There weren’t many surprises in the State of the Union. However, there were two interesting unexpected twists. First, Obama called for gays to be allowed to serve openly in the military. I’m not surprised that Obama supports this. But I am surprised that he has decided to make a push on that front right now. This is one of the rare issues where Obama and I agree, so I hope he succeeds. Polls say that a strong majority supports repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” so this initiative is less of a political risk than it was when Bill Clinton tried it in 1993.
The other surprise was when Obama channeled Sarah Palin by calling for increased offshore oil drilling in order to achieve “energy independence.” Perhaps he will take up Palin’s “drill, baby, drill” slogan as well. On a slightly more serious note, this may be another issue where Obama and I agree (though I doubt that the benefits will be as great as Palin claimed). I just don’t know enough about it to be sure, so I will respect the limits of my own political knowledge. Given all my scholarship on political ignorance, it’s the least I can do.
Brian K says:
i’m not sure this should be characterized as channeling palin than channeling just about every conservative since i’ve been alive. i’m not aware of palin ever having an original thought and increasing drilling was widely advocated well before she burnished her foreign policy credentials by pointing out how close alaska was to russia.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 3:51 amIlya Somin says:
i’m not sure this should be characterized as channeling palin than channeling just about every conservative since i’ve been alive. i’m not aware of palin ever having an original thought and increasing drilling was widely advocated well before she burnished her foreign policy credentials by pointing out how close alaska was to russia.
I’m not saying this was Palin’s original idea. Very few politicians are original thinkers, and Palin isn’t one of them. I’m merely indicating that she made it a signature issue of hers during the 2008 campaign.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 3:54 amBrian K says:
I can’t disagree here.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 4:03 amNiklas Blanchard says:
On the issue of “energy independence”, it is the entire concept that is false, as nearly any economist will tell you (perhaps privately). The law of comparative advantage doesn’t magically disappear when you chant the “energy independence” incantation...which is just as spurious as chanting “moral hazard, adverse selection”.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 4:24 amRandy says:
Repealing DADT is hardly controversial when 70% of Americans support repeal, and even a majority of Republicans do as well. So why hasn’t he even tried? He wants to through the job to congress so that he doesn’t have to really do anything about it, except give a nice speech.
Big deal.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 5:33 ampireader says:
Obama channeled Sarah Palin by calling for increased offshore oil drilling in order to achieve “energy independence.”
The United States currently produces only 5 million barrels of oil a day, while importing 13 million. No knowledgeable person believes that unlimited drilling everywhere in the country–offshore, in Alaska, in the national parks, even on the Mall in Washington–would remove that “dependence”. There just aren’t enough economically-recoverable reserves left in this country.
Professor Somin’s usual explanation for government initiatives seems particularly appropriate in this case–political theatre that exploits popular ignorance, while catering to special interests.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 6:09 amStas Peterson says:
There are only four genuine benefits to be derived from the pain of 40 odd years of monopolistic oil pricing by the nationalized Oil Cartels.
1) It has forced all human activities be more efficient in its energy processes sooner than it would have occurred otherwise. This allows more capital surplus and greater wealth.
2) The outrageous Oil prices forced man to look for much more Oil, and the high price umbrella, allowed many to seek to develop and to prove technologies which allow hitherto un-economic sources, exploitable.
Consequently, Oil reserves have soared to several centuries worth, and the Peakist’s catastrophe has been forced into an illusion. The World will not blunder into an civilization destroying Energy cul-de-sac
3) It has forced Man to seek energy alternatives ranging from the manufacture of synthetic oils like Bio-fuels; to dead-ends like wind and solar. It has lead to investments and the final perfection of Nuclear fission power plants like they should have been, but never were. Man is now rapidly harnessing the atom worldwide, even as the Nuclear Renaissance gathers life in the USA. This provides a last generation of clean energy before the coming of the dawn.
4) It has provided the impetus for Man to seek the energy of the Stars and he is well on his way to achieving that ultimate clean energy, which provides the where with all to raise all Mankind out of poverty, to the wealth and lifestyles of the wealthiest in the developed First World.
