’s Liberal government, if we didn’t have a Conservative government of course.

          Sexual Orientation refers to the direction (orientation) someone seeks sexually.

          Based on the remainder of your lunacy, I take it that you feel homosexuality is a warped mind, or perhaps warped orientation.

          What a numpty!

        • #2854298

          The natural order ??? You mean YOUR order, surely.

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to What about The Natural Order of Things?

          Only 70 years ago, left handedness was considered (in many parts of the english-speaking world) against the [i]natural order of things[/i]. People had it beaten out of them, with no consideration of short or long-term issues.

          People with cleft paletes, sciatica, cerebral palsey or myriad other conditions were considered by many to be ‘against tthe natural order of things’ and treated as such. Hidden, forgotten and ashamed.

          You may well find “sexual orientation” a strange phrase.

          Your “natural order of things” is as flimsy a foundation as yesterday’s fashion magazine.

          Not entirely sure what your last sentence meant, but I am 100% confident you need not concern yourself with the risks or afflictions of genius.

          edit shpellink

        • #2873404

          never heard such a perverted counter argument…….

          by carlo.di.giorgio ·

          In reply to The natural order ??? You mean YOUR order, surely.

          How can one possibly assert that there is no order in nature? Unbelievable statement, to put it very politely.
          It can only come from countries originated by Brits who sent to their Austral colony, officially declared ”non-populated by humans”. North American Pueblo Indians used to consider homosexuals unfit as warriors as weak and coward, hence relegated to domestic tasks only. You might also care to research what the cultures of Austral Aborigines, brutally devastated, at the hands of exported British criminals, were considering the status of homosexuals.
          I am glad to read that only English speaking societies were professing such totally uncivilized hence ”un-Christian” perverted beliefs. If you care to travel to Italy and look around you will find that all health and social centres were originally founded and established by religious orders, who cared for sick, invalid, handicapped and poor humans. I read Dickens and am still astonished by the cruelty of English societies of earlier days.

        • #2873692

          I didn’t see any such assertion.

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to never heard such a perverted counter argument…….

          It appears you interpret rather liberally.

          [i]How can one possibly assert that there is no order in nature?[/i]

        • #2871260

          mine was a reply to someone else not to any of your comments

          by carlo.di.giorgio ·

          In reply to I didn’t see any such assertion.

          …..care to read the comment above my reply and you will understand what I was talking about.
          thanks and cheers!

        • #2871188

          Nowhere

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to mine was a reply to someone else not to any of your comments

          did he assert that there is [i]no order in nature[/i].

        • #2871144

          For a third time …

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to never heard such a perverted counter argument…….

          Nowhere did I assert there is no order in nature.

          I simply question YOUR definition of that order.

          I also point to demonstrable fact that people’s definition of the “natural order” concerning other people is fluid over time, marked by bias and prejudice (and thus typically fear), and often defined by those who feel they have access to, or ownership of, some higher moral ground.

          If you wish to play fun games, Carlo.di.giorgio, state your family’s national background. I doubt it to be any better or worse than the English, but I’d just love to be surprised. You have no idea of my personal background but are happy to draw the usual inane generalisations.

        • #2851298

          The Natural Order of Things doesn’t follow trends

          by carlo.di.giorgio ·

          In reply to For a third time …

          Absolutely not!
          Your quote ‘I also point to demonstrable fact that people’s definition of the “natural order” concerning other people is fluid over time, marked by bias and prejudice (and thus typically fear), and often defined by those who feel they have access to, or ownership of, some higher moral ground”

          Since Adam and Eve there have been on Earth Two Genders: Males and Females and from their sexual unions the humanity has grown bigger and bigger reaching currently 5/6 Billons. I do not have a definition of the natural order of things, Mother Nature has it and she defines what the humans are: males and/or females and gives to each new born child a specific gender organ. According to that the child is named and registered at the local Registry as MALE and or FEMALE. The so-called sexual orientation is a modern terminology forged by Western liberal societies for political reasons and it is a clear cut sign of social decadence as the rest of the world claims. In my case I was born male and since early age and adolescence I was attracted to females by natural instinct and as such I can’t imagine, apart from more or less close friendship, feeling any sexual attraction to same sex humans, which I would find abhorrent and disgusting. In fact, my father was attracted to my mother and together they had 3 children. Billions and Trillions (and more) of humans have been experiencing the same since the beginning of human history. Homosexuals do not have children because their relation is sterile and serve no natural purpose but simply appears to satisfy their perverted mind and that not without pickering.
          I am an Italian born and Swiss multilingual cosmopolitan living in Britain with many more life stages in other European and American nations.

        • #2851294

          What hump

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to The Natural Order of Things doesn’t follow trends

          You ask.

        • #2851110

          Okay you are just going way too far now

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The Natural Order of Things doesn’t follow trends

          Your explanation or your loosely used terms begins with a complete fallacy.

          [i]Since Adam and Eve there have been on Earth Two Genders: Males and Females[/i]

          FALSE, the Earth was around for billions of years prior to any supposed Adam or Eve being ‘put on Earth’. Science proves how fast light travels, light years can be calculated by the colour of the light. There is more proof supporting Earth being around several billion years before Adam and Eve and supporting the natural evolution of life, than there is the tale of Christian religion.

          You then propose another fictional being to support your next claim, Mother Nature? Yeah, met her myself, didn’t believe her, didn’t like her.

          [i]”…gives to each new born child a specific gender organ.[/i]

          Wrong once again, there are many that have a mix of both organs or a completely unidentifiable organ. At one point we are neither identifiable as a male of female.

          [i”According to that the child is named and registered at the local Registry as MALE and or FEMALE.” [/i]

          This is where WE make the choice for the child regardless of how the child will develop, or think. It has also been proven incorrect, many once seemingly female babies are later found to develop full male genitalia.

          [i]”I was attracted to females by natural instinct and as such I can’t imagine, apart from more or less close friendship, feeling any sexual attraction to same sex humans, which I would find abhorrent and disgusting.[/i]

          Therefore you are unable to grasp such a concept and as a result, admittedly completely ignorant on such matters.

          Your conclusion is devoid of any reason, science, logic, fact, sanity.

          In fact, your opinion has been put forth so ignorantly that it is laughable and [b]perverse[/b] in the true sense of the word.

        • #2851129

          And how about homosexual male initialization rituals?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to never heard such a perverted counter argument…….

          Apparently there are tribes out there that feel that a young male’s manlyness needs jump-starting. I’ll leave the rest to your fevered imagination.

          But what you say about brutality, need I remind you of the Crusades and the countless atrocities committed therein? That’s Italy, and that’s religion. Shame on you! Go stand in the corner Giorgio. And I place upon you also blame for the atrocities of Rome.
          Ew, how can you even show your face around here?
          You perpetrator of the killing of the Christ!!! You sicken me! Italians… may the earth swallow them up!!!
          And then spit them at the moon.
          Except for a certain Andrea and his kin and whoever he may choose to include in this pardon. I know him, he’s a good sort.

          But not Giorgio here, he’s one of them what killed our Jesus!

        • #2861316

          This is so absurd

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And how about homosexual male initialization rituals?

          I am starting to picture gay man as walking hunched over, in leg irons and beating their chests like some freaks from Planet of The Apes.

          It’s weird how such ignorance can cast such a ridiculous light upon something that is so irrelevant and uneventful where I live.

          Talk about archaic and this guy actually claims he is educated?

        • #2861308

          No matter how educated someone is…

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to This is so absurd

          …it is sometimes difficult to overcome an ingrained prejudice.

          To me his dogged faith in Adler suggests to me he isn’t a true academic, but someone who has found a few heroes whose beliefs match his own, and nothing will disaude him from his belief that he and his heroes are correct and the rest of us are wrong.

          Adler died in the 30s. Both Psychology and Genetics have advanced much in the intervening years, but he ignores what they might have to say on the subject because it doesn’t fit his world view.

          I’m betting he had very strong parental influencers as a kid.

        • #2861294

          I wholly concur

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to This is so absurd

          I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but with every keystroke I read it becomes harder to accept.

          Truly misguided but self assured of keen insight? Gawd what a mess! 😀

        • #2861234

          James, like I said…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to This is so absurd

          They talk between themselves, flat-earthers. They share cliff’s notes on books with good material for presentation, in context or out of it. Obviously, for the use they intend for it, out of context is usually the case.
          They all seem to have the same cheat sheets; like, they all have some bogus argument about evolution and the laws of thermodynamics.
          Next they’ll tell us homosexuality too violates that.

    • #2872967

      I think gays have always served in the military

      by av . ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      They just weren’t open about it because of repercussions.

      We need to get past this issue in the military because there are a lot of gay people that want to serve their country and they should be welcome.

      Its a matter of tolerance and the onus, to me, is on the people that don’t like it. Its time for them to learn to tolerate and accept gay people that have the same goals as them.

      I don’t know what the military experts think and I would defer to them too, but I would find it hard to believe that they would exclude people based on their sexual orientation.

      AV

    • #2872943

      One retiree’s opinion.

      by charliespencer ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      Due to the current overseas deployments, it is difficult for the military to retain trained soldiers. This has driven a documented lowering of recruiting standards. Legal and educational backgrounds that previously would have barred enlistment have been lowered or waived.

      In short, we’ve started accepting ignorant criminals. Barring better qualified applicants simply because of what they do in their off-hours is a bad policy. If I’m stuck in a muddy foxhole, I’m more concerned with another soldier’s ability to kill the enemy than whether he’s eyeballing me in the shower. Heterosexual servicemen have been able to control themselves around females for decades; gay ones can too.

      • #2872924

        Agreed, bad behaviour is bad behaviour

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to One retiree’s opinion.

        And it isn’t just restricted to those who got in due to lower standards. I just have to reflect on the Russ Williams case in Canada, a top student who became a trusted pilot (flew the Queen and Prime Minister) who became the commander of the largest air force base in Canada, and yet is capable of shameful and despicable acts. He was a rising star, funny, charming and …..evil.

        I am a little confused over the need for an act of Congress. Wasn’t it Truman himself, as Commander in Chief, who ended descrimination/segregation of blacks in the US armed services?

        • #2872915

          “. . . .the need for an act of Congress. . . . .”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Agreed, bad behaviour is bad behaviour

          Or the need for a court decision, for that matter.

          The president is also the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. If a military issue does spill over into the civilian and/or political realm, let the president make the call, just as President Truman did. But keep Congress and the courts out of it.

          At least that’s my opinion.

        • #2873925

          Congress, courts, president

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to “. . . .the need for an act of Congress. . . . .”

          The “don’t ask/don’t tell” license to serve, which means it’s okay so long as nobody tells your commander you’re gay, was passed by Congress. Congress should therefore repeal it.

          Courts have overturned the law, because (in our evolving conception of justice and citizenship, which changes over time) they believe it is unconstitutional, under terms of the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Civil law once divided homosexuals from the full rights of citizenship, just as it still divides criminals from full citizenship. Civil law and the public imagination have moved.

          The President is obliged to defend the laws that Congress passes. That’s why Obama’s Justice Department is busy making court cases and filing to stay execution of that judge’s decision, because the President is not at liberty to ignore the nation’s laws. Until the case is affirmed by the Supreme Court, or until Congress liquidates its existing law, he’s stuck defending something he wants to overturn.

        • #2873923

          Congress overturning the law.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Congress, courts, president

          You mean the same Congress whose members routinely make opposition to gay marriage a point of their campaigns?

        • #2873917

          Yeah, them’s the ones

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Congress overturning the law.

          There are probably enough people in the House of Representatives to pass a law affirming gay rights (or invalidating a law that suppresses them,) despite the noise that “family defenders” keep making. However, in the Senate, it only takes one person to put a hold on a piece of legislation, no doubt done solely in the interest of military readiness, and that requires 60% of Senators to override.

        • #2873903

          ” . . . the President is not at liberty to ignore the nation’s laws. . . “

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Congress, courts, president

          Except, apparently, immigration laws – and specifically in the state of Arizona, where that state’s governor pleaded with him to enforce those very laws.

          And, apparently, voter intimidation laws – and specifically in the state of Pennsylvania where activities of Black Panther activists were swept under the rug.

        • #2873876

          I expect evenhanded enforcement

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to ” . . . the President is not at liberty to ignore the nation’s laws. . . “

          Immigration laws are enforced by the INS and Border Patrol, within the budget allotted by Congress to that purpose, and consistent with their policies of enforcement over the years. In an election year, Arizona’s governor chooses to stamp her feet and tell Barack Obama how he should be enforcing laws. Well, she’s got that right. Admittedly, Arizona has a bigger illegal immigrant problem than other states. They do like to dramatize it, I notice.

          The Black Panther voter intimidation case was two guys who showed up at one Philadelphia polling station on election day in 2008, one of them carrying a night stick, who both shot off their mouths for a while while wearing urban militia costume. A cop was called, the guy with the night stick was told to leave, and did. The other one stayed for a while. Although some peripheral figures said this was part of a national Black Panther initiative, it doesn’t look as there was ever more that two guys at one polling place in Philadelphia. Charges were filed by the Department of Justice, then dropped. There has apparently been some sort of investigation:
          http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/10/25/civil-rights-commission-spent-almost-175000-in-black-panthers-probe/
          http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html

          The Tea Panthers at work:
          http://www.redstate.com/anitamoncrief/2010/10/21/uncle-sam-funds-acorn-poll-workers-but-tea-party-group-investigated/

          My guess is that a few blockheads went out in both cases, trying to be important and intimidate some voters. Voters refused to cooperate; nobody was intimidated. Nobody will be prosecuted. A lot of partisans will feel just terrible about that, and will keep yakking on and on. Ho, hum. Doesn’t seem like much of anything real happened.

        • #2873816

          Your “ho hum” attitude

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          You should be ashamed of yourself, Delbert.

          Two extremist right-wing white supremacists dressed in military garb, carrying night sticks, pounding them into their palms, who, by their very presence and demeanor, were attempting to intimidate voters – and you call it [i]Ho Hum[/i]?

          Are you serious? You should be ashamed of yourself!

          Oh my, did I get my colors mixed up; and did I confuse left and right?

          P.S. Who else shares Delbert’s [i]Ho Hum[/i] attitude about this obvious voter intimidation case?

        • #2873809

          Funny that you ask

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          You don’t want to know from someone who knows [i]how to do it[/i].

        • #2873805

          Santee:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          Changing black to white and left to right seems to paint a different picture, don’t you think?

          In reality, however, one’s the print and the other is the negative, but both exposing the same thing.

        • #2873804

          Have to hand it to you

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          You are no slouch.

          You land on your feet.

        • #2873753

          Ho, and hum again

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          If there was some actual voter intimidation going on, I’d be upset about it.

          What you have in Philadelphia is two clowns who wanted to seem tough and intimidate voters. They dressed the part, talked the lines, and one of them carried a stick, and acted scary, but I haven’t got information that they actually scared anyone, or impeded or influenced anyone’s vote. The guy with the stick went quietly away when a cop told him to leave. Unless I’m misinformed, the rest of the day proceded without incident.

          The DoJ evidently considered bringing charges against these bums and/or the Black Panther organization, and then dropped it. Black guys who want to get black people agitated would probably like to see them charged and hauled around by cops. White guys who want to get white people agitated are happy to see them not prosecuted at all, so they can complain about prejudice. “We white/black folks are being stomped upon and having our rights violated by a conspiracy of black/white criminals at the highest levels of government!” If you want to play the game, just repeat the preceding sentence to yourself, selecting your racial preference as appropriate.

          The option to prosecute may have seemed like a non-starter for Justice. If some voter got hit with the stick, if somebody got pushed or threatened, if there was some defining action (instead of a malefactor who just “seemed threatening” and belonged to a militant group,) then you’d have a felony or major misdemeanor issue with jail time attached. Instead, there were two guys wearing beret caps, one stick, some words, and a man who left when asked. Try and make a case with that. A good defense attorney could make that look like half of nothing. The Civil Rights Commission has investigated the failure of the government to prosecute. It will be mildly interesting to see what fault they find.