We have just about accomplished all four items of the energy agenda.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 6:33 amArkady says:
I think his plug for nuclear power was likewise noteworthy. The technology’s come some distance since 1979. A funny story about Three Mile Island. President Carter went to visit the site, and was talking to an elderly woman who lived nearby. “You’re not worried about the plant and its problems,” he asked her. “No,” she said, “if there was any danger, they would have sent the vice-president.”
Quote
January 28, 2010, 7:31 amBlue Neposnet says:
He is stealing the issue from Republicans. When nothing gets done about this the R’s will have to explain why they chose not to work with the President on it.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 8:31 amarch1 says:
Thanks for the TMI story, Arkady:-)
Quote
January 28, 2010, 9:41 amSteve says:
How many energy-independent countries exist in the world? Zero. And if one actually gets there, it certainly won’t be our consumption-based economy. I am tired of hearing the term.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 9:48 amMark Buehner says:
This is an easy promise for Obama to make. Since he doesn’t send any legislation to Capital Hill and instead relies on Reid and Pelosi to craft it, nukes and oil drilling will simply never come up in a bill. Obama gets to look like he’s offering an olive branch without actually offering anything at all. He pulled the same gag with heathcare by offering limited tort reform. Of course when Congress put pen to paper it was never even considered. A fun game, but letting Congress write all these bills from the ground up is what caused Obama’s healthcare meltdown and watered down his stimulus bill.
If the Republicans take back Congress next year Obama may be eating a lot of these words when bills show up on his desk bearing promises he never meant to keep. Seems to happen to him a lot lately.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 9:48 amOwen H. says:
Believing in new oil drilling in some areas is not the same as drilling everywhere, which is what Palin and other Republicans want.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 9:57 amOwen H. says:
DADT must go. A strong majority of the country already believes that. All it accomplishes is to force men and women already serving well and proudly in our armed forces to hide who they are, and let bigots pretend there are no gays in the military. Would straights consider it ok if they were told they couldn’t even mention the existense of their spouse?
Quote
January 28, 2010, 10:01 amOwen H. says:
So what’s to stop the Republicans from proposing such legislation themselves now? Not allowed to work with the President?
Quote
January 28, 2010, 10:04 amOwen H. says:
So what’s to stop the Republicans from proposing such legislation themselves now? Not allowed to work with the President?
Quote
January 28, 2010, 10:04 amMark Buehner says:
Everywhere? Times Square? The Reflecting Pond? Disney World?
Claiming you believe in drilling but blocking any attempt to drill anywhere is simply lying, which is the game the Dems have played the last few years.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 10:05 amDennis N says:
It’s yesterday’s issue. Today’s military grew up with openly gay kids in high school, and had some of them as friends. It’s no real secret, who your gay squaddies and shipmates are. They’re the ones who tell the “don’t drop the soap” jokes. Few people are frightened of them anymore.
Maybe today’s slogan ought to be “Don’t Ask. Don’t care.”
Quote
January 28, 2010, 10:07 amAlfred J. Lemire says:
“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,” the President said. In an expectably bad speech filled with falsehoods, he provided another one there. Homosexuals do serve, in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise.
Ideology, idealism, good intentions, zeal, and ignorance mark many policy blunders of both left and right. Pushing for homosexual service in the military belongs among them. If our military was like that of the Dutch, or like San Francisco’s police force, where people work their eight hours and then go home, no problem. But it isn’t. It’s difficult for young men brimming with hormones to live, work, and sleep together with young women at the height of their attractiveness, and do nothing. It’s also difficult for young homosexual men to do nothing in close and continuing relationships with young, fit men at the height of their attractiveness. Men are men, regardless of their sexuality; on homosexual women, I plead ignorance.
Bad developments get hushed, but commanders know of them and they know how their services are constructed. President Obama’s ideology, ideals, good intentions, zeal, and ignorance clash with reality.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 10:23 amMark Buehner says:
Nothing. Nothing stop ME from proposing legislation. But getting a bill out of a committee is an entirely different matter. The president can’t very well sign a bill that hasn’t been been passed, and since the Dems aren’t letting a republican drilling/nuke bill see the light of day its a moot point. And since the president isn’t crafting any legislation of any kind and sending it for Congress to vote on (and certainly not that kind!), Republicans have no chance of signing on to nonexistant legislation.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 10:41 amMark Buehner says:
Example- one of the amendments to the stimulus bill last year that would allow nuclear power plants to qualify for loan guarantees alongside wind and solar power. Voted down in the committee 33–21 in a straight party line vote. Henry Waxman is the chair of the energy committee by the way. Good luck with those nukes sir.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 10:57 amBob from Ohio says:
He mentioned it in a speech. Congress has been controled by the Dems for 3 years, the last with an overwhelming majority. It hasn’t happened yet.
Talking is not a “push”.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 11:01 amFub says:
I can. Limiting the evaluation to “original” gives them far too much credit.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 11:21 amjiffy says:
Obama’s mention of these two issues is hardly a surprise. He ran on repealing DADT, and he’s caught flak from gay supporters for not moving fast enough. State of the Union addresses typically contain laundry lists of policy preferences designed, in part, to reassure the President’s base of support, and failure to mention DADT repeal in that context would have been more noteworthy than mentioning it. On drilling, Obama has been talking about opening up offshore drilling as part of a compromise energy policy since at least August 2008.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 11:23 amPhatty says:
The DADT promise was nothing more than a bone that Obama was tossing to the gay community who have been critical of him for doing nothing for them. Instead of just promising something, why doesn’t he just do it? Isn’t he the commander in chief? Can’t he simply order his generals to stop enforcing the policy?
It’s amazing to me that anyone would give any credence to the promises that Obama makes.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 11:31 amzuch says:
Prof. Somin:
Why not? The SOTU is always a shopping bag. And repealing DADT is just a good idea whose time has come. It’s the right thing to do, and why bother with doing the wrong thing?
Cheers,
Quote
January 28, 2010, 11:34 amRandy says:
Alfred: ” It’s also difficult for young homosexual men to do nothing in close and continuing relationships with young, fit men at the height of their attractiveness.”
Gay men just can’t control themselves when in the presence of such God’s gift as you, I suppose. You must have been beating off the gays with a really big stick in your day.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 11:36 amAnon Y. Mous says:
Actually, Clinton signed DADT into law. Prior to that, the ban on gays in the military had been propagated through the military chain of command. Clinton was being harassed by gay noisemakers during his campaign stops, so he promised he would change it via executive order during his first week in office. That did the trick, the noisemakers quit disrupting his appearances, and, true to his MO, he then went back on his word and instead signed the bill that put the very thing he promised to end into law.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 12:00 pmjiffy says:
Since DADT is a statutory provision enacted under Congress’s constitutional authority “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,” no.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 12:13 pmzuch says:
Prof. Somin:
Particularly, as a football cheerleader-type chant with a silly grin while wearing a stupid hat. Yes, indeed. There are arguments to be made for drilling (and arguments against), and as long as it’s discussed intelligently, fine, but chanting is not “discussion”.
Cheers,
Quote
January 28, 2010, 12:14 pmPhatty says:
Congress can pass laws, but it’s up to the executive branch whether or not they actually get enforced.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 12:20 pmepluribus says:
Phatty:
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3:
The Constitution doesn’t allow the president discretion to decide “whether or not” the laws “actually get enforced.” It imposes a duty on the president.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 12:45 pmFrank Drackman says:
Why not repeal that DOMA that Evil George W. Bush signed into law...
I was in the Military, probably more Lesbian than Straight Women...Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 12:51 pmShelbyC says:
Although he argueably would be entitled to decide that DADT is unconstitutional and decline to enforce it.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 12:54 pmBABH says:
As epluribus said, the President has a duty to enforce DADT. There is a provision in the law, however, that allows the President to suspend discharges in the interests of national security. As an advocate for repeal I think it would be bad politics for him to do so, as it would take pressure off the Congress.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 1:00 pmAlanW says:
Since it’s been mentioned a couple times, it’s worth pointing out how cynical Republican support for nuclear power is. Nuclear power is more expensive than coal or gas, but it’s carbon-neutral. Since Republicans either don’t believe or don’t care about global warming, their push for nuclear power is simply a way to tweak the large number (perhaps majority) of hypocritical liberals who want to fight global warming but are stuck in some 1970’s “China Syndrome” nuclear panic.
If liberals ever pulled their heads out and called the Republican bluff, conservative support would fold like a house of cards, quickly followed by such blatant NIMBYism that it would make the Kennedys’ opposition to Cape Wind look principled.