        • #2854537

          Who else shares Delbert’s Ho Hum attitude about this obvious voter intimida

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          AlQaeda, ’nuff said I guess.

          If you can equate the US military to Middle Eastern terrorism, it falls right into place.

          If not, then I suppose one must frown upon such actions, regardless of who did it or IF they actually scared anyone. It’s no different to me than standing outside a church trying to intimidate people of faith.

          I may have issues with the US government but I sure as hell respect democracy and equal treatment of all citizens.

        • #2854535

          Voters refused to cooperate; nobody was intimidated. Nobody will be prosecu

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          You know, maybe you or I would not be intimidated by them, in broad daylight in front of a public building, with other people/witnesses around.

          But a mother with her children in tow may very well be intimidated. Sure she may have even entered and cast a vote, but will she return again?

          Why someone wouldn’t be prosecuted for hefting a bat outside a public polling place is beyond me.

          He didn’t have a baseball and mitt with him, the bat was to used to instill fear and impose opposition, is that not illegal?

        • #2854503

          Delbert’s gone into the tank for Obama

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          He advocates trillion dollar deficits and voter intimidation, all in the name of Obama, It’s really sad.

        • #2854496

          Was anybody intimidated?

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          I’ve watched two videos. One showed two guys from the University of Pennsylvania talking to the thug with the nightstick. (It was a nightstick, or policeman’s billy club, not a baseball bat.) The guy with the stick certainly LOOKED intimidating. However, he did nothing.

          The other video was a recording of a Fox News report. They showed up after the guy had been asked by the police to leave, which he did. They didn’t draw guns, or arrest him; he didn’t resist. He apparently spent about one hour in front of the polling station before being ejected. The Fox interviewers were very concerned that white people might be being oppressed by scary militant black guys in some episode of reverse racism, but they could summon up no report of anybody being pushed away, or who was too frightened to enter. A white poll worker said on camera that the two of them stood close together in front of the door after he spoke to them, and he walked between them and entered the building, and called the cops.

          These two were pulling their trick in an overwhelmingly black neighborhood, and it is very possible that the only white people who approached the building in that hour were the poll workers. Perhaps they were what you might call “smart” black guys. Smart enough to realize that if they tried this stunt in a majority white neighborhood, it would take a lot less time for a half dozen angry white husbands and brothers to show up than it would for the cops to arrive, and when they did arrive, they would wonder why a black guy was lying in front of the entrance with a nightstick up his butt. I know a little bit about Philadelphia, and it works like that in many neighborhoods. There’s a LOT of strong racial feeling in the town. Most of it never gets prosecuted.

          So, here’s the deal. Pretend you are a Federal prosecutor. Rush Limbaugh is indignannt. Sean Hannity is indignant. Every white guy with a chip on his shoulder and a microphone in his hand is indignant. The facts of the case seem indisputable: a guy was trying to intimidate anti-Obama voters, which probably means white ones. A clear case of racial discrimination. All you need is an intimidated white guy to prove your case. But, you can’t find anybody who was actually there who says he was intimidated. All you can find is indignant Fox reporters, whose alter egos were vicariously intimidated. It’s like the guy threw a brick through a window with no glass in it. Maybe you can charge him with vandalism, because he was TRYING to break the window, but the window failed to cooperate. In light of that, is it worth it to prosecute? Knowing that if you did he’d probably be defended by Johnny Cochrane, and that Al Sharpton and the leadership of the Black Panthers would get hours of free television exposure, and it would cost the taxpayers a couple million dollars, and race relations in Philadelphia would get a little worse? For the sake of throwing one punk in jail for three months, or maybe losing the case?

          Quoting from the Washington Post, July 15 2010:

          The controversy will continue to play out before the Commission on Civil Rights, which plans to issue a report in September. Members of the commission, who have heard hours of testimony, are divided on the merits of the case.

          Abigail Thernstrom, a commission member and a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, called it “small potatoes” and said conservatives should pursue more important issues against the Obama administration. The case, she pointed out, invokes a narrow and rarely used provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which has been used successfully to prosecute only three times since its passage.

          “If you want to criticize [Attorney General] Eric Holder, there are lots of grounds on which to criticize him,” she said. “Why waste your breath on this one?”

          Thernstrom said that she did not find (former Justice Department lawyer) Adams’s testimony convincing and that the facts of the case raised doubts in her mind, noting that the Black Panthers were standing in front of a majority-black precinct that had voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in previous elections — not a prime spot for intimidating white voters.

        • #2854386

          That’s not the point Delbert

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          I can appreciate that the guy was somewhat passive and left without altercation when asked. Perhaps its less of a matter of him than the polling station security. Apparently he was there for an hour. He should have been addressed much sooner and dealt with right away, especially if he left quietly. They fact that news crews were there and managed to report on the guy just illustrates a lack or ineffectiveness of security taken at the polling station.

          How quickly would this same situation be addressed if it had been a group of Muslims (not terrorists) trying to intimidate people outside?

        • #2854366

          Security

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          Of course there’s a lack of polling station security. There are maybe 50,000 polling locations in the United States, and most of them have no cops at all. They are nearly 100% staffed by volunteers, usually equally divided between Republicans and Democrats, who check each other’s work and cross-tabulate everybody who comes in to vote.

          If there were police hanging around, staring at everybody, some people might be discouraged from voting. (If my car failed inspection and was illegal to drive, I might not want to drive to a place where I knew a cop would be loitering around the parking lot all day.) However, generally no police are necessary. It’s not like Iraq here; polling stations don’t attract trouble. So, to point out there was inadequate security is to observe an irrelevancy.

          I said it didn’t seem like anybody had been intimidated out of voting, or even from entering the building; nobody testified that they had. There’s a lack of habeas corpus on that one. Prosecution for intimidating action has slightly more to go on, given that the one guy was slapping his billy club in his hand and yelling stuff like, “We’re gonna elect a black president today! Nobody needs to vote here if they don’t vote for Obama!” However, I didn’t hear in that any direct threat, like “I’m gonna stop you if you try to enter.” I can see where there would be difficulties in prosecution on this; apart from standing around with a weapon with 100 yards of a polling station, there’s no unambiguous illegal thing that he did. (A side note: the other Panther guy, who had no stick and did less talking, actually lived upstairs in the building where the polling was taking place.) You can work up a case based on the implied threat they presented, in the absence of explicitly threatening language or behavior, but it would be a case against two dipsh*t guys, because nothing else like this happened in the city of Philadelphia that day, and there was no evidence connecting the Black Panther organization to this activity, except that the two were both members and both wore little funny Panther berets and military-style tunics.

          Now, you may say it’s not the point; it isn’t the point that nobody was hurt, nobody was kept out of the building, no legally-defined threats were made, and no criminal conspiracy was established beyond two stupid guys acting together. You’d say it wasn’t the point either that arresting them would make for ill will, an expensive and dubious prosecution, and nationwide free publicity in print and TV for a racist, radical organization. It’s the principle! Just because there’s no actual party who was harmed by them, and deserves justice, there’s an imaginary party! There’s a principle!

          I think principles have their limits, and if standing on principle gets you nothing but trouble and no compensatory benefit, you might want to stand slightly to one side. It happens all the time. Cops tell a belligerent drunk to go home; unless he resists or breaks something, they don’t bother to arrrest him for the half dozen ordinances he has violated. Cops don’t give you a speeding ticket unless you’re at least ten miles over the limit; they consider less a waste of time (caution: this rule does not apply in Alabama.) Voting is an important principle, but two guys acting dumb for one hour does not necessarily degrade its importance.

          Smells like a big nothing to me. Ho, hum. I’ll wait for the Civil Rights Commission report to see if there’s more behind this.

          Incidentally, if you drive through Alabama with Yankee license plates, there are some communities that cheerfully round your observed speed up, until you’re ten miles over. Even if you thought you were one mile under. Seen it happen.

        • #2854331

          ahh

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          So police = security. That’s new to me.

          IN Canada, we have commissioners at places like welfare offices, banks, UI offices etc. They are just normal security dudes, usually very old security dudes, that are there to be eyes and ears, open doors for people that need help, speak to problematic people and escalate it to a greater authority (police) if needed.

          Pretty sure that in this case, someone just there to watch over things would have had his request heeded and they would have left peacefully in a timely manner.

          These people could also be volunteers as well, just ask them to make sure that everything is going as planned and report any difficulties they have if people refuse to cooperate. It works here nationwide, don’t see how it wouldn’t work there too.

          So far you are barely hanging on by a thread, you have no logical or reasonable support for your comments.

          To suggest a volunteer or part time, low income worker, assigned to keeping things orderly, would be either a financial or resource burden on the worlds greatest and most mighty nation, who can spend trillions on a foreign war but not manage it’s own polling stations is purely laughable.

          You are not Afghanistan….yet.

        • #2854324

          Canadian voting experience

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to I expect evenhanded enforcement

          While I haven’t done it in a few years, I’ve participated in the whole organization of voting at all three levels of government in Canada.

          In Canada, there are people hired to be Returning Officers who manage the voting process. They are considering government officials. They in turn hire people to run polling stations (Deputy Returning Officers, and Poll Clerks).

          Candidates may also assign scrutineers to watch over the process. They (scrutineers)are allowed to see the voters list to determine who voted. They are allowed to challenge the credentials of a voter (DRO has final say though). In the days of paper ballots they were allowed to view the counting process.

          Candidates may also appoint a legal agent who may officially represent the candidate when talking to election officials. I’ve done that role too, though usually its a lawyer.

          If any intimidation took place at a polling station, the paid staff have a procedure to handle it, by calling the Returning officer, and/or police.

          In Canada we have rules about what can and cannot happen near a polling station, and there would be grounds for anyone seen to be campaigning withing XX feet of the polling station. Scrutineers are not allowed to talk to voters, wear pins or buttons.

          I know if there was an incident, the scutineers would pitch in and help the paid staff. Because the last thing they want is the voting to stop because of a legal issue.

        • #2872910

          100% speculation follows

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Agreed, bad behaviour is bad behaviour

          Discrimination against blacks was a DOD policy, strictly under the control of the Executive branch, not a law passed by Congress. I believe “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (hereafter DADT) is a federal law passed by Congress, hence Obama’s (and any other president’s) inability to override it on his own.

        • #2872908

          National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to 100% speculation follows

          AKA: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.2401.ENR:

          If the courts get involved in the issue, it should be to rule as unconstitutional any such law passed by Congress.

          It’s a function, by constitutional design, reserved for the president.

        • #2873921

          This was passed by Congress, not by executive order

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994

          The President is not free to abrogate acts of Congress. It’s been done, as when Truman refused to build out the Air Force to congressionally authorized levels, but it’s rare.

          Only the courts can rule an act of Congress illegal.

        • #2873905

          I know it was passed by Congress – that’s what I said

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to This was passed by Congress, not by executive order

          And I also know that only the courts can rule an act of Congress illegal.

        • #2873897

          Well, then the President can’t overrule it.

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to I know it was passed by Congress – that’s what I said

          The executive has to enforce and support the laws passed by Congress, until they expire or are reversed. Since Don’t Ask was passed by Congress, issuing an executive order to the contrary would be illegal.

        • #2873887

          Delbert – two points

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I know it was passed by Congress – that’s what I said

          The president can indeed overturn congressional legislation through the veto process. Yes, I know that Congress can override a presidential veto, but it takes 2/3 majority, not a simple majority.

          Moreover, when it comes to the armed forces, the president, as I’ve repeatedly said, is the Commander in Chief. Congress is not the Commander in Chief, the president is. As such, I might believe that in the case of military matters, the president could indeed override congressional legislation. If Congress was intended to be the Commander in Chief Panel, then it would have been written into the Constitution as such; instead, the president is given that role.

          And as you, yourself, pointed out, only the courts can declare something illegal. Just because you say something would be illegal, it doesn’t mean it would be. Acknowledging, of course, that neither of us is a legal scholar.

        • #2873871

          Priceless!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I know it was passed by Congress – that’s what I said

          Which one of you is playing Arthur? 😀

          DENNIS I told you. We?re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

          ARTHUR Yes.

          DENNIS But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.

          ARTHUR Yes, I see.

          DENNIS By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs?

          ARTHUR Be quiet!

          DENNIS ?but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more?

          ARTHUR Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

          WOMAN Order, eh?who does he think he is?

          ARTHUR I am your king!

          WOMAN Well, I didn?t vote for you.

        • #2873866

          No, to both points

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to I know it was passed by Congress – that’s what I said

          Although the President can veto Congress’s law, that is only possible within the ten days following Congress’s vote. After that time elapses, it’s settled law.

          I think the only time the President could get away with overriding legislation in his capacity as commander in chief would be in an outright emergency, in which national security was at immediate risk.

          Of course, there are plenty of points where the President will somewhat fudge execution of a law, knowing that Congress will not impeach over the small stuff; and Congress would in some cases be happy not to have to debate and be held accountable for a law.

        • #2873857

          That’s the loophole Delbert

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I know it was passed by Congress – that’s what I said

          National security risk. Issuing such a state of emergency would never be abused of course. 😉

        • #2872723

          The “inability to override”

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to 100% speculation follows

          has nothing to do with its status as a law and everything to do with what’s in the hearts and minds of men.

          Frankly, if you can’t “handle” being around someone who’s different from you, that’s YOUR problem.

      • #2872913

        Well said (nt)

        by cmiller5400 ·

        In reply to One retiree’s opinion.

        .

      • #2872911

        Multiple Choice Question: Constitutionally, who should make the call?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to One retiree’s opinion.

        1. The President (Commander in Chief)
        2. Congress
        3. The Courts
        4. Other (explain)

        My answer: 1

        • #2872909

          See ‘100%’ above.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Multiple Choice Question: Constitutionally, who should make the call?

          I agree that is SHOULD be the chief exec., but since Congress passed the law and the pres. (Clinton?) didn’t veto it, he ceded the authority to make that decision.

          I’m from a state where the governor can’t break wind without legislative position. If you the US chief exec has limits on his authority, try this place. Every cabinet-level office in the Exec. branch is elected; the Gov. doesn’t appoint any of them, or run as a ticket with the Lt. Gov. Budget decisions? He has a seat on a committee of five; the other four are the party leaders from both houses. Compared to this place, the ‘DADT’ decision is kindergarten art show.

        • #2872906

          See “National Defense Authorization. . . .” above

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to See ‘100%’ above.

          You make a good point with your first sentence:

          “[i]I agree that is SHOULD be the chief exec., but since Congress passed the law and the pres. (Clinton?) didn’t veto it, he ceded the authority to make that decision.[/i]”

          But I might guess that President Clinton didn’t necessarily [i]cede the authority[/i], per se, but rather politically structure the issue so that he could have it both ways – and have an outlet to blame Congress, not letting the buck stop at his desk, as Truman did.

      • #2872842

        As attractive a human being as you no doubt must be

        by drowningnotwaving ·

        In reply to One retiree’s opinion.

        … rest easy – homosexuals do not check you out in the showers.

        At least, no more nor less than your straight friends check you out.

        If you looked like me you can rest assured that it’s simple – no-one is checking you out ! 🙂

        • #2872825

          You said:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to As attractive a human being as you no doubt must be

          [i]Homosexuals do not check you out in the showers.[/i]

          None of them? Never?

          How do you know that?

        • #2873157

          I actually said

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to You said:

          [i]- homosexuals do not check you out in the showers.

          At least, no more nor less than your straight friends check you out.[/i]

          The qualifying sentence, IMHO, joins the first sentence. If it didn’t seem to do so, blame my poor lay-out of the written response and then please consider it as such qualification.

          Having been involved in many sporting teams throughout my years, many of which included people who are gay, I’ll happily stand by that comment. In fact, I’d go further to say that, in my experience, I am far more likely to be checked out by the straight folk than then gay.

          Two reasons – straights outnumber gays, is first. And, just as David Bowie observed, “other boys check you out”.

          Second, most gay folk have their ‘gaydars’ in strong operation and as a rule this tends to work for them.

          Speak to gay people about this. They will discuss it happily and reasonably, if you are not asking simply to take the mickey out of them.

          And funnily enough, I am assured [b][i]they do not bite. [/b][/i]

        • #2873147

          Give me a break!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I actually said

          You play word games that impress no one.

        • #2873136

          Do try to play the ball !

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Give me a break!

          Given the note had a total of three sentences – one of which was a (no doubt) poor attempt at self deprecation – the only person that sees the “game” is you.

          I suggest, given your three most recent replies (two to me and one to Ansug.), that other readers may draw a somewhat inverse conclusion to your own spiteful, yet factless, missives.

          The ball, Max – just play the ball.

        • #2872795

          I’m heartbroken.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to As attractive a human being as you no doubt must be

          I never had much appeal to women; now you’re telling me I completely out of luck. 🙁

          Seriously, I included the ‘shower’ comment because that’s the type so many raise in opposition to gays in the military. “What about in the barracks, or the latrine? Will straight soldiers be comfortable with gays in those settings?” I’d rather share barracks with an intelligent, motivated homosexual soldier than a heterosexual with a stack of waivers to his legal record and a bad attitude who barely passed the entrance test. We’re enlisting too many of the latter and discharged too many of the former.

        • #2873156

          Please don’t be upset !!!!

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to I’m heartbroken.

          Your comment:

          [i]I’d rather share barracks with an intelligent, motivated homosexual soldier than a heterosexual with a stack of waivers to his legal record and a bad attitude who barely passed the entrance test.[/i]

          … is so spot on.

          It’s not sexual orientation that makes people dangerous. It never has been.

        • #2873117

          That’s hilarious…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I’m heartbroken.

          “Sir, No Sir!!! I don’t feel comfortable pooping when I think there might be openly gay people around!!”
          “I have homophobic sphincter syndrome, no can go!”
          😀
          What Maxwell didn’t say about his discussion is, that it isn’t about “there be gays” or “there be no gays”… because “there be gays” alright. Just not openly at present.

          And men check out each other in the shower on account of “does that guy have a bigger dong than I?” not on account of “will you look at that juicy-fruit butt right there?” 😉 😀 😀

      • #2873240

        Dewd… one more thing.

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to One retiree’s opinion.

        A “straight” ignorant criminal is more likely to rape a fellow than a gay one. Just look at high security prisons.

    • #2872905

      I can’t understand why this is even considered.

      by seanferd ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      Why is there even an idea called “gays in the military”? Why is it something to be considered?

      I rather suspect that there is no military reason for this topic. It is more likely that it is a point of contention due to the demography of the U.S. military containing loads of fundamentalist Christians.

      • #2872896

        Why it’s being considered

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to I can’t understand why this is even considered.

        It’s not I who dubbed the word [i]gay[/i]. It was actually those very folks of the homosexual persuasion who wanted to wear their sexual preference on their sleeve for all to see. (It guess it made them happy – yuk yuk.)

        For decades, certain behavior was (and is) forbidden in the military, including, but not limited to, engaging in homosexual behavior. Engaging in such restricted behavior was cause to be dismissed from the military.

        It was those who proudly wear that tag on their sleeve who openly challenged the military’s stance on forbidding such behavior, and it is they who are advancing the [i]idea[/i] of which you speak.

        • #2872834

          One of us is misunderstanding something.

          by seanferd ·

          In reply to Why it’s being considered

          It’s not I who dubbed the word gay.

          OK, who said you did?

          It was actually those very folks of the homosexual persuasion who wanted to wear their sexual preference on their sleeve for all to see.

          Citations needed.

          For decades, certain behavior was (and is) forbidden in the military, including, but not limited to, engaging in homosexual behavior. Engaging in such restricted behavior was cause to be dismissed from the military.

          And the all-wise military surely has some sort of reason for this. I have yet to hear any sort of valid reason.

          It was those who proudly wear that tag on their sleeve who openly challenged the military’s stance on forbidding such behavior, and it is they who are advancing the idea of which you speak.

          This sounds reasonable. However, someone had to make being gay against the rules in the first place. There is your starting point.

        • #2872828

          A point by point reply:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to One of us is misunderstanding something.

          Me: It’s not I who dubbed the word gay.

          You: OK, who said you did?

          I simply replied to the following comment that you made:

          [i]I can’t understand why this is even considered. Why is there even an idea called “gays in the military”? [/i]

          ???????

          Me: It was actually those very folks of the homosexual persuasion who wanted to wear their sexual preference on their sleeve for all to see.

          You: Citations needed.

          Give me a friggin’ break. Are you blind? Gay Pride Parade, all the gay organizations, etc.

          Me: For decades, certain behavior was (and is) forbidden in the military, including, but not limited to, engaging in homosexual behavior. Engaging in such restricted behavior was cause to be dismissed from the military.

          You: And the all-wise military surely has some sort of reason for this. I have yet to hear any sort of valid reason.

          Scores of reasons have been advanced by military experts, but whether or not you consider them [i]valid[/i] is your deal, not mine.

          Me: It was those who proudly wear that tag on their sleeve who openly challenged the military’s stance on forbidding such behavior, and it is they who are advancing the idea of which you speak.

          You: This sounds reasonable. However, someone had to make being gay against the rules in the first place. There is your starting point.

          Well, it started sometime in the past. Why does the starting point matter? Twenty years or two hundred? Somewhere along the line, it was made policy. It doesn’t matter to me when that was. If it matters to you, then you figure out when it was, and then make whatever point it is you’re struggling to make.

        • #2873383

          You are a master of non-responsive obfuscation.

          by seanferd ·

          In reply to A point by point reply:

          And the multiple question marks is a dead give-away that you are a complete loon. I’m tired of you, your always-unsupported BS on any topic you like to bring up, and the way you think facts should bend to your political beliefs. Grow up.

          You call that a point-by-point response?
          I simply replied to the following comment that you made:

          I asked why such a concept existed, not why you brought it up. I thought it fairly obvious that I was not claiming you created the idea. As always, it is blatantly obvious why you post anything you do: You are one of those whiny “conservative” buffoons.

          So, again, why is it of interest to anyone why there are gay people anywhere? What is the draw to this idea? What are you and the people to whom this is a thing to be considered afraid of?

          Give me a friggin’ break. Are you blind? Gay Pride Parade, all the gay organizations, etc.

          In the military? Yeah, I suppose if teh gheys spend all their time in service having parades instead of training and fighting, there might be a problem. If this isn’t what you mean, your point is what?

          Scores of reasons have been advanced by military experts, but whether or not you consider them valid is your deal, not mine.

          Well, I figured you would want to support your position since you raised the topic. Even the mere mention of one of these reasons would be a start. Put up or shut up.

          Why does the starting point matter?

          It only matters because you state this as if the military reacted to some danger brought about by homosexuals. The policy was in place first, men serving in the military were discovered to be gay, and the military made a big deal out of it. Since we now live in a time where homosexuals do not have to fear instant death or mutilation at the hands of crazy people, and these gay men want to serve their country in the military, there is a fight for the right to serve.

          If it matters to you, then you figure out when it was, and then make whatever point it is you’re struggling to make.

          I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking questions of the person who started the conversation as to what he actually thinks, and whether he will ever get around to making his point. Your disingenuous rhetorical tactics are lost on me, bud. If I want to deal with this level of stupid, I’ll go debate creationists or something.

          I’m done with your intellectual dishonesty. Maybe I’ll be able to discuss music or something with you in one of those types of threads, but otherwise, so long. No point in having a conversation when it really isn’t a conversation at all, but some weird game you like to play.

          [Note to Sonja or other mod: Delete this if you must. Yes, I did just read today what was written about attacking ideas, not people. This is generally something I follow. But “Maxwell Edison” is just the obvious front for an obvious class of ideas, never having a solid argument or evidence to back up the claims, always playing games and running in circles, subjecting the forum to these sophomoric “discussions”: A troll.]

          edited to close tag

        • #2873360

          Attack me all you want – I can take it

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You are a master of non-responsive obfuscation.

          I actually stated my position in the opening dialogue.

          In your previous message, you said, [i]One of us is misunderstanding something.[/i]

          Well, I don’t disagree with that.

          And for one not trying to make a point, you sure used a lot of words to not do it.

          By the way, I’m actually more of a libertarian rather than a conservative.

        • #2873146

          Naw, c’mon Seanferd

          by nexs ·

          In reply to You are a master of non-responsive obfuscation.

          It’s what makes these discussions interesting, if nothing else.
          😉

          I’m going to but my nose halfway into a discussion with my tuppence on the matter.

          Gay men should not have to hide who they are, and most of them don’t. Most of them, of course, don’t parade around in frills and fishnets, dancing and spitting with their lisped sentences everywhere. That is a stereotype that is probably more fabricated than anything else.
          Note that I’ve said ‘gay men’. The main problem that I could imagine would be men with a fear/dislike of gay men – those types men would welcome lesbians, I’m sure.)

          That being said, it is inevitable that homophobic others (men or women), would make a point to disorient those in question.

          But my take on the matter is, as long as is doesn’t affect their actions in battle (which it most likely wouldn’t), what could the problem possibly be? Other than those who have a problem with homosexuality in the very essence of the word.

        • #2873233

          “Gay” is a commandeered exonym

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to A point by point reply:

          I guess, as an exonym, it had derogatory intent. In commandeering it for themselves, they made of it a vessel for empowerment.

      • #2873102

        At the risk of entering the field of fire.

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to I can’t understand why this is even considered.

        I don’t think seanferd is questioning the word ‘gay’ itself, as max seems to think. It appears to me he’s questioning why the concept of gays in the military is anymore of an issue than redheads, Iowans, or fans of the Dallas Cowboys.

    • #2872901

      The Everlasting Man

      by john.a.wills ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      is a book by G. K. Chesterton in which he opines, among much else, that soldiers do not go to war for economic reasons nor because their governments send them (because if all the soldiers refused to go to the front there would be nothing the government could do to force them). Also, there is a significant degree of democracy in many states, including the ancient Roman Republic, so there must have been some popular reason for the destruction of Carthage and the conquest of Greece. Chesterton opines that Carthage was destroyed because it practised human sacrifice and Greece was conquered because of its sexual perversion, repulsion to which is perfectly natural. He admits that things are more complicated than that.

      As to the modern U.S. armed forces, I’d rather have a few perverts in them than people like Edmund Calley. But are those the alternatives?

      • #2872847

        I’m sure the perverts are thankful

        by drowningnotwaving ·

        In reply to The Everlasting Man

        for your endorsement! 🙂

        Perverts abound and always have, throughout history. See Abu Grab for most recent evidence, but they are not in any way alone in their perversions.

        So you’re happy with [b]perverts[/b].

        What about gay folk?

        • #2872766

          Abu-Ghraib-style perverts…

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to I’m sure the perverts are thankful

          are not the ones I was thinking of – I’d put them more on the Edmund Calley side. But I wasn’t restricting myself to gays either: think of Bill and Monica. If gays are excluded as such from the military, a fortiori B & M should be too.

        • #2872763

          Who is Edmund Calley?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Abu-Ghraib-style perverts…

          The only Google reference I can find refers to a pioneering hang glider pilot. References, please.

        • #2873252

          Sorry, I goofed

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Who is Edmund Calley?

          I meant William Calley of My Lai fame.

        • #2873249

          Sorry

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Sorry, I goofed

          Is not good enough. I lived through that. I was a member of the U.S. Military at the time. Your off-hand mention, erroneous as it was, did not float.

          You bring crap up like that, you best be punctilious in every detail when it comes to women, children, and old men shot to death in a ditch. And, me, assigned general responsibility for it.

          Spat upon.

          And, don’t let me ever hear again of you assigning the word, “pervert”, to any soul upon the face of this earth.

          You do, and I will report you to Jason, that he may do to you what he did asymmetrically to me — shot dead in a ditch.

        • #2873231

          He lives!

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Sorry

          Must have been an ordeal, crawling out of the ditch, out from under the countless faceless corpses there, the ones not fortunate enough to have the gumption to shake it off and get on with it.
          You do know your mail-service is perverted, right? Keeps summoning up Mailer-Daemons!

        • #2874006

          He lives

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Sorry

          Until our Our Glorious Leader suffers another attack of petulance.

          My email is vetted by no less than the U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Has to be something awry at your end. I am pure.

          Maybe, it’s your missing sash weights.

        • #2873912

          Another US miltary mistake

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sorry

          They aren’t digging the mass graves deep enough, some still keep clawing their way out.

        • #2854401

          Santee: Or …

          by jasonhiner ·

          In reply to Sorry

          until you forget the lessons you learned in grade school about playing nice with others. 🙂

          You are the master of your own destiny here. If you avoid personal attacks and foul language you can stick around.

          Of course, people around here also like it a lot more if you actually post useful thoughts and analysis rather than perpetually diverging off topic and posting obtuse nonsense. Take that as a recommendation.

        • #2854362

          Whoaaa there….

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Sorry

          “Of course, people around here also like it a lot more if you actually post useful thoughts and analysis rather than perpetually diverging off topic and posting obtuse nonsense. Take that as a recommendation.” :O

          That’s a tall order for most of us non-lurkers :p
          I hope you don’t mind it, but I’d like some sources to back it up! 😉

          Here’s a caveat there too; like, Habermas is one of the most quoted present day philosophers (I guess, seems to come up a lot anyway), but whenever I am subjected to his production, I can’t help but think “This is just so much obtuse nonsense!”.
          So, there’s a distinct possibility that I am unable to see something highly worthwhile – Of course I don’t think it is so, but I allow for the possibility. 😉

          etu + smilies + There>Here

        • #2854327

          Quoth Jason

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Sorry

          What hump?

        • #2873689

          Interpretation is key.

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Sorry

          That people blithely continue to interpret one so obviously unlike them as though that one is like them, has a great deal to do with ‘understanding’ santee.

          I may have to work at understanding him, but I take that as excellent mental exercise in a day and age that is woefully lacking in imagination and direct relation with necessity.

          edit the usual

        • #2873229

          So…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Abu-Ghraib-style perverts…

          You’re against people having sex in other ways than the missionary position?

          I’m sure Pope Drachenfels XVI would be charmed, tickled pink, in fact.

        • #2873101

          ‘Perverts’

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Abu-Ghraib-style perverts…

          One man’s perversion is another man’s enjoyment. Or another pair of men’s.

          What’s the difference between kinky and perverted? Kinky is tickling your partner with a feather duster; perverted is using a live chicken.

      • #2872826

        Your “pervert” comment . . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to The Everlasting Man

        ….. is the one word that trumps everything else you said, and it paints both you and your message accordingly.

        Why did you even bother to post more than that one word?

        • #2873237

          Fer real?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Your “pervert” comment . . . . .

          #1: if he’d have written just “perverts n/t” them some might think he was talking about participants in the discussion in general.

          #2: What he wrote before that one word already painted his message all over him, in mile-high letters. I find that the “perverts” bit was far less virulent than the agitprop that preceded.

        • #2873880

          I found it all pretty ignorant

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Fer real?

          The kinda guy you expect to see on Swamp Monster Hunters. Wiping his nose on his sleeve while holding back his dawg.

        • #2873872

          Sometimes I think

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I found it all pretty ignorant

          “thus spake Ahminejad’s mini-me”

        • #2873869

          LOL

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sometimes I think

          Right, Dr. Evil!

        • #2873751

          Ever read what Dan Savage has to say about perverts?

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Your “pervert” comment . . . . .

          He thinks that perversion is nearly normal, impossible to avoid if you’ve got it, and the source of fun. He welcomes it, providing it is not abusive. “Pervert” fails to be the condemnation it once was.

          Oral used to be something that perverts liked. Some churchmen still rail against it, but now oral is pretty much mainstream, a third date kind of thing. If you were ahead of your time and liked oral in 1965, you were a perv. Gay men will always and all be perverts, because they are out of the mainstream. They don’t want what everybody is supposed to want, whoever the hell “everybody” is. That makes them pervs.