None of which is to deny that liberal support for combating global warming is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 1:05 pmmemomachine says:
Hmmmm.
I’ll believe it when I see the drilling rigs being towed into position.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 1:19 pmmack says:
Yes, the democrats are for offshore drilling, heck they have said they were since before Obama was elected — as long as it doesn’t include drilling off the coast of Alaska, Washington, California, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and the eastern seaboard. They are also for energy independence as long as it doesn’t actually develop oil shale, include drilling on govt. land in the continental US, involve building a refinery, or building a working nuclear plant.
They support the development of realistic energy options just like they support the second amendment which protects a citiczens right to shoot 10,000 dollar shotguns at clays, if you have a permit for it.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 1:29 pmMark Field says:
True. And to make the hypocrisy even more obvious, just ask a Republican how many nuclear power plants he wants Iran to build in order to combat AGW.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 1:43 pmVehical Driver says:
Obama is supporting drilling in the U.S. now, because he knows that the value of the U.S. dollar is going to sink very soon. Finding oil in our own country, with a ban on exports, is pretty much the only way to keep the U.S. petro-economy from collapsing.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 1:44 pmThe Positives from Obama’s Speech | Little Miss Attila says:
[...] I’ve been remiss in not blogging about this; I was simply quite taken aback about the President baiting the Supremes in that setting, and in that way. Ilya Somin points out the obvious. [...]
ShelbyC says:
Doesn’t that make perfect sense? Nuclear explosions make AGW worse, no?
Quote
January 28, 2010, 1:50 pmAlfred J. Lemire says:
Randy, since you personalized the issue, I will enter the “I” world. When I was 15, a gay English professor invited me to visit him in his apartment. I learned he was gay from others, years later. Three other gay men acted in similar ways, much more aggressively, when I was 16 and 17. Except for one other apartment invitation, from a gay music reviewer when I was 30, that never happened again. As I gained weight and aged, surely I lost appeal.
If I were 18 or 19 or 20 and I lived and worked next to 70-year-old fat women with varicose veins and other results of aging, I could restrain any urge to get up close and personal with them. If my workmates and sleepmates were like Victoria’s Secret models, I’d either make a pass or feel incredible frustration. Actually, it would be frustration, since this 76-year-old bachelor most definitely is not “God’s gift.” I was no male model as a teen-ager, but eminently fit, robust, muscular, and unmarked. So are most enlisted personnel.
Gay men may differ from straight men in what attracts them sexually or romantically, but it is reasonable to conclude they have similar feelings, emotions, and desires. So one grasps their pain at exclusion. But one also has to recognize the deleterious effect on commands of gay-straight encounters, especially when gays have command control. Not every gay would cross a line. But some surely have and more would.
Except for those officers who have no idea what life is like in the ranks, one suspects that military leaders would rather go back to the policy that obtained before Bill Clinton became President, not because they are backward or intolerant of differences, but because they reason and have to deal with the real world. Is it pleasant to point any of this out? No. But one has a responsibility to tell the truth and oppose having another well-intended but mistaken policy harm the nation, like the pressure for lending to subprime borrowers.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 1:51 pmMark Buehner says:
The reason it is more expensive is because politicians have intentionally made it that way at behest of the greens. I assume its no more expensive in real dollars to create a nuclear plant today than in the 50s and 60s when we built hundreds, most of which are still running. Cheaper, one would think, considering what they considered computes wouldn’t run my cell phone. But once you pile on the lawsuits, environmental impact studies, more lawsuits, greasing the local politicians, more lawsuits, red tape premiums, etc, it does indeed become quite expensive... and probably sits in court for 10 years. Not a great investment, I agree.
True only so far as global warming goes. Republicans, unlike Democrats, actually WANT cheap, plentiful, clean energy, and consider it a positive thing for mankind. Dems clearly want people to conserve regardless of the costs because its fashionable and appeases Mother Gaia. Hence the liberal nightmare is clean, cheap, infinite energy. Which is odd.
There are nuclear plants all over the Red States. You really think republicans would turn down jobs and cheap energy? Because of some boogie-man of nuclear power that nobody can even really talk about with a straight face after all these years of safety? I, for one, would LOVE to have some nuke plants as my neighbors.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 1:53 pmmemomachine says:
Hmmmmm.