        • #2854548

          Third date?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Ever read what Dan Savage has to say about perverts?

          Try, before I buy her dinner, gotta know whether the investment is worthwhile. if not, it’ll be TacoBell and bus fare home. 😉

        • #2854541

          Who’s Dan Savage?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Ever read what Dan Savage has to say about perverts?

          What makes is opinion worthy of note?

        • #2854493

          He’s a sex advice columnist for The Stranger, a San Fran newspaper

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Who’s Dan Savage?

          He’s also gay. He is funny, extremely candid, profane, and writes very well. He answers all kinds of questions from all kinds of people of all different gradations of perviness. He married his partner and adopted a kid with him. The column is called Savage Love, and it appears weekly in a San Francisco alternative newspaper.

          http://www.thestranger.com

        • #2854452

          But of course…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Ever read what Dan Savage has to say about perverts?

          the pr0n industry is putting in a lot of effort to proffer number two as a candidate for depervification.
          But that’s another can of worms, as I can’t see how what pr0n use does to a person can be healthy, not personally, and not societally.

          Not that I’m a prude. I just see how people get their expectations so twisted out of bounds that they end up not being able to enjoy a normal relationship.

      • #2873238

        Dumb ass comment

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to The Everlasting Man

        Doesn’t your antizionist viewpoints teach you anything?

        Who wrote the histories? Victors did.
        Carthage was destroyed because of the machinations and propaganda of Cicero and his like-minded, who wished to remove a potential rival. Whatever they may have practiced, we can’t tell. The romans removed all trace.

        Another thing that there’s no trace of, is this “institutionalized homosexuality” of ancient greece. We know that in some circles there was little stigma (aristotle may have disagreed, or Plato), and yet, we all know this myth. And then, rome was no different. Go and search for poems by Catullus, in translation online, and you will be enlightened.

        What is said of a culture by those that will destroy it, or have already destroyed it, is seldom the reason why they did it. It’s a bandaid on a guilty conscience, a shine on a tarnished halo.

        • #2873167

          Cicero…

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Dumb ass comment

          was born 40 years after the destruction of Carthage.

        • #2873127

          It’s definitely a c-word

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Cicero…

          Cato, then. I mixed up my [i]Praeterea censeo[/i] with my [i]Quousque tandem[/i]. My point, thus amended, still takes a ploppy dump down the neck of yours.

    • #2872818

      A person is a person

      by .martin. ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      if they want to fight (and they have no problems with them), they should be allowed to fight.

    • #2872791

      T.J. Said

      by pser ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’

      This ‘Declaration’ … has been used by many, FOR many, to amend the Constitution. Abe being the most well known, in his Gettysburg Address.

      I would also look closely at the fourteenth amendment, section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      Also, being 4F’d, due to physical disabilities, is understandably good cause for the military to “discriminate”. I myself was rejected by the military because of a disability. However, being ‘gay’ … is NOT a disability.

      Pretty simple really …

    • #2872713

      Mine (opinion that is)

      by the maverick phantom wanderer (formerly macoza, nodice, kp, etc.) ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      I fully agree with your first point (I would say the apocalypse is coming, but I’m starting to think that it already hit a long time ago- the effects unraveling themselves slowly).

      Responses to the second point by sentence:
      1. True
      2. Never understood the flat-foot thing.
      4. As it should be.

      Response to the 3rd paragraph:
      They should know what’s best for the military; however, what one should know is not what one knows, or what one practices.

      My opinion, let them show us evidence proving that gays in the military reduce the effectiveness of the military, otherwise stop what (without said proof) is a stupid practice that limits our fighting strength unnecessarily.

    • #2873359

      I don’t give a rats

      by boxfiddler ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      what people do in their bedrooms, or their other rooms for that matter. I do give a rats what they do in foxholes.
      My only criteria…

    • #2873243

      Have you asked them there eksperts?

      by ansugisalas ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      Well, have you?
      I’m not talking about just any reservist officer or drill sarge.
      Military expert, someone with expertise on matters military… someone who knows what things are detrimental to military efficiency, which things are beneficial and which things are irrelevant. And not simply doing “business as usual” or “upholding proud military traditions”, regardless of whether they’re beneficial.

      Hazing, for instance… Beneficial? Detrimental?
      Women soldiers… Beneficial? Detrimental?
      Women officers… Beneficial? Detrimental?
      40000$ Toilet seats? Beneficial?

      See, the thingymajig is, Maxwell, that forty years ago they said the exact same thing about women. And they were wrong.
      So, “they” were the wrong experts.

      • #2873148

        Your intolerance is painted in every message you post.

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Have you asked them there eksperts?

        .

        • #2873133

          Team losing on the football? Dog dry-humping your leg?

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Your intolerance is painted in every message you post.

          There is no correlation – none, zero, zilch, zip – between your note and the one to which you respond, on at least two occassions in this blog alone.

          This particular note, not the least.

          Is there a reason for such demonstrative feeling of inadequacy?

        • #2873125

          I found it odd too…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Team losing on the football? Dog dry-humping your leg?

          Me being, after all, the number five super deluxe champion of the downtrodden :p 😉

        • #2873126

          C’mon

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Your intolerance is painted in every message you post.

          I’m being tolerant.
          Replying to agitprop, even though I’m allergic 😉
          Of who do you think I’m intolerant? Prejudiced people who prefer to do things like they always have, regardless of a need to adapt? That’s not intolerance; that’s well-founded disdain. Dinosaurs can get off the bus already.
          Srsly; you underestimate my capacity for communication:
          Ping
          Pong
          Your court still.

    • #2873155

      Yield to their Opinion

      by drowningnotwaving ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      To suggest that we, the people, have to [i]Yield to the opinion[/i] of the Military is not the smartest thing you have ever written.

      It is also somewhat dismissive of your own responsibility in such things, if you take your own responsibility seriously.

      PS I suggest this in a non-nationalist manner – looking at the topic in general as it applies in many different countries.

      • #2873149

        You fail to understand – or even try

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Yield to their Opinion

        I think a person’s sex life is pretty personal. I don’t share the details of mine with anyone, and I don’t care to be privy to the details of another’s.

        By definition, those who wear their homosexual life style on their sleeves for all the world to see, is – to me – sharing too much.

        You’ve done nothing but criticize me and attack me ever since you first came to this site. But in reality, you really know NOTHING about me.

        In reality, I’m more tolerant of other people than 99 percent of the world’s population – but they can’t take my tolerance.

        • #2873145

          I played the message, not the messenger

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to You fail to understand – or even try

          My response, to your post, was specific.

          The title and subsequent text of my message were directed to your comments around the subject of “Yield to the Opinion” of the military leadership.

          To quote:

          [i]Having said that, whether or not gays are allowed to serve in the military is a question that I would pass on to the military experts; I’d yield to their opinion.[/i]

          Simply “yielding to the opinion” of someone in public authority, over a policy that discriminates against any subset of the population – I don’t think that is consistent with your espoused libertarian views or (without the high-fallutin title) the responsibility of us, as mature and engaging adults.

          I said nothing of people wearing their sexual habits on their sleaves, whatsoever.

          Don’t really know what the heck you are talking about, on that particular front. It bears no relation to anything I wrote.

          You did put the comment out there for, one assumes, comment.

        • #2873144

          The level of ‘wearing it on their sleeves’

          by nexs ·

          In reply to You fail to understand – or even try

          Would be the key criteria here.

          If their sleeves say “Hello, I’m gay!”, then that should be fine. It would be the same as a straight man’s sleeves that say “Hello, I’m straight!”, or, perhaps, even the same as a wedding ring.

          In all honesty, if a gay person is too camp to be of any use on the battlefield, then be rid of them. Equally, if a straight person cannot bear to be near a gay person (even, if their actions are a battle-central as they should be), to the point that it interferes with their battle savvy, then be rid of them, also.

          Edited for clarity.

        • #2873123

          I can see it now…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to The level of ‘wearing it on their sleeves’

          Dame Edna in Ranger School…
          But srsly, I don’t think anyone’s arguing for the right to be stylish… just for the right to pursue a normal career without having to lie about their private lives.

        • #2874041

          Yep

          by nexs ·

          In reply to I can see it now…

          And if you look on the other side of the ‘coin’, the straights would go around bragging on the girls they’d bedded.

          Bit of a double standard, don’t you think?
          😉

        • #2873116

          Show it

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to You fail to understand – or even try

          don’t say it.

          Are you having a bad time or something? You seem to be far from at ease with yourself.
          You used to be more calm about opposition.

          Take care.

      • #2873124

        You have to hand it to him…

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Yield to their Opinion

        After all, if it works for a billion+ chinese, surely – surely it’s a recipe for success 😉

    • #2873078

      Who should decide? No one picked up pn the real question.

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      Very few people, if any, understood the intent of this discussion. Therefore, I slightly changed the title and added this new message.

      For those who may not know, there have been some relevant court cases of late brought by advocates of those who want to change military policy through the courts. The decision was appealed in a higher court’s decision.

      I’ve outlined my position in the opening discussion as follows:

      [i]One: A person’s sexual preference and/or practice is his/her own business. I don’t know whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice or birth, nor do I care. It’s not my business what you do; it’s not your business what I do.

      Two: Serving in the military IS NOT a Constitutional right. The military can indeed discriminate for a variety of reasons (sorry, you have flat-foot), all of which are implemented for the purpose of maintaining the most effective military force possible. If you disagree, please show me the exact article of the Constitution that shows me to be wrong. The mission of the military is to be the most effective fighting force – no more, no less.

      Having said that, whether or not gays are allowed to serve in the military is a question that I would pass on to the military experts; I’d yield to their opinion.[/i]

      For that I’ve been attacked by some as being intolerant, ant-gay, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      Individual issue aside, the underlying question is this. Who decides military policy? The voters? Congress by passing laws? The courts by hearing cases brought forth? Or the military itself – including the designed civilian and elected leader of the military – the president.

      My answer is the military itself – including the designed civilian and elected leader of the military – the president.

      If military policy regarding one issue is allowed to be decided in the courts and/or the halls of congress, then we open the door to have all military issues decided in the courts and/or the halls of congress.

      Many people have cited the instance in which President Truman desegregated the military as support for allowing gays to serve openly in the military. I agree 100 percent, in as much as it was the President of the United States – the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military – who made the decision; the voters did not decide; congress did not decide; and certainly, the courts did not decide.

      The courts in the United States were not designed to ride roughshod over the military; and the United States military was not designed to be overseen by the courts.

      The question that few – if any – really picked up on isn’t whether or not they should serve, but who should decide?

      • #2873077

        I think I raised the question

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to Who should decide? No one picked up pn the real question.

        I assume that the leader of the military, that being the President of the US should decide.

        In the past, Presidents implemented “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, cut bases, even de-segregated the US Military (Truman).

        From my poli sci background, courts don’t write laws, they interpret them. Sometimes they have to interpret them in the context of a consitution or other over arching document. But they don’t write laws, and I’ve often seen references in supreme court decision , both in Canada and US, for the need for a law to be re-written to make it more clear.

        • #2873076

          You did, James. But look at how many didn’t

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I think I raised the question

          And you are spot-on with all points.

        • #2873069

          A segue

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I think I raised the question

          Reading through the messages, most (not yours, James) are simply ones expressing personal opinion on an issue – if that person could decide, here’s the reasoning; or here’s why it should be one way or the other.

          SO MANY PEOPLE in the United States fail to consider an underlying premise, an underlying principle, or an underlying authority on which an opinion should be based. Our system of government was established the way it was for a reason. And if the system, per se, becomes outdated, then there’s even a designed way to change it – through a constitutional amendment process.

          As a simple illustration, people will debate the merits and/or faults of legalizing marijuana all day long, and few will give-in to another’s opinion if it differs with theirs. But while one might be personally opposed to it, nowhere in the constitution has the federal government been endowed with the power to decide. Therefore, if a person wants to disallow the sale and consumption of marijuana (on a national level), it should NOT be done by the passing of federal law by legislators elected by voters who want to impose their will onto others; instead it should be done by the passage of a constitutional amendment, not unlike the eighteenth amendment.

          Likewise, it matters not whether or not an individual (except the president) believes gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military, but what’s the correct process to address the issue? The courts? No. The office of the president is designed to make such a decision. The closest the voters get to making such a decision is voting for the person who will ultimately decide the issue.

          Too many people want to impose their personal will onto others, and they use the voting booth to do it. Personally, I don’t want to impose my will on anyone. And there are many TR peers who will literally laugh at me for saying such a thing. But it’s those same TR peers who don’t fully understand our constitutional process. (And imposing my will on others is not defined by trying to prevent others from imposing their will onto me.)

          P.S. And then we have people from other countries making their comments – oftentimes snide in nature – but they are totally oblivious to our constitutional intent and process.

        • #2873057

          If we leave the decision solely to the CinC,

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to A segue

          then there’s the possibility of the policy changing every 4 – 8 years. Obviously that hasn’t happened with Truman’s desegregation decision, but many policies are changed with each new administration.

        • #2873055

          Our CinC

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to If we leave the decision solely to the CinC,

          Is not imbued with the Divine Right of a king. He is enmeshed.

        • #2874077

          That’s true enough

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to If we leave the decision solely to the CinC,

          But in a case like this, I strongly doubt it would change, unless there were terrible problems with its implementation. Something like segregation, gays, etc. is an evolving process, not likely to go back to the way it was.

          Heck, Obama hasn’t even changed Bush military policy regarding two wars, warrantless wire-taps, the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo – even though he vowed to change all of the above while he was campaigning.

        • #2874076

          You speak like its the first pres to lie

          by slayer_ ·

          In reply to That’s true enough

          Our PM’s are even worse, they not only do they lie, cheat and steal, they get caught!

        • #2874060

          I think lying is a bit strong

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to You speak like its the first pres to lie

          If Obama sincerely believed he could and would be able to acomplish those things, and then couldn’t deliver, it wouldn’t be lying.

          If he made more promises than anyone could possibly keep, then he’d be very naive. But in my experience most politicans are, and I know many of them personally.

          You don’t want a leader who does things blindly either. You are probably too young to remember the helicopter deal. Mulroney’s tories had committed to a 5.5 billion dollar deal to buy new helicopters for search and rescue and for Canada’s ships. Our existing ones were very worn out and experiencing catastrophic failures. The Liberals said they were too expensive and promised to scrap them no matter what. When they got in power they found out that it would cost them 2 billion in penalties to cancel the contract, and running the selection process would cost another 500 million. The correct response would be, the most cost effective thing to do was buy the ones with the deal they had. Instead they broke the deal. It took years to buy some of the copters for search and rescue. They ended up buying a slightly cheaper version of the same one they cancelled.

          I think you elect people to make good decisions, and sometimes that means breaking a promise when you find out it was a bad one.

          Neither Chretien nor Mulroney have been caught stealing BTW.

        • #2874022

          “I speak like its the first pres to lie” ?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You speak like its the first pres to lie

          Talk about deriving an incorrect conclusion from a single comment! My goodness?

        • #2874021

          James, I wouldn’t call it lying either

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You speak like its the first pres to lie

          I would call it blowing smoke in the direction of the current (at the time) political wind, and insight into the ignorance and cluelessness of the person blowing said smoke.

          You may or may not remember, but I predicted that Obama would not live up to any of those political promises.

        • #2873974

          I wouldn’t even call it ‘blowing smoke’

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to You speak like its the first pres to lie

          I think it a case of overestimating what a candidate thinks he can accomplish vs. the reality of being president. I think every one who’s ever sat in the Oval Office gets a big, fat reality check when their a$$es hit the chair.

        • #2873877

          they get caught

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You speak like its the first pres to lie

          that’s the great thing about our government, well it’s not bad anyway, and about all that it’s got going for it. The minority party keeps the majority in check and the majority KNOWS they will be toppled in a heartbeat if they screw up.

          Other than that, they are all bullspit politicians who don’t merit a moment’s credibility. But at least we all know it and don’t defend the creepy baystards, no matter what party we voted for.

        • #2873859

          They get pied in the face

          by slayer_ ·

          In reply to You speak like its the first pres to lie

          when they get caught

        • #2873889

          Obama is still in office, isn’t he?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to That’s true enough

          From what I understand, campaign promises unless specified to date, are a list of objectives the candidate will seek to impart during a four year term in office.

          If I am not wrong, he is almost halfway through that term now (Nov. 2008, right?)
          In the first half of his term, did he not finish implementing national health care and start reallocating troops from Iraq to Afghanistan (and a bunch of other stuff I am sure some oppose and some support)?

          My point is, from what I understand he still has two years to make good on campaign promises, or is he supposed to have it all sorted in the first year or two then just surprise everyone with his actions for the next two years?

        • #2873888

          Point of clarification

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Obama is still in office, isn’t he?

          Oz, Obama (and all presidents these days) was indeed elected in Nov 2008. However, presidential terms begin in January (20th?) of the following year; in this case 2009. Originally the term didn’t begin until March of the following year. I’ve forgotten when it was changed, but at some point someone realized the newly elected no longer needed four months to relocate.

        • #2873883

          Fair enough

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Obama is still in office, isn’t he?

          I knew there was a period of a few month before they were actually “handed the keys” so to speak. But doesn’t that make his time actually IN office even shorter so far?

          So he’s been in less than 2 years, yet is expected to have upheld all campaign promises already? Is this the way all presidents are viewed? “You said you’d get it done so do it already!”

          When I give an employer a time frame that I will reach a goal, I usually do it within that time frame but not in the first few weeks or even first few months.

        • #2873881

          Two points:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Obama is still in office, isn’t he?

          Obama continued the Bush strategy, almost to the letter, regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.

          Obama promised to close Guantanamo in his first year. I predicted that he would not; and he has not.

          http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/07/obama-guantanamo.html

          I will suggest, however, that he made the promise under a cloud of ignorance and cluelessness. He would if he could, but once in the position, he discovered that he just couldn’t. But even I knew that. Why didn’t he know it?

          [i]”Sorry, American people,”[/i] he should say. [i]”I didn’t know what I was talking about when I made the promise to close Guantanamo. Once I got into this office, I came to discover that the Bush policy regarding Guantanamo wasn’t that bad after all.”[/i]

        • #2873867

          Your brilliance is a beacon of righteousness to us all

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Obama is still in office, isn’t he?

          It is amazing how you know hat the president doesn’t, given the teams of people he has that are supposed to know better. How your wisdom has not been imparted on the millions of Americans already is beyond me. Simply put, the world, erm, America, would be a better place tomorrow if they’d only give you the keys.

          I know you would change it all in a few days, sure people would be wearing white wigs and knickers, carrying jewel adorned snuff boxes while peasants dumped their soiled toilet bowl into the streets each morning but it would be a better place for many.

        • #2873851

          Right

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Obama is still in office, isn’t he?

          And then the PM grabs the guy, who pied him in the face, by the throat and threatens him. LOL 😀

          You’s better not be tikin’ aboot doin that again ya-noo!?

      • #2874064

        Is the military superior to citizenship?

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Who should decide? No one picked up pn the real question.

        Is belonging to a military organization something that replaces wholesale the basic citizen liberties?
        Or is the reduction of liberties a specific and goal-based one, one delineated by law?

        If it’s the former then the military can do whatever the hell they like, and then the militias out in the woods start to make a lot more sense.
        If it’s the latter, then the decision lies within the government of law; and that’s a triune one; legislative, judicial, executive.
        Be they forever kept seperate and independent of each other *ahem*.

        • #2874019

          Is the military superior to citizenship, you ask?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Is the military superior to citizenship?

          [i]Superior[/i] is not the right word. [i]Different[/i] would be more applicable.

          [i]Is belonging to a military organization something that replaces wholesale the basic citizen liberties?[/i]

          Remove the word [i]wholesale[/i] and replace it with [i]some of[/i], and I would answer with a definite yes. Anyone who’s served in the military, including yours truly for six years, knows that to be true. There are scores of things a civilian can do that a soldier can’t. The military (in the U.S.) even has its own justice system (UCMJ).

          The rest of your message is just nonsense based on the flawed foundation you established in those first two comments – rather those first two comments disguised as questions.

        • #2873965

          I’ll respond to your first posting.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Is the military superior to citizenship?

          As max pointed out, there are several behaviors that are legal for civilians but prohibited to the military.

          Many of these exist because of the potential damage to morale. Service people must live and work together in dangerous situations; in deployment situations there is rarely any ‘going home at the end of the day’. When you’re stuck with the same people CONSTANTLY, you have to be able to at least get along together. Many legal civilian behaviors such as adultery, insubordination, or dating subordinates are against the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the military law for all branches of US service.

          Others laws are intended to ensure the military remembers it is subordinate to civilian leadership. While the military is expected to provide input and options to those leaders (President, Sect’y of Defense, assorted service branch secretaries, other elected officals), once those officials reach a decision, it is expect to be executed without question. Criticism of the capabilities of those officials is also prohibited. Wearing a uniform to certain activities is against the UCMJ, since it may imply the military endorses certain positions or parties.

          You don’t lose your citizenship when you enlist, but you are agreeing to have certain of your rights suspended. The US military has been an all-volunteer force since not long after the end of our involvement in Vietnam, you’re agreeing to those suspensions of your own volition.

        • #2873892

          But

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I’ll respond to your first posting.

          these things are also “illegal” under many other forms of employment.
          Specifically under the kind of employments that constitute many desireable careers.
          So, flipping burgers at mickey D’s; you’re allowed to slip boogers into the special sauce (right?!?), but if you’re a corporate or federal or state career officer, then lots of things are out, because your employer says so. That’s similar enough to the military limitations to illustrate my point.
          Similarly; everyone can buy stock – but if you happen to have inside information to motivate the buying or selling of stock – presto – it’s a crime.
          Liberties are reducable by law.
          Laws govern the military too.
          What would it even be without it? Think about this: a military not governed by law… don’t think the US military isn’t, it is governed to a large degree.
          Heck – even black ops turn up on fiscal bills once in a while!

        • #2873885

          No, they’re not.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to But

          “these things are also “illegal” under many other forms of employment.”

          No. None of the things I listed are civilian crimes. They may get you fired, but if not specifically spelled out as violations of company policy, they may not even result in termination. They won’t result in a trial, prison sentence, criminal record, or potential loss of retirement funds like a UCMJ violation. When a civilian job fires you, your relationship is over. When you’re convicted of violating the UCMJ, you’re still in the military while serving time, often at the lowest rank, still subject to the UCMJ and military regulation.

        • #2873875

          That’s a contract matter.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to No, they’re not.

          I agree that the military contract is a very tight one.
          But I look at it as a set of 1) Contract, 2) Code of conduct, 3) Penalties for breach of code/contract.
          Different jobs have different settings in the various parts of the set; from near-zero to prohibitively severe.
          The military employment set is pretty severe in all parts.
          Some jobs are more severly delineated though, like, some positions in criminal organizations. To say nothing of us in the Bavarian Ill*ghurrrkh*

      • #2874039

        DOES ARMY VOID CITIZENSHIP?

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Who should decide? No one picked up pn the real question.

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=337373&messageID=3376435&tag=content;leftCol
        Sorry for shouting, if my first answer isn’t good enough, please consider my follow-up question. Sorry, it comes with answers included, I know how you hate that. But feel free to pong to the ping.

        • #2874018
        • #2874014

          Does Army (military) void citizenship? What a silly question.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to DOES ARMY VOID CITIZENSHIP?

          Of course it doesn’t. But it does redefine a GI’s citizenship.

          One small example: The right to vote does not change, of course, but participate in a political rally in military uniform and face possible disciplinary action under articles of the UCMJ. A private company may or may not have similar rules, but it is not law for a private citizen like it is for a military citizen.

          Moreover, a GI may not agree with the president’s politics, but he/she is still obligated to follow that Commander in Chief’s orders. A civilian has no such obligation.

          I’m guessing that you’ve never served in the military – especially the US military. Your messages are simply dripping with ignorance.

        • #2873870

          Same rules apply

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Does Army (military) void citizenship? What a silly question.

          for other federal employees of certain levels.
          Ping.

          P.S. Your guess that I have not served in the US military speaks volumes.

        • #2873847

          Dripping with ignorance?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Does Army (military) void citizenship? What a silly question.

          Sorry to jump in Max but don’t you think that’s a bit harsh?

          Last I checked, Finland was not a state.

          I’ll assume by the use of ignorance you didn’t mean it to be derogatory toward Ansu’s intelligence but meant it in it’s true form of merely being uninformed.

          After reading quite a few of Ansu’s posts, I think it’s fair to say that a lack of intelligence is not the issue at play here.

          Again though, sorry to jump in but that seemed a bit rash coming from you, you generally show a little more restraint and patience, toward most others anyway.

        • #2873845

          Ignorance: Lack of knowledge or awareness

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Dripping with ignorance?

          Personally speaking, I usually try not to comment on things about which I know nothing – things about which I’m totally ignorant – like serving in the Finnish military.

          I said, [i]”I’m guessing that you’ve never served in the military – especially the US military. Your messages are simply dripping with ignorance.[/i]”

          Currently there are upwards of 16,000 non-citizens serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. About 8,000 join each and every year.

          [i]Finland was not a state?[/i] What’s that all about?

          P.S. In my book, AnsuGisalas doesn’t deserve too much, at least from me. I can’t recall many of his comments to me that weren’t snide or otherwise condescending in nature. We usually have a couple of back-and-forths, after which I ignore him. Maybe he doesn’t intend to come across that way, but he sure appears to from my perspective. If I’m quick to pull the impatience trigger, I’ve been given reason.

          (The same applies to the guy from Australia.)

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=337373&messageID=3377148&tag=content;leftCol

        • #2854547

          LOL

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Ignorance: Lack of knowledge or awareness

          Well I don’t disagree with your view toward drowningnotwaving, I’ve been there too and the level of intelligence often drops pretty low at that point.

          I have tossed it around with ansu too, but for the most part have found that a language barrier is the general problem. not that the language is poor, but perhaps some of the phrasing leave a bit to be desired and can be taken wrong. I try to read one or two times, with a break in between to ensure that there is not double meaning and false implication.

          I am certainly not about to tell you how to read posts or what to think of people though, you don’t need my help there.

          As for the Finland comment, it just seemed that you hadn’t taken into account that he’s not American. I often don’t pay any attention to where people are from or what they do, I couldn’t care less half the time either. I reflect on the comments and often that is telling enough.

          Ignorance, I had a feelign that’s what you meant, the literal definition and not a slur, but the way it was out forth, and coming from anyone else, I would have thought otherwise.

        • #2854471

          Lighten up preach.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Ignorance: Lack of knowledge or awareness

          I don’t mind you, and my snide remarks aren’t aimed at you, as such. I’m aiming at that soap-box under your feet.

          I see through you: You’re an OK sort, and you’d be an interesting one to converse with. Except – you keep that box tied to the bottom of your shoes and it keeps you from using footwork. It makes you very dull.

          I’m not in your flock, and you will never convince me of anything from on top of that box. But if you come one down I’ll lend you an ear, at least enough to give you a run for your money. That’s what keeps a person young, you know?
          Footwork – That, and talking to people one does not necessarily initially understand.

        • #2854468

          You are missing

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Lighten up preach.

          A comma in your title.

          I don’t never lighten up when it comes to these things.

        • #2854461

          It’s

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Lighten up preach.

          ambiguous with a comma. Opens the door for ellipsis.
          Without a comma ellipsis is not a very likely interpretation… though I grant, it’s not correct according to norm.

        • #2854457

          So long as

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Lighten up preach.

          You realize the rules are to be broken, among friends.

          I have pacts with others about this. I make my pact with you, young sir.

        • #2854453

          As a liguist…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Lighten up preach.

          I hold that there are no breakable rules of languag… they flex too readily and too far for that 😉
          I wouldn’t use the full flexibility with enemies of course, so I see what you mean.

        • #2854382

          Re: soap boxes

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Lighten up preach.

          Heck, I thought it was a prerequisite to bring a soap box. Everybody else stands on theirs, why shouldn’t I?

        • #2854379

          Mine’s taller than yours Max

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Lighten up preach.

          I’m shorter so I get a bigger box and shout a bit…a lot louder. Don’t make me start using upper case too!

        • #2854358

          There’s a trick to it Max.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Lighten up preach.

          You have two boxes… tie one under each foot and presto – soap-boxing with foot-work. 😉
          Having one’s tongue in one’s cheek helps with balance :p

        • #2854318

          Trickier

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Lighten up preach.

          Use three boxes, garners more attention. Plus you usually get a date by the end of the day.

    • #2873067

      Who should decide? The people should

      by slayer_ ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      The military is just a job like any other, just mysteriously in America they are allowed to discriminate.

      There are a shit load of examples of countries with militaries that allow gays, non of them have any issues.
      If the USA wants to block segments of its people, in a time of war no less, that’s their own damn stupidity.

      The Canadian military blocked my high school friend from joining, claiming he was overweight. The dude could pick me up and hold me over his head if he wanted, tones of muscle and a very square frame. Apparently that was overweight. Now I consider that stupid, especially since many people would join the military to get in shape (the reserves anyone?).

      • #2873064

        I disagree on two counts:

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Who should decide? The people should

        One: The military IS NOT [i]just a job like any other[/i]. To the contrary, it’s a job unlike any other.

        Two: The President of the United States should decide (at least in the United States). My reasons can be found in previous messages.

        • #2854380

          To some

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I disagree on two counts:

          To most young men going to the military, it’s a job, a route to get some post secondary training and something all their friends do to.

          Don’t want to or can’t get into college, don’t want to take some menial job in a fast food restaurant etc. join the Marines. It’s employment, training and, in the USA, bragging rights for standing up and being a man.

      • #2873061

        “The people should decide” – an overused platitude

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Who should decide? The people should

        Stupid, ignorant, and uninformed (or ill-informed) people have no business deciding issues with far-reaching implications. Although I acknowledge that they are part of the process by casting a vote.

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_askamerica/20101025/pl_yblog_askamerica/who-is-the-vice-president-ask-america-stumps-voters

        It’s why we have certain rules for our republic – rules outlined in our constitution.

        It avoids “people deciding” all issues.

        As a wise man once said, democracy is not two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner.

        • #2873058

          sure I agree the people are stupid but

          by slayer_ ·

          In reply to “The people should decide” – an overused platitude

          This isn’t a kingship, the military exists to protect the people, why then, is the military not controlled by the people?

        • #2873054

          It is.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to sure I agree the people are stupid but

          By the Constitutionally appointed civilian leadership, as chosen by the people. Ask Gen. McChrystal.

          Would you have the people directly setting the hiring policies of all government agencies? Would you have them directly setting all military policies, not just the eligibility ones?

          I’ll back you on the people making military decisions as soon as each completes his term of service. Peace Corps or other form of public service is an acceptable alternative.

        • #2874080

          So if you serve, you can vote and help decide military policy

          by slayer_ ·

          In reply to It is.

          That sounds reasonable. Earn your rights.

    • #2874069

      Hate Crimes

      by bettylaverne ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      you may think this is a jump, but I believe the hate crimes against gays are fueled in part by this publicly sanctioned discrimination. Gays do not choose to be gay, and they serve, and have always served in our armed forces, just as heterosexuals do. I was in the military, saw gays serve well, and saw some heterosexuals whom I would not want to go to war with. It is time to end the gay-bashing in this country, and time to end the hate crimes and the horrible events like the recent suicides by gays. it is also time to fund research in genetics which will prove that gays are genetically predisposed to homsexuality, and it is not an evil “sin” as some so-called Christians purport.

      • #2874063

        Very nicely said.

        by maecuff ·

        In reply to Hate Crimes

        I don’t understand why this is even an issue. If an American is physically capable of being soldier, if they are emotionally stable enough to handle fighting and they desire to serve their country, then what’s the freaking hold up? Serve if you want to serve.