“Since it’s been mentioned a couple times, it’s worth pointing out how cynical Republican support for nuclear power is. Nuclear power is more expensive than coal or gas, but it’s carbon-neutral. Since Republicans either don’t believe or don’t care about global warming, their push for nuclear power is simply a way to tweak the large number (perhaps majority) of hypocritical liberals who want to fight global warming but are stuck in some 1970’s “China Syndrome” nuclear panic.”
The reason why nuclear power is so expensive is because the lefty eco-freaks make it so.
First they litigate the hell out of any planned nuclear power plant solely to discourage said plant and to drive up costs. Those costs get passed onto consumers at some point so there’s a portion of it right there.
Another thing they did was get the federal government, under Jimmy “Killer Rabbit” Carter, to ban reprocessing of “spent” nuclear fuel rods. The reality is that “spent” nuclear fuel rods are anything but. They simply have too much spent fuel, which absorb neutrons, to continue being useful. Instead of those rods were processed the actual spent fuel, about 20%, would be extracted along with useful radioactives and the remaining fuel would be combined with new fuel and made into new rods. Much more economical and thus anathema to the lefty eco-freaks.
Leftist twits. What would we do without them.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 1:56 pmOren says:
France makes roughly 75% of their power by nuclear. They are a huge exporter of power the rest of the EU and, incidentally, also pay considerably less for power than the rest of the EU.
I’m loathe to say we should follow France’s example on almost anything. This time, I’ll make an exception.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 2:02 pmChris says:
As a former member of our armed forces, I strongly disagree with your statement. The arguments you make against letting homosexuals serve openly are nearly identical to the reasons used to justify segregated military units. Proponents of segregation claimed that allowing African-Americans to serve with white soldiers would destroy good order and discipline, degrade morale and unit cohesion, and adversely affect military operations. In fact, the desegregation of military units proved that the opposite was true.
Gay Americans have been serving in the military since the founding of this country. And history shows that many served openly despite the ban on homosexuality that was only lifted with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. During my tenure, the subject of allowing homosexuals to serve openly was usually discussed in connection with the discharge of someone who was either “outed” or disclosed their orientation. The prevalent opinion of both the commanders and those who served with the gay or lesbian soldier was disdain for a policy that makes little sense in today’s society. Alfred, you give our soldiers too little credit. The military is far more progressive than you think.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 2:03 pmlrC says:
“You must have been beating off the gays with a really big stick in your day.”
In his day, did the gays with a really big stick need an extra hand?
Quote
January 28, 2010, 2:03 pmOren says:
Actually, reprocessing was banned not for environmental reasons but proliferation ones. The main output of reprocessed fuel is plutonium (made from neutron adsorption in U238), which happens to be the hands-down-winner in the nuclear arms recipe book.
I agree with the rest of your (poorly worded) post though.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 2:05 pmOren says:
No, the dust that’s kicked up will reflect some solar energy back into space.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 2:06 pmShelbyC says:
Well, lines get crossed all the time by both gay and straight men. You’re partly right; many gay folks will tell you candidly that being in a men’s locker room for them is like being in a woman’s locker room for a straight guy. But you deal with this by normal rules against sexual harassment, not by forcing the gay folks to hide their sexuality.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 2:11 pmMark Field says:
Nuclear winter.
Which creates a real win-win oppotunity here. Let the Iranians have nuclear power. They’ll use it to blow somebody up (hopefully not us), and that’ll delay AGW. Everybody wins — the righties get nuclear power, the lefties get to reduce global warming. Well, except for those who became collateral damage.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 2:35 pmDaniel Chapman says:
“Gay men just can’t control themselves when in the presence of such God’s gift as you, I suppose. You must have been beating off the gays with a really big stick in your day.”
Comments like this make it really difficult to read anything you have to say on the subject with a straight face, randy. Especially when your quote notably cuts of the part that says straight men have the same hormone issues.
Although I suppose I should be commending you for one thing. At least this comment thread actually DOES deal with a gay issue, which makes your homophobia-baiting somewhat on topic.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 2:42 pmAlfred J. Lemire says:
ShelbyC and Chris provide excellent arguments. And, now the “however”: the service is not as it was when I was in the brown-shoe Army and enlisted personnel lived in open barracks. (That was not so when I spent a year at the Army Language School, but we were still six to a room.) I have read that presently, EMs are two to a room. And sergeants, through direct observation or word from soldiers, likely find ways to get compatible EMs into the same room or provide a few the luxury of a room with no companion.
In combat specialties and aboard ship, especially submarines, it’s surely impossible to provide similar separation. In support areas, especially stateside, it’s easier to accommodate both gender and sexual differences and the penalties to a unit of any misbehavior are less likely to harm unit performance or risk life.
The enforced integration of the services by President Truman helped to lead the country eventually to rid itself of the evil of segregation. When I was in basic training a decade later, the black soldiers in my barracks limited sesquipedalian language to one four-syllable word that served as noun, adjective, verb, and interjection. I left my dress shoes out one afternoon; they were gone when I returned. I said and did nothing, a rare wise decision. But language and behavior are not fixed and doubtless much has changed, with both whites and blacks, in the half-century after I served.
Attitudes and behaviors do change, partly driven by the principles and values people absorb from others and partly through changes in personal and group experience. One has to doubt that someone’s sexual orientation can similarly change. My concern is with primal urges that peak when most people join the services, urges that often are difficult to control. And the behaviors I am concerned with have been unacceptable, except to the perps, ever since the military was founded.
And, yes, gays have served from the start, and with distinction, especially in World War II, when the military’s huge need for troops and sailors furthered a loosening of many rules. I am close to one gay Navy officer from that period who served with distinction and who stayed in service for 20 years. But he has always lived with considerable restraint. If anyone knew of his orientation, they knew he would not cause any problem nor would anyone bother him, given his first-rate personality and performance.
You may be correct about current attitudes, Chris. The historic policy, and it did discourage gay service, reflected attitudes unpleasant to many contemporary people. I do not think “progressive” is a positive word, but, while one can welcome some modern military people’s acceptance of gays, attitudes are not essential to the policy; the reality of human nature is. Further, putting gay men into the equivalent of that shower room, on a continuing basis is, I think, not fair to them or the guys some will inevitably approach.
And I erred: I referred to “exclusion.” Gays do serve, but are required to keep their sexuality under covers: the military won’t ask about it and gays are asked not to tell about it. As evidence demonstrates, that is hard on both, but especially hard on the gays. The military might prefer a revised policy to include overt homosexuals in certain occupational specialties or service areas, but one doubts that the President would accept that solution.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 4:45 pmAndy McGill says:
For those who laugh at Sarah Palin’s comment about living close to Russia was foreign policy experience....
From CNN in Nov 2007:
On Monday, Obama told an Iowa audience, “Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in Asia—Southeast Asia.”
“I think he’s right,” Biden said smiling. “That is his strongest [foreign policy] credential.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/20/clinton-hits-obama-on-foreign-relations-experience/
Quote
January 28, 2010, 4:55 pmptt says:
Speaking of reality, most of the military is no longer segregated by sex. Even in combat zones, there are often quite a few women among the men. Are there problems? Sure. Why are same-sex problems worse than opposite-sex problems? At least we don’t get each other pregnant...
If your response is “what about the foxholes?”, then, fine. Let the GOP minority, in order to show, as McCain just said, how much they appreciate the troops, propose an immediate repeal of DADT for all non-combat positions.
And, as frisky as we are, we would never reach the numbers of problems the heterosexual majority produces.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 5:01 pmShawn-non-Anonymous says:
As a gay veteran, I can tell you that the ban and DADT are effectively no different.
Bigotry, whether against race, gender, or sexual orientation, doesn’t need the political cover laws like Dont Ask Dont Tell Dont Pursue provide.
Professional soldiers are professionals. Period. To suggest that they cannot behave any other way is to insult each and every one of them. There are procedures for removing non-professional soldiers that work just fine. Use those.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 5:11 pmptt says:
That only makes sense if you complete the thought with “... in a culture in which men and women always share locker rooms”.
A gay man in a locker room with other men has the same equipment as everyone else in the room. He is looking at the same nekkid bodies he’s been around since childhood. There’s nothing novel about it.