        Gender, sexual orientation, religeous views, etc. shouldn’t come in to play.

        We are way too wrapped up in other people’s private lives.

        • #2873971

          Private lives

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Very nicely said.

          Part of the issue is that service people often don’t have ‘private lives’. When you’re living 12 to a barracks / tent / whatever for months at a time; when where you work, sleep, and attempt to relax are all the same building / personnel carrier / trench; there is no ‘private life’.

      • #2874011

        Yes, and the People’s responsibility is

        by drowningnotwaving ·

        In reply to Hate Crimes

        … to question ANY sector of our government or citizenry with regards any policy that negatively discriminates a section of the community.

        To say “I’ll leave it to someone else to decide” negates the individual responsibility to stand up and fight for the rights of people.

        We absolutely have the right (and I’d argue duty) to demand answers from the Military on why such discrimination occurs, and why it is in our better interest to have such discriminatory policies in place.

        If the department / military cannot field appropriate answers then we have an expectation that such policies will be amended to reflect a path more reflective of societal views.

        Same as women. Same as indigenous folk in countries around the world.

        Further, the premise that only those who have served in the military are allowed to question military practise and policy is simply ludicrous. In any country on the planet.

        • #2873972

          Question away.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Yes, and the People’s responsibility is

          I have no problem at all with civilians questioning military policy. Hell, I encourage it. DECIDING it is another matter. Then again, I have problems with anyone without a womb or a medical degree making decisions regarding abortion.

          If you haven’t walked in the shoes and will never walk in the shoes, I don’t think you’re better qualified to decide than those who have.

        • #2873919

          You are absolutely correct

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Question away.

          An overused platitude being thrown around, not only by drowningnotwaving, but others as well, is [i]the people[/i] should decide this or that.

          First of all, we live in a representative republic, not – thankfully – a pure democracy.

          Secondly, [i]the people[/i] do not speak with a single voice – never have, and never will. Thus, the brilliant design of a representative republic that operates under a specific set of rules.

          Too many people think with their emotions, not with their heads. Because I dare to suggest there are other people more qualified than I to make certain decisions, I’m suddenly painted as negligent in my duties as one of [i]the people[/i]! That’s simply ludicrous.

          Personally, I made my position quite clear: I have no problem with anyone, regardless of sexual orientation and/or preference, I have no problem interacting with that general group of folks, either professionally or socially, and I don’t judge them. But when it comes to managing and structuring a military machine the size and scope of the US military, and considering its purpose, I don’t believe social engineering should trump overall effectiveness, and that consideration of such is best left to those who are more savvy and experienced in that regard. To suggest that I know better than General Petraeus, or some other such person, on how to run an effective military machine is not only silly, but it’s rather stupid.

          On one hand, The Joint Chiefs of Staff advise the president on all matters concerning the military. On the other hand, the president is accountable to the citizens of the United States and has to work with Congress. It’s his decision, and his alone, to balance the two, or to place more emphasis on one over the other. As such, I would have absolutely no criticism at all of the current president if he, as Commander in Chief, ordered all branches of the military to open its ranks to openly gay people. Just do it and put an end to the debate; it’s about as simple as that. And if any president would be inclined to issue such an order, one would think it’s this one. Why he’s not doing it is one of the proverbial $64,000 questions.

          But quite frankly, an issue like this pales in comparison to other issues we face right now. Another person asked, why is it even an issue? That’s really a good question. While our republican house (small r, not large R) is burning down all around us, people are arguing over who gets which bedroom.

        • #2873918

          Just to go off at a slight tangent (minor rant warning)

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to You are absolutely correct

          You really have to define the purpose of the military before you can truly decide who has the right to define the structure.

          If your military is solely to be used for the defense of your country (as yours so obviously is not) then social engineering should not trump effectiveness. Although I’m not sure how those – very few – few gays who want to serve in such a homophobic environment so reduce the effectiveness in any measurable way.

          However, your Secretary of Defense stated “Army soldiers can expect to be tasked with reviving public services, rebuilding infrastructure and promoting good governance. All these so-called nontraditional capabilities have moved into the mainstream of military thinking, planning, and strategy – where they must stay.”

          So, if you’re going to have your military perform all of those functions that would normally be within the scope of non-military organisations, don’t you think that “effectiveness” need not be limited to the “fox-hole” argument and that – perhaps – generals [b]aren’t[/b] the right people to define the structure?

          As for “promoting good governance”, that was pretty much the role of the military in the Roman Empire. And in any good military dictatorship.

          I’ve got to be honest, although I’m deliberately stirring, I do have enormous misgivings about the activities of the US military machine. I can’t be the only one who sees the Orwellian Newspeak where the Department of Defense oversees a military machine that hasn’t defended you against anyone since the name change from the “The War Department”. OK, so you’ve defended South Vietnam, Israel and Saudia Arabia, but that doesn’t count

          🙂

          Yeah, I know, I’m a “perfidious foreigner” and I have no right to poke my nose in, etc, etc. But you can’t stop me. So there!

        • #2873908

          Neil: If you could wave your magic wand, and . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Just to go off at a slight tangent (minor rant warning)

          ….. change the size, scope, and mission of the United States military, what would it look like? Since you have [i]enormous misgivings about the activities of the US military machine[/i], you surely have a picture of what it should look like.

          P.S. Points to ponder:

          I’ve never made any such [i]fox hole[/i] argument.

          [i]Homophobic[/i] is, all too often, unfairly and/or inaccurately thrown into any number of debates – it only tugs at pulling one’s emotions over one’s reason. Any-phobic is considered an irrational fear of something, and various [i]phobic[/i] charges are often levied against an argument that’s neither irrational nor based on fear. It’s more often than not, just another one of those overused platitudes people toss around.

          While you might be a [i]perfidious foreigner[/i], you’re OUR [i]perfidious foreigner[/i]!

        • #2873882

          Well, the US military machine would be smaller

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil: If you could wave your magic wand, and . . . . .

          under my rule. And it wouldn’t go gallivanting around the world, righting wrongs. Or wronging rights as it has occasionally done in the past.

          It’s big enough – and then some – to do what it ought to be doing and that is defend your country against all-comers. You know my thoughts about the Iraq war and all of your other forays into gunboat diplomacy. It wouldn’t be so bad if any of them had been successful!

          (So, what are you going to do about Iran? Tony Blair wants you to whip their asses.)

          I wasn’t accusing [b]you[/b] of the fox-hole argument. I’m simply making the suggestion that, if the purpose of the US army is broader than simply defending your shores against an invading army, the fox-hole argument – that relationships between soldiers might cause inappropriate reactions under fire – is almost totally specious. And it’s the only argument that I’ve ever seen against women troops or gays.

          Homophobia? Well, there’s no other reason that I can see for society to feel threatened by homosexuals whilst I can see many reasons why the reverse might be true – here and where you are. And yet your vast military machine sees some sort of threat in gays.

          Oh, I’m not really perfidious. The perfidious will stab you in the back. I will stab you in the front.

          When you’re not looking, anyway.

          Or if you’re shorter or weaker than me…

          Neil

        • #2873907

          Silly me.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Just to go off at a slight tangent (minor rant warning)

          “…reviving public services, rebuilding infrastructure and promoting good governance.”

          And here I thought that was the Peace Corps’ mission.

          You forgot our ‘defenses’ of Panama and Grenada.

        • #2873898

          I like $64,000 questions … don’t you?

          by pser ·

          In reply to You are absolutely correct

          ?I have no problem with anyone, regardless of sexual orientation and/or preference, I have no problem interacting with that general group of folks, either professionally or socially, and I don’t judge them.? – Max

          Is that the same stance you take/have in regards to the B.S.A.? Do you ?advocate? with such vigor, your support of ?inclusion?? Or, do you, with your actions and money support a group who DOES discriminate against ?Gays??

          This is simply, ANOTHER, not so thinly veiled attempt to trash President Obama and or anything ?Dem./Lib.??

          If he were to pull a ?Truman? and ‘make it so’… I?d bet dollars to doughnuts you?d be railing against his audacity to “issue such an order” without Congressional and or Judicial involvement. Pfffttt!

          The ONLY reason this is an issue at all is because of ? as neilb would put it ? ?Religious Nutters?, both past and present … PERIOD

          Yeah, Yeah, ?the debate NOT the debater? but come on?!?! It’s this debater’s “debates” that insight such reactions! Gahhhh!

        • #2873863

          The BSA and more:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I like $64,000 questions … don’t you?

          The BSA is a private organization. As such, just like any private organization, it has the right to association; and the courts have upheld such arguments, not only with regards to the BSA, but regarding other private organizations as well – men’s only golf clubs, for example.

          Whether or not a person associates himself (or herself) with the BSA is a matter of choice. If someone doesn’t like the rules, they don’t have to join. The same holds true with the Girl Scouts.

          There’s nothing preventing a group of people from creating a GSA – Gay Scouts of America – I suppose, one for which an exclusion of heterosexual persons is among the bylaws.

          Is the Catholic Church (or some other church, for that matter) justified in choosing to disassociate themselves with those who openly question the existence of God?

          Would the National Black Panthers be justified in keeping some white guy out?

          Would the KKK be justified in keeping some Black guy out?

          Would a nude female yoga club be justified in keeping men out?

          I’m a libertarian. I may not agree with someone’s behavior, their choices, or their lifestyle – and I may even choose to not associate with them – but I defend their right to behave as they please, as long as they don’t infringe on the choices and rights of others.

          I might also choose to not associate with roving gangs, or goths, or white supremacists, or people who always preach Christianity to others, or………

          You presume that [i]discrimination[/i] is always a bad thing. Well, I’ll discriminate against smokers who want to light-up in my home. Is that wrong?

          A person with very discriminating taste once said that the right to association is often confused with discrimination.

        • #2873861

          Well then…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to The BSA and more:

          ask the experts. Is there a good reason?
          What are the benefits?
          There are drawbacks alright, that’s a given.
          The present rules do not actually bar homosexuals, it only forces them to be fundamentally dishonest in their dealings with the military. Now, that can’t be good.

        • #2873842

          “I don’t believe social engineering should trump overall effectiveness,”

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to You are absolutely correct

          It does, at the moment that someone makes a discriminate call with no fact or evidence.

          Based upon their heart, to use your words, and clearly not their head.

          You’ve got your head so far stuck up your butt with regards ‘due process’ that your ability to actually see the issue has gone to zero.

          Oh, and nice dodge on ‘changing the title’ and having a special little meaning to your whole post that you only choose to reveal later on in the discussion.

          Word games? You wanker!! At least you’re good for a laff.

        • #2873839

          And, ultimately,

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Question away.

          reporting to the people, that decision can be influenced by the people, or the person removed.

          Whether or not this happens is moot.

          Palmetto, your comment re abortions and the influence due on decision makers (predominantly males and predominantly without medical degrees), actually says it all.

          To think that the citizenry (rightfully or wrongfully) cannot or will not force decisions is simply untrue. It happens in all walks of life. The military don’t get a special right to say ‘sorry hands off’, and in my opinion of course they do not deserve it.

      • #2873978

        Any amount of genetic studies

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Hate Crimes

        will make absolutely no difference to those who who use the word “sin” to describe anything.

        Why the assumption that the studies will prove what you want? Given that the posessor of a “gay gene” wouldn’t pass this on to offspring, you’re going to have to jump through quite a few hoops to explain why it exists. 🙂

        What is needed is social change. But if your Religious Right is gaining ascendancy – as it looks from over here – with such as Sarah Palin wanting to base your county’s law on the Ten Comandments, it isn’t going to happen for a while.

        • #2873973

          You know what?

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Any amount of genetic studies

          I didn’t think it possible, but I finally found something nice to say about Sarah Palin. She’s not as bad as Christine O’Donnell.

        • #2873970

          OK, task for the day

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to You know what?

          Find out who Christine O’Donnell is…

          I’m on the case!

        • #2873966

          Christine O’Donnell

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to OK, task for the day

          Hmm, first impressions suggest that she needs to get laid and that maybe that would lighten her up a bit. Wouldn’t get around her quite impressive ignorance, though.

          Joking apart, you have some trouble coming with her and her ilk and I just hope it won’t spill over onto the rest of us.

          Have a nice day, y’all.

          😀

        • #2873955

          It is worrisome.

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Christine O’Donnell

          I just hope that people get out there and vote next month.

          I would like to believe that there are more reasonable people than not..but I have my doubts.

        • #2873951

          Sometimes the choices suck

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to It is worrisome.

          I don’t live in Toronto, I work there though, and the municipal election was last night.

          The choice was between a right winger who promised to slash spending, and a middle of the road guy who promised to do the same.

          The right winger has said some racist things in the past, been convicted of DUI (in Florida), had a marijauna charge dropped, been charged twice with assault, once when he was 18, another time more recently his wife filed charges and then withdrew them.

          The middle of the road guy was an Ontario cabinet minister in charge of the ministry of health and under his watch the government wasted 1 billion dollars on an electronic health records scheme where nothing much was accomplished except the creation of a huge bill for consulting fees.

          So I’m glad in the burbs, I had a sane choice to make.

        • #2873950

          I don’t

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to It is worrisome.

          like having to choose the lesser between two evils.

          Unfortunately, that seems to happen more often than not.

        • #2873868

          I think…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Christine O’Donnell

          “L-aid” is more to the point.
          Always overcompensating, those in-denial closet cases 😀

        • #2873853

          That’s the hurdle I see neil

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Any amount of genetic studies

          While church and state are not supposed to cross paths that way, I think it’s clear to all that the right wing has a VERY Christian focused demographic and leadership. Well Bush even used his faith to address his reasons for denying gay marriage, though that is not Constitutional and as thus was not his real reason, I’m sure.

          That’s not to say the left doesn’t include people with religious faith, in fact I think from a citizenship standpoint, it’s probably even keeled.

          Religion is still very strong in the US, compared to many other countries that have seen a decline in religious ‘attendance’ (as far as Sunday church is concerned).

          So while there has been a noticeable change in the US being based on Christian faith, it is still there in one form or another and I feel will always influence their leadership stronger than in most other Western nations.

          You are correct in that, as long as it is deemed a SIN, it will always be contested. Unfortunately while it seems times are changing, they just aren’t changing fast enough or just enough period.

          This religious focus of US politicians, makes them seem so out of touch, out of date, separated from the realities of the rest of the world. It’s almost like talking to cavemen.

          While I accept ANYONE’S right and reasoning for their chosen faith, without question, it simply cannot be used as a reasoning for political decisions that effect citizens of all faiths.

          I watched a show the other day, Undercover Boss. (I think te hUK started that one so you know how it goes). A c-level employee goes undercover to find out what’s really going on in the company. they had the CEO of a hotel chain, who is VERY religious and feels God guides his every move, which is all fine and dandy if that’s what gets you by. but he made a comment that threw me for a loop.

          He said: There are two types of people. Those in that turn to God and will always find his help, and those who turn away from him and will never find peace.

          THAT’S the kind of complete ignorance the right wing fuels and thrives on. his FAITH doesn’t bother me, his dismissal of anyone who doesn’t follow HIS God will never find peace bothers me.

        • #2873841

          Undercover Boss

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That’s the hurdle I see neil

          I have no problem with people of faith, so to speak, regardless of the flavor of said faith. But wearing it on one’s sleeve for all to see, and to proudly proclaim for all to hear! No thanks. (Not unlike a few other things people [i]wear on their sleeve for all to see![/i])

          I saw that episode of Undercover Boss, and that kind of stuff turns me off as well. In fact, I even [i]discriminate[/i] against them by choosing to not associate with them.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=337373&messageID=3377092&tag=content;leftCol

          However, not all right-wing (or Conservative or Republicans) fit the mold you describe, although all are usually painted with the same wide brush.

          Conservatives, generally speaking, can be either fiscal conservatives, or social conservatives, or both. George Will or the late Willim F. Buckly (fiscal) versus Mike Huckabee and his ilk (both), for example. And I know some conservatives who are actually agnostic and/or atheist, but their fiscal conservative convictions are strong enough to pull them into, and keep them in the Republican Party. They, like me, strive to bring more libertarian principles into play from within one of the two major parties instead of being out of the arena by way of a minor party that will never win anything.

        • #2854545

          Of course

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Undercover Boss

          I too accept anyone’s faith, what right have I to deny you belief and hope?

          In that same sense, what right has a devout Christian to deny me the right to choose my own faith or beliefs? Who are they to tell me I am a sinner or will suffer eternally? It’s the hypocrisy that gets me riled.

          “Have respect for our faith….sinner.”

          I also understand that not all Republicans are hard core Christians, but you cannot deny that the majority are. A lot of the principles they instill as “truly American” are merely principles based on their Christian faith. When they say it is unAmerican, they could often say it is unChristian and mean the same thing, but that wouldn’t be prudent.

          There is also no question that there are still a greater number of Americans actively practicing and preaching Christian faith, compared to other western democracies. Whereas many others have since “modernized” (for lack of a better word) and started to follow more realistic paths through life than the simplistic, faith based solutions to all that is hard, bad or wrong.

          “God leads me” Well you may feel hi guides you and watches over you but every circumstance you face and overcome is entirely your doing. Sorry but I just don’t know how anyone can TRULY believe otherwise. We aren’t puppets after all.

          But I digress, it is not people’s right to faith I question. It is people of faith that deny others the right to NOT follow such paths of faith that really gets to me.

          Back to the Undercover Boss, he was a great guy, saw some reality made positive changes, even if rather superficial, but his denial of someone without Christian faith to guide themselves was just really off-putting.

        • #2873396

          Ascendancy

          by herlizness ·

          In reply to Any amount of genetic studies

          << What is needed is social change. But if your Religious Right is gaining ascendancy - as it looks from over here >>

          they’re making a lot of noise and *claiming* ascendancy, which is not the same thing as gaining it

          we’re making progress; we’re always in the process of making progress

        • #2873667

          Whan Sarah Palin is voted in as your President

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Ascendancy

          then I expect that we just might revisit this subject. We might even re-open the subject after Tuesday’s vote.

          🙂

        • #2873662

          I’m gloomed

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Whan Sarah Palin is voted in as your President

          I worry we could be headed for a long slide down. Government underreach may spring up and give us a second Great Depression, which we have so far eluded.

        • #2873637

          What else would you expect Paul Krugman to say?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I’m gloomed

          The economist of the most liberal stripes. Would you really expect him to predict anything but doom and gloom about Republicans?

        • #2873584

          Dude’s smart

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to What else would you expect Paul Krugman to say?

          I haven’t seen any other economist who has seen the issues on this mortgage/banking crisis as well or as early as Krugman.

        • #2871246

          Delbert – Let’s play a game

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What else would you expect Paul Krugman to say?

          Re: [i]Dude’s smart ….. I haven’t seen any other economist who has seen the issues on this mortgage/banking crisis as well or as early as Krugman. [/i]

          Let’s see who can find proof as to who – economist or otherwise – might have predicted the mortgage/banking crisis earlier. You nominate Paul Krugman, so give me a date of the prediction. Otherwise, it’s an empty and unsubstantiated comment.

          Having said that, I’ll call your Paul Krugman, and raise you a Ron Paul.

          July 2002:

          http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/

          In 2005, Barney Frank said, [i]”You’re not going to be seeing a collapse [in the housing market] that you see when people talk about a bubble…”[/i]

          http://www.dailypaul.com/node/91615

          [i]”I hope my colleagues join me in protecting taxpayers from having to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the housing bubble bursts.” [/i]

          -Ron Paul again in 2005

          What was Krugman saying in 2002?

        • #2871237

          That one’s easy Max

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What else would you expect Paul Krugman to say?

          “We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression,” Krugman writes in the New York Times.”
          June 28th, 2010 – LOL 😀

          Like they say, hindsight is 20/20 😀

        • #2871231

          Oz – I don’t think Delbert will want to play this game

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What else would you expect Paul Krugman to say?

          It’s a sure loser for him.

        • #2871151

          August 2, 2002, Krugman predicted a real estate bubble

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to What else would you expect Paul Krugman to say?

          In a NYT column titled “Double Dip”, he predicted that if Greenspan lowered interest rates, the deflationary risk incurred by the stock market asset bubble would be avoided, but only by a new bubble in real estate.

          He said: The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn’t a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

          I’m aware that a certain crowd of influencers is trying (dishonestly) to spin his comments as advocating a real estate bubble. Given that it would be unspeakably stupid for anybody to stump for a new bubble as medicine for the last bubble, it would be inexplicable that a professional economist would commit professional suicide by advocating such a thing. The explanation is that he was explaining the consequences, and not recommending a bubble as an objective, of the sole tool that Greenspan had at hand, which was prolonged easy credit. Fortunately for these bloggers, their readers’ credulity is matched by a shortness of economic I.Q., so they pretty much get away with peddling their crazy story.

          Krugman made reference to an article by Paul McCulley of PIMCO:
          http://www.pimco.com/Pages/FF_08_2002.aspx
          The critical piece of the article that explains the context of Krugman is this:
          Renewed bank appetite for corporate liquidity lending, outright and on a contingent basis, is the necessary condition for truncating debt-deflation risk, not cuts in the Fed funds rate. Not that I’m necessarily against further cuts in the Fed funds rate. (I’ve often been accused of never meeting a Fed funds cut that I didn’t like, and there is some truth to that.) My point is that if all the Fed does is cut the Fed funds rate, the risk of a debt-deflation melt down will remain the dominant risk in the macroeconomic outlook. Restarting the rate-cutting engine, alone , would be the start of a journey to zero Fed funds – not in real terms, but nominal terms. Hello, Sir Greenspan-san!

          Indeed, since Fed funds cuts “work” through the government-supported housing finance sector, the dominant risk of a Fed funds-only policy of “accommodation” is an unrelenting deflationary bust in the corporate assets and an accelerating inflationary boom in residential property prices. The Austrians are right that fighting busted bubbles with new bubbles is a lousy way to run a railroad. They are wrong, however, in arguing that busted bubbles should be allowed to bust in Mellonesque fashion.

          The right approach is to directly contain the deflationary fallout of the busted bubble, without inflating one somewhere else. And the conventional Fed tool of changes in the Fed funds rate ain’t the right tool, even when applied counter-cyclically. It’s time for the Fed to act unconventionally, and break the conventional pro-cyclical pattern of bank lending and bank regulatory policy. Further cuts in the Fed funds rate would be easy, but not wise. In contrast, opening up the banking system conduit for the Fed’s lender-of-last-resort function will not be easy, but wise.

          So, to sum up, Krugman (like McCulley) said Greenspan had limited choices, and he was going to gin up one dumb-ass bubble to replace the one that just popped. It was a critique of the Republican vacuity that dominated policy making and thinking in the Bush years. In the Clinton years, too, for that matter. I can’t absolve the Clinton team of their hand in this mess. The housing/banking disaster was 20 or more years in the making, and required the full complicity of the American people, as well as business, banking, Congress, presidents, and the Federal Reserve.

          You probably thought you had me in some sneaky trap there, huh?

        • #2871133

          Delbert – You’ve got to be kidding me!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What else would you expect Paul Krugman to say?

          You’re stretching, there, my boy! Moreover, July 2002 is before August 2002.

        • #2871121

          Well, I’ll grant you that one

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to What else would you expect Paul Krugman to say?

          Your libertarian Nostradamus beat my economist in getting his opinion into print, by a month. Yup.

          Incidentally, McCulley’s article is pretty interesting, for the general economic principles it explains, showing the problems and the lack of helpful alternatives a central bank manager faced at the time of the stock market bubble’s collapse. Here’s the link again.
          http://www.pimco.com/Pages/FF_08_2002.aspx

        • #2871058

          Not a game Max

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What else would you expect Paul Krugman to say?

          Just a funny exercise.

        • #2871201

          Thomas Friedman writes on a similar note

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I’m gloomed

          http://www.thestate.com/2010/10/31/1536122/friedman-cant-keep-a-bad-idea.html

          I particularly like the juxtaposition of these two sentences:

          …[i]Let’s pay for more tax cuts by uncovering waste I can’t identify, fraud I haven’t found and abuse that I’ll get back to you on later.

          All that’s missing is any realistic diagnosis of where we are as a country and what we need to get back to sustainable growth.[/i]

          edit: flippin’ ? marks

        • #2871157

          Bill Bonner

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Thomas Friedman writes on a similar note

          In, The Daily Reckoning, has been taking both — Friedman and Krugman — to severe task for years, not to mention Geithner, et al.

          I am inoculated, by, as well, Whiskey and Gunpowder.

          Not to mention, other denizens of the financial and economic world who do this all for their contrapunctual, free-market living.

        • #2873645

          That’s just

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Whan Sarah Palin is voted in as your President

          not funny.

          I’m gonna have nightmares.

        • #2873641

          S. Palin

          by herlizness ·

          In reply to Whan Sarah Palin is voted in as your President

          I suppose it could happen but I don’t think so; with a little bit of luck the US populace will acquire a better vocabulary with which to express its frustrations, discontent and anger … one that does not include “Sarah now!” … but we’ll see

          As for Tuesday, it would seem the handwriting is pretty much on the wall, no? As it relates to Palin specifically, there is a very distinct possibilty that her candidates will not end up on the winning side … again, we shall see

        • #2873633

          Viewed through a telescope

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to S. Palin

          we wonder what on earth is going on. Your country seems to be running scared.

          Islamophobia seems to be gaining ground again. Anti-China sentiments abound. Iran, terrorists, socialism…

          welcome to the ex-imperialists club.

          🙂

        • #2873631

          You (and others) suffer from honestyphobia

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Viewed through a telescope

          I wish people could engage in honest discussion without CONSTANTLY resorting to various phobia charges. It’s the second time you’ve done it in this discussion, Neil – first homophobia, and now Islamophobia.

          It’s just not being honest, and is merely a ploy to be dismissive of those who happened to disagree on an issue.

        • #2873626

          Phobias

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Viewed through a telescope

          The US Military is homophobic. A phobia is an irrational fear of something and if you can give me ANY rational reason why the US Military should treat gays any differently than straights then I will withdraw the charge.

          ANY fear of homosexuality is phobic.

          Islamophobia? I merely mentioned that it is growing in the US – and here. I didn’t describe the country as in any way universally islamophobic. Any studies that canvass the general population over time as to their positive and negative views towards the Islamic religion will show that growth in antipathy. As to how much of the antipathy is deserved and how much is phobic reaction born out of ignorance, feel free to decide yourself.

          Neil

        • #2873623

          Fear

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Viewed through a telescope

          You apply the word in cases where it doesn’t apply. It might apply in isolated instances, but not always – and I would guess, not mostly. Thus, you paint with too wide a brush.

        • #2873621

          I am watching from 4,000 miles away

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Viewed through a telescope

          and from a different culture. I call it as I see it and I can’t see the fine detail. All you’re ever going to get is a broad brush unless we hit on something specific that has caught my interest.

          I still reckon that the reason why gays are not wanted in the military is because this would require a real cultural change away from the testosterone-fuelled macho barracks atmosphere which would feel threatened by open gays.

        • #2873615

          Irrational

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Viewed through a telescope

          Moreover, just because you disagree with another’s reasoning, it doesn’t make it irrational.

        • #2873614

          By the way, how does London take to . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Viewed through a telescope

          ….. American football. There was a game played there today.

        • #2873611

          Yeah

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Viewed through a telescope

          In very simple terms..we just don’t like the brown people here.

          I really wish that were a harsh and unjustified statement, but it’s not. I hear it all the time. You hear it voiced by politicians and politician hopefuls.

          Fear and intolerance. Or maybe that is redundant. Either way..it all makes me sad.

        • #2873610

          Irrational refers to phobias

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Viewed through a telescope

          Fear of homosexuals is irrational, and a phobia. Not just because I say so.

        • #2873609

          American Football

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Viewed through a telescope

          It vaguely passed across my conciousness that there was an NFL game on. I didn’t notice it on the TV but I do believe that there was a sell-out Wembley crowd – 80,000 – to watch the game.

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/american_football/9126726.stm

          A few years ago we used to have the action from one or more games on Channel 4. I got quite into the game because most of the breaks were stripped out. I found that I couldn’t watch live games when in the US – too many stoppages and I don’t have the necessary mindset to know what to do.

          We don’t have any televised games, now.

          Interest is fairly limited as most watch proper football.

          Edited to add: The match highlights were shown on BBC1, the main channel, at around midnight. Past my bedtime but I recorded them and may watch them later. The first half was, it seems, “dire”. But that is why we have fast-forward.

        • #2871274

          neil

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Viewed through a telescope

          ON machismo, I think you nailed it right there. It just ain’t cool to be gay as gay is seen as soft and submissive. Even though many gay guys are actually in better physical shape, more macho and far more masculine than a many straight guys. Gay guys aren’t always effeminate, which is why most people are so shocked when they find out a friend is gay, those we expect are no surprise.

          Suppose they feel it would diminish the HOO-RAH, followed by primitive chest beating and baring of teeth! (and some people still think we aren’t an evolved primate, LOL )

        • #2873617

          During my career

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to S. Palin

          I knew several not-so-open gays who openly participated in “the testosterone-fuelled macho barracks atmosphere which would feel threatened by open gays”.

          Brought a sardonic tear to my eye…

        • #2861106

          Palin’s candidates …

          by herlizness ·

          In reply to S. Palin

          << As it relates to Palin specifically, there is a very distinct possibilty that her candidates will not end up on the winning side ... again, we shall see >>

          and we have seen … the Palin endorsees who won didn’t need her support and all of the true looney-tunes went down in flames

        • #2861039

          I don’t know, Liz

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Palin’s candidates …

          The governor’s race here in South Carolina was very close, much closer than it should have been given the Republican sweep of other state offices.

          Nikki Haley has some very strong negatives, primarily filing taxes late (including business withholding) to the point that liens were issued, but also some conflict-of-interest issues over an undisclosed business contract (she was hired for her “access”). Given that she was running a campaign highlighting her business abilities and pushing legislative transparency, there were some questions. The underwhelming support she received from the SC Republican party and from prominent SC Republicans also spoke loudly to those paying attention. In this case, the Palin endorsement may have actually made a difference. Without it, I think Nikki Haley is sitting at home, wondering where she will get her next job.

        • #2860971

          re: I don’t know, Liz

          by herlizness ·

          In reply to Palin’s candidates …

          << In this case, the Palin endorsement may have actually made a difference. Without it, I think Nikki Haley is sitting at home, wondering where she will get her next job >>

          fair enough, I guess; I was reacting in large measure to people giving Palin credit for [Gov] Rick Perry’s win in Texas, and some others … which is ridiculous; Palin just didn’t matter one way or the other

          anyway, time to get beyond the elections; that’s all a done deal. tough policy decisions lie ahead

          I hope everyone has been following the recent commnentary provided by David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director

          The short story is that he’s been saying in no uncertain terms that cutting ANY taxes at this point in time is pure lunacy and might have disastrous consequences downwind. We’ve heard that before but when Stockman says it, it should make people take notice. Of course a lot of people don’t realize that he told Reagan much of the same but was shouted down. Then again, most people don’t realize that Reagan also did a lot of tax-hiking in his first couple of years.

          If this tea party movement wants any real credibility they better start asking the really hard questions about budgets and fiscal policy.