In other cultures, men and women bathe together. A comparison in THAT culture would be more to the point.
In all my years of hitting the gym, from grade school till now, straight men have done more “checking out the other guys” than gay men. Straight men have done more “goofing around” than gay men. I remember high school gym class. There I was, mortified that I might find myself staring at another student, and who was playing slap and tickle? The straightest jocks on the football team. And I was amazed at what they would do to each other.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 5:12 pmShelbyC says:
I’m sure that’s true of many gay men, and probably true of the vast majority. However, I’ve known a few gay men who, by their own admission, couldn’t be trusted more than, well, than me in a woman’s locker room. But regardless of whether or not this is a concern, I stand by my point that forcing gay folks to hide their identity isn’t the correct way to deal with it.
[Edit: re-reading my last comment, I gave the impression that I was suggesting that most gay folks would have issues. I didn’t mean to suggest that.]
Quote
January 28, 2010, 5:38 pmPhatty says:
The military should just skip over all of this slow progression and jump right to Starship Troopers style where there is no distinction between the sexes and everyone shares the same locker room, showers, etc.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 5:47 pmMichael Ejercito says:
I never understood the whole reasoning behind banning gays in the military. Sure, George Washington approved of the punitive dismissal of an officer for the crime of attempted sodomy, an act that he implied was abhorrent and detestable, but that was a punishment for an explicit act, not for a sexual orientation.
Why not have independence on other things, like video games and bananas. Why not be independent in everything ?
They are not economically recoverable because the price of crude is not high enough. (It is
presently $73.63/barrel)
Someone remind me for what environmentalists are good?
Another legacy of Jimmy Carter.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 6:16 pmptt says:
Don’t sell yourself short (ahem).
You can’t know how you would react because, like almost all Americans, you’ve haven’t grown up in a culture with mixed-gender nudity.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 6:28 pmyankee says:
No clue what it’s like for a straight guy to be in a women’s locker room, but in my experience being in a men’s locker room is an incredible non-event. The men who like to walk around naked are invariably the ones who look better with their clothes on. The hot guys are much more modest.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 6:53 pmChrisTS says:
Thank you.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 6:55 pmAlanW says:
Conservatives’ passion for reprocessing is just as weird as their affection for nuclear power. I’m not opposed in principle to reprocessing, but it’s not the panacea you think it is. Here’s a study.
It’s like liberals who think recycling is always a virtue, when with many materials it’s cheaper and more energy-efficient to start from scratch.
I can’t find a study on it, but I believe conservatives are also overestimating the cost of lawsuits on plant construction. Lawsuits certainly delay things, but with something as expensive as a nuclear plant, they’re not driving the costs, unless you include all the design improvements added either directly because of, or in fear of, lawsuits. Which seems both unfair and shortsighted.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 7:01 pmChrisTS says:
Do you prefer your drinking water with feces or with dioxin?
Quote
January 28, 2010, 7:06 pmJoseph Somsel says:
As to Obama’s verbal support for nuclear power, his administration’s actions speak differently.
First, the loan guarantees against licensing risk (only) will not be confirmed until an application has been been approved by the NRC. That means that an organization has to sink over a billion in early investment before they know whether or not they can get market financing.
Secondly, the White House just cut out almost all the nuclear R&D budget at the Department of Energy.
We can argue about how useful DoE R&D might be but this looks like an unfriendly action to me.
So actions speak louder than words and in this case, Obama’s seem incongruent with the facts on the ground.
As to reprocessing, here’s my analysis.
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1108
Quote
January 28, 2010, 7:09 pmMichael Ejercito says:
There is no better way to discredit a campaign that to to turn it into an –ism.
If it was so bad, why is it necessary to ban it?
These companies are in it to turn a profit. If direct disposal is cheaper than reprocessing, then that is what they will do.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 7:15 pmJoseph Somsel says:
Reprocessing is more expensive than our current once through fuel cycle partially because the costs of disposal are passed on directly to the end consumer via a nuclear waste trust fund fee on their electric bill.
The other reason is that yellowcake is really cheap relative to its energy content. The managers of our operating nukes will naturally chose the lower cost option available to them.
The US was on course to use reprocessing but Jimmy Carter shut down that option by executive order. Billions of private investment was wasted.
Until Obama, the big reason that I saw for reprocessing was that Yucca Mountain was a very expensive “government outhouse” at a projected cost of $100 billion while we could build the reprocesing infrastructure for a fraction of the cost. Reprocessing with “actinide burners” would also reduce the long-lived radioisotopes in spent fuel that drove the costs of Yucca Mountain through the roof.
Here’s my detailed analysis.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 7:25 pmleo marvin says:
Liberals... (sigh), always with the rationing. Why can’t I have both?
Quote
January 28, 2010, 7:49 pmArthurKirkland says:
Buying an old barge, packing it with nuclear waste, towing it a few miles off the United States shore, and sinking it would probably be extremely profitable.
Anyone see a role for government in preventing, or at least discouraging, such conduct?
Quote
January 28, 2010, 8:14 pmAlfred J. Lemire says:
I have tried to keep my comments brief. Ptt raises a point I kept out, the distinction between male-female heterosexual and male homosexual-straight relations. Harms can occur in female-male relations in the miltary, including rape (possibly murder), though rare; I have read of at least one such murder in recent yearsIn other cases, bruised feelings or pregnancies occur. In most negative encounters, harms may be only to a person’s feelings. Sometimes, willingly undertaken relations lead to pregnancies.
Perhaps some gay-straight encounters with sexual overtones can occur that are not negative; I know of none. I suspect the psychic trauma that straights can experience is related to the straight’s age and experience. I know of at least one person who, when young, was forced into an encounter with a gay man; the straight has never really recovered from that mind-scarring experience.
I recall a brief story (I think it had two short paragraphs) that Larry Rohter wrote for The New York Times. It ran in the New England edition on 26 June 1993 and told of the homosexual rapes of sailors by other sailors. Those crimes were being tried in some court in the Jacksonville, Fla. Area. The story did not appear in the newspaper’s microfilmed edition; I never heard of or read any other reference to the trial. The Congress continued the exclusion policy that year. President Clinton established his DODT compromise though Executive Order in December, as a source claims and my memory supports.
One can write much more, but . . . one appreciates the difficulty the topic presents. One does worry about good intentions. In that regard, I also omitted a reference to a recent “60 Minutes” segment on American Samoa, which provided a sad example of how good intentions in the U.S. Congress are impoverishing Samoans by leading their sole employers to leave the islands.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 8:49 pmptt says:
Oh, come on. That’s just silly.
In your own example, you said a gay man invited you to his home when you were 15. You implied that his motivation was sexual (cuz, geez, why else would a gay man even talk to anyone, right?). You then said you didn’t even know he was gay until years afterward. There’s one example — by your assessment — of a gay-straight encounter with sexual overtones. In what way was it “negative”?
Quote
January 28, 2010, 9:25 pmTatil says:
As explained above, this was done to prevent nuclear proliferation. US kept a policy of opposing and discouraging reprocessing even in foreign countries through many administrations, but why let facts get in the way of opinions.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 10:53 pmTatil says:
We also built many gas and coal powered ones as well. How does your analysis shed light on relative cost of nuclear vs. gas powered? Many nuclear plants required renovations costing hundreds of millions of dollars to extend their lives, so it is not just the initial cost. There is also the waste disposal costs to consider. I read that gas reserves in the US have increased quickly in the last few years thanks to some new finds. This has brought down gas prices, making the cost of electricity from gas powered plants even lower.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 11:02 pmTatil says:
You’d be among a small minority. Many homeowners would oppose any nuclear plants close to their homes for fear of house price reductions. I doubt you can find many republican districts who support nuclear power in general and would support one in their “backyard”. This may be changing recently, but not to a great extent, yet. We just had a very strong Republican administration and legislature for a few years and this did not get much attention beyond a few speeches here and there. If there was demand from a large enough Republican district and with Republican in power supporting nuclear energy in principle why didn’t it get done if the only obstacle was liberals etc.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 11:13 pmJoseph Somsel says:
Tatil,
Most new applications for nuclear power plants are at existing plant sites. The existing neighbors of nukes show an even higher approval of nuclear power than the general public in polling conducted for the Nuclear Energy Institute.
The years of good neighbor operation, the plant staff living in the communities, and high property tax contributions