        • #2864889

          In Haley’s case

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Palin’s candidates …

          That endorsement came just before the primary and moved her from last place in the polls to first in the primary. She won the runoff handily. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Haley#2010_campaign_for_Governor

          I’m not sure any of the alternatives would have been better choices. All of them jumped out onto the right wing and started spouting “No new taxes” and “Cut government”. The problem here in SC is that a few years ago, the legislature passed Act 388 (and Mark Sanford signed it :0 ), which exempted owner-occupied homes from property tax that funds school operations and substituted sales tax. At the same time, they started phasing out sales tax on groceries. (Yes, I know. That’s beyond crazy.) The consequences are growing. http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jan/14/s_c_paying_piper_act_tax_cuts68293/

          I’m sure most legislators are reasonably intelligent individuals (the ones I’ve met are), but when they gather in groups at statehouses, they seem to check their intelligence at the door. South Carolina is probably the most egregious example of this; the legislature here is living proof that a committee is the only known form of life with two or more stomachs and no brain.

          They don’t allocate budget cuts based on need, they just cut everything by a fixed percentage to bring the budget in under receipts. The next round of cuts (I can almost guarantee taxes won’t get raised) will cut the backbone out of most state agencies and most likely put public safety at greater risk. http://www.thestate.com/2010/10/31/1537808/fraud-danger-and-dirt-state-letting.html

          I don’t want it to happen, but I think the only thing that is going to get their heads back on their shoulders is a major public safety incident that causes multiple deaths, but could have been prevented if the agency responsible hadn’t been cut to the bone.

          edit: corrected Act 388 actions.

        • #2873636

          I don’t think S.P. will run for president

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Whan Sarah Palin is voted in as your President

          Newt Gingrich, however, might emerge from behind the scenes and throw his hat into the ring.

        • #2873632

          Let’s revisit this after Tuesday

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I don’t think S.P. will run for president

          As I have no idea what I’m posting about and I need to read articles and brush up on my nutter politics.

          😀

        • #2873630

          I’ll stop short of making this a prediction, however . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Let’s revisit this after Tuesday

          ….. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Hillary Clinton resigns from her top spot at the State Department near the end of 2010, and actually challenges Obama for the Democratic Party nomination in 2012. She could run on the [i]I told you so[/i] platform, and she’d be right!

        • #2873625

          Clinton

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Let’s revisit this after Tuesday

          I will watch with interest!

          😀

          Feel free to say “Told you so!” when and if it happens.

        • #2873581

          I’ll be right there with you, Max

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Let’s revisit this after Tuesday

          Voting for Hillary, if I get the chance.

        • #2871265

          Delbert

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Let’s revisit this after Tuesday

          You’re too funny!

          Needless to say, I’d be voting for Newt!

        • #2873582

          We need a discussion on the coming disaster in Republican leadership

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to I don’t think S.P. will run for president

          Newt, Sarah, the whole tea party nonsense… how the hell can I ever take Republicans seriously? The only wackadoodle who clearly will be rejected is Christine O’Donnell.

          I’m gloomed.

        • #2871283

          “Coming disaster”?

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to We need a discussion on the coming disaster in Republican leadership

          Been a disaster for weeks now. 😐

        • #2871279

          Weeks?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to We need a discussion on the coming disaster in Republican leadership

          Years.

        • #2871270

          Weeks? In the case of South Carolina

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to We need a discussion on the coming disaster in Republican leadership

          since about 1830.

        • #2871261

          Your stated outlook would make any “discussion” . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to We need a discussion on the coming disaster in Republican leadership

          …. just about impossible. It would be no more than your typical [i]Demonize Republicans[/i] nonsense.

          By the way, both Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton would acknowledge that they worked together, behind the scenes, to achieve a balanced budget in the 1990s. But if you buy into said [i]demonize Republicans[/i] nonsense, your bias just wouldn’t allow you to see it.

        • #2871236

          LOL. boxy

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to We need a discussion on the coming disaster in Republican leadership

          You’re just being nice. I think you meant that in at least years.

        • #2871233

          Newt & Clinton collaborate on a balanced budget? Not quite.

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to We need a discussion on the coming disaster in Republican leadership

          Certainly there was give and take to get a budget passed.

          To say they collaborated to balance the federal budget overstates their shared contribution to the outcome.

          The budget was balanced in the last couple years of the Clinton presidency, but only after Newt had quit as speaker (Jan 1999), and because tax revenue soared with the swelling capital gains from the stock market bubble. The Dow went from 3740 to 11490 in the six years from Newt’s ascendency to the speakership to Bush’s victory in 2000. Everyone was quite surprised and pleased, except Alan Greenspan.

          It would be fair to say they cooperated on welfare reform. Both had interests that converged on that topic.

        • #2871197

          South Carolina had no Republicans

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to We need a discussion on the coming disaster in Republican leadership

          before Strom Thurmond “converted” in 1964. All those other people were Democrats (or their forebears).

          The Republicans were “the Party of Lincoln” and that just wasn’t happening in South Carolina until after Strom took the plunge.

    • #2873931

      “Military experts” are not the best deciders

      by delbertpgh ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      First: I’ve served in the military with gay men, lived in barracks with them, shared community showers with them. I was never gay myself, and no gay guy ever made a move on me, not even when I was glistening wet and soapy, naked and at the peak of my youthful vigor, in the comon shower. If I had gotten propositioned, I would have simply said, “No thanks, a**hole, what do you think I look like? Now, pass the bong and forget it.” (Not that we ever passed the bong in the shower. That was in other rooms.) I never had the opportunity to share a foxhole with a gay guy under fire, which seems to be the situation that silly people like to bring up as the Ultimate Dreadful Moment of Sexual Vulnerability, but I doubt it would drive me homo, or drive him to rape.

      I guess you could compare all this weird handkerchief-wringing on the part of our generals and conservative thinkers to what they thought about the integration of blacks into the armed forces in 1948, which was done not by Congress or courts, but by Truman’s executive order. What about the massive prejudice in the country? Was the military supposed to take the lead in overcoming that, ahead of the civilians? Would forcing (“forcing,” damn it?) men to serve and bunk with negroes cause dissension, harm morale, reduce effectiveness, and adversely impact reenlistment? If you took a poll of white soldiers in 1948, and asked it they would want to share bunk rooms, toilets, showers, mess tables, and every minute of the day with colored soldiers, what do you think the opinion would be? If there had been no integration in 1948 and you asked the same question in 1965 or 1970, what do you think the opinion would be? If they asked the generals instead of the men? Answer: the same, at all times, in all cases. “No, not now, why change, why hurry?”

      It was done, and the military survived, and the country outlasted the communists in the cold war. And, we’re better for it, though there will always be some who disagree. (Check out stormfront.com and amren.com.)

      Congress should open service to open gays, but it won’t, because Republicans will sell out justice for the reactionary vote every time. So, that’s my answer to your question, “Who should decide?” Congress should, but they won’t, even if most of the country thinks it’s a decent idea. Somebody should, because it’s justice, and there’s no worthy objection to it, let alone one that should override justice.

      I’ve seen no evidence that queer G.I.s reduce military effectiveness. I just see “experts” afraid to advocate change. The country as a whole has come to accept homosexuals as valid citizens, just as they have learned that Jews, Mormons, Indians, blacks, and women are entitled to the everyday rituals and privileges of citizenship.

      • #2873927

        Sagacious

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to “Military experts” are not the best deciders

        My friend.

      • #2873878

        Right on.

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to “Military experts” are not the best deciders

        Chalking up one more brewup to DelbertPGH 😉

        On a different note; this whole thing got me thinking about resistance to change in general.
        As I see it, Conservatism has to be smart. Conservatism has to be “not changing without reason”.
        “Not changing for reasons of We Don’t Do That” isn’t conservatism; it’s Stagnatism, and that’s a surefire road to decline.

        My own ideal is dynamic equilibrium though; the image is that of balancing on top of a ball. Thinking “I’m not going to move” will lead to a simple fall. To stay put you have to keep your feet lively. The ball represents “life”, it’s predictable unpredictability and it’s unpredictable predictability.

      • #2873843

        Doffs Hat

        by drowningnotwaving ·

        In reply to “Military experts” are not the best deciders

        Thanks Delbert

    • #2873914

      It’s “the Gay’s” choice

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      if anyone wants to serve their country they should well and rightly be able to do so. What person in their most insane mind would stop someone from defending their nation?

      Of course, just like anyone else, they would be expected to complete the standard training, medical clearance etc. That aside, what else would possibly stop a military branch from deploying anyone ?

      The only reason to stop them or anyone for that matter, would be the inability to complete training, physical disability etc.

      Why would they even be singled out to begin with? Why not just ask “Should men and women be allowed to join the military?”

      Sexual relations, even heterosexual, are not supposed to take place anyway. They are all just soldiers, women or men, no difference at that point.

      • #2873901

        Cause discrimination is trendy?

        by slayer_ ·

        In reply to It’s “the Gay’s” choice

        Sure seems so based on the news media we get from the states.

        • #2873896

          One fuels the other in their case

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Cause discrimination is trendy?

          As usual, trends are determined by media and marketing. They can make ANYONE look good or bad in US media as it is so untrained. I don’t mean regulated, as in freedom of speech should be removed but it seems the people just gobble up the Enquirer style new reports they air Stateside. Then again, that’s what they are used to and are force fed, once again by the media.

          The US media controls the outcome of presidential elections. The Us media decides if and when the US goes to war (based on creating or removing public support). The president says something and people turn to the media to find out the details. Again, this is just a common and expected mindset of a public that has grown up immersed in such media spins. It get’s to the point that you can’t determine fact from fiction.

          Unfortunately, this has also stemmed into the inacceptance/acceptance of soft drugs, public views toward other nations people and governments, racism, political correctness run amok, presidential scandals etc.

          No I don’t think all Americans are drones, sucked into the media, but SO MANY are. If they are not, they are often steered in one direction or another by others who are just as radical one way or another. Spins, trends, headlines and fear seem to fuel the American way, unfortunately.

          Again, and I add this only because SOMEONE will get the wrong idea,this does not pertain to all Americans, but a great deal who don’t spend time looking at the rest of the world through different channels. They simply rely on what the media spins, what is hip to follow and the ‘trend’ that has been set.

    • #2873803

      the US Constitution “decides” …

      by herlizness ·

      In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. Military – Who should decide?

      << Two: Serving in the military IS NOT a Constitutional right. The military can indeed discriminate for a variety of reasons (sorry, you have flat-foot), all of which are implemented for the purpose of maintaining the most effective military force possible. If you disagree, please show me the exact article of the Constitution that shows me to be wrong >>

      See Amendment XIV.

      For the reasoning on the issue, read the opinion of the Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas. I think the logic of the case compels the conclusion that gays cannot be excluded from military service consistent with equal protection under the law guaranteed by the amendment.

      Just to be clear, however, I am not saying that homosexual conduct while on active duty is constitutionally protected; it most probably is not. There is a world of difference between discrimination based on status and discrimation based on conduct.

      • #2873801

        Conduct is it

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to the US Constitution “decides” …

        Would that we could make it so.

      • #2873800

        I assume you’re referring to Section 1 of Amendment 14

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to the US Constitution “decides” …

        [i]Section 1.
        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        Section 2.
        Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

        Section 3.
        No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

        Section 4.
        The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

        Section 5.
        The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[/i]

        Please be specific?

        To what are you referring?

        Regarding Lawrence vs. Texas, military rules and regulation is not the same as state law.

        [i]No state shall make or enforce any law ……. [/i]

        The military is not a state.

        I will say this, however. Yours is one of the best replies.

        • #2873794

          re Assumptions and military service

          by herlizness ·

          In reply to I assume you’re referring to Section 1 of Amendment 14

          << I assume you're referring to Section 1 of Amendment 14 ... Please be specific? ... To what are you referring? >>

          of course I refer to Section 1

          << Regarding Lawrence vs. Texas, military rules and regulation is not the same as state law >>

          yes, but without a long-winded discussion of the UCMJ here, the relevant law to most observers is DADT, which is US Federal law codified at 10 USC 654, and it has been held since 1954, in Bolling v. Sharpe, that the equal protection clause of Amend. XIV applies to acts of the federal government via the doctrine of reverse incorporation

          please note that while 10 USC 654 does enunciate your original premise that there is “no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces,” such provision has yet to be fully tested and is subject to judicial review; it should be clear that Congress may not, by fiat, pass upon the constitutionality of its own enactments

          << The military is not a state >>

          see above

          << I will say this, however. Yours is one of the best replies >>

          thank you

      • #2873799

        But I do agree – the U.S. Constitution decides

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to the US Constitution “decides” …

        And as such, it’s the president’s call.

        • #2873797

          not that simple

          by herlizness ·

          In reply to But I do agree – the U.S. Constitution decides

          << But I do agree - the U.S. Constitution decides. And as such, it's the president's call >>

          not really; see Article III, U.S. Constitution and Marbury v. Madison; it is the province of the court to say what the law is .. and of course the province of the legislature to make the law in the first instance

          the complication here of course is that the president is also commander in chief, which presumably gives him some measure of authority on the issue. Presently, the issue is largely academic, though, since President Obama believes that Congress should be the branch to change the law, for what I think are fairly sound reasons.

      • #2854511

        Your Constitutional arguments are probably best debunked by . . . . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to the US Constitution “decides” …

        ….. considering the fact that no legal challenge has been presented on such a basis. Or if it has, it couldn’t stand up under legal scrutiny.

        If it had merit, some legal scholar would have surely pursued it by now.

        It’s the president’s call – period.

        • #2854491

          Current case decided on 1st and 5th amendments

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Your Constitutional arguments are probably best debunked by . . . . . . .

          In Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court ruled that DADT violated the 1st amendment, in that the restrictions of expression it imposed by servicemen was not justified by a pressing security need… that the ban against homosexuality on grounds of maintaining military readiness was not demonstrated, and appeared to be bogus. Also, there was some rationale about self-incrimination (the 5th amendment.)

          Legal language was entered in the 1994 Defense Authorization Act which stated that homosexual activity was incompatible with military service. Clinton responded by inventing the “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”, implemented as an executive order. Obama can revoke the DADT executive order, but that leaves him with law saying gays can’t serve, period. DADT is a policy that limits investigation of possible homosexuality; it does not legitimate or de-legitimate it.

          The House of Representative in 2010 passed a new authorization bill, which includes the “Murphy Amendment” that will void the language of the 1994 authorization, subsequent to a review by the Secretary of Defense. It was passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, but was filibustered by John McCain and others. The authorization is still stalled.

          There’s another case in another court where a similar judgement was passed on Sept 25th. I don’t know anything about that one.

          Until I researched it, I assumed that the case would have been made based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Turns out they chose to argue it on the 1st, as a free expression issue.

        • #2854485

          Log Cabin case ….

          by herlizness ·

          In reply to Current case decided on 1st and 5th amendments

          << Until I researched it, I assumed that the case would have been made based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Turns out they chose to argue it on the 1st, as a free expression issue >>

          well, as you indicated in your caption, this case was decided on 1st and 5th amendment grounds; the 5th Amendment claim was, in part, an equal protection claim; as you likely know, there is no equal protection language in Amendment V; however, if you read the cases beginning with Bolling in 1954, you see that there is an interplay between the 5th and 14th amendments which eseentially makes the original bill of rights applicable to the states (“incorporation”) and the equal protection guarantee of the 14th amendment applicable to actions of the Federal government (“reverse incorporation”).

          That is the substance of the law and of the decision; how the issue is pleaded and framed by counsel is of considerably lesser significance.

        • #2854467

          Reactive code…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Log Cabin case ….

          self-modifying too.
          That always impresses me.
          A bit like how DNA works. A gene can code for the transcription of a molecule with the sole and specific effect of lodging itself between the DNA strands to bend it into a shape that helps the Ribosome DNA parser latch on to a specific other gene… that’s called an accelerator, but when you consider how it’s been hacked into shape trial and error – without other guiding influence than the incidental survival and procreation of the carriers of such hacks… it’s stunning.

        • #2854479

          nothing debunked here …

          by herlizness ·

          In reply to Your Constitutional arguments are probably best debunked by . . . . . . .

          Mr. Edison, I’ve provided you with the constitutional, statutory and case law rationale for my position … and expanded it somewhat in my most recent reply to DelbertPGH, who has actually done a bit of homework on the issues presented by DADT.

          If you have a cogent legal argument to rebut mine, please go ahead and make it. Saying the some legal scholar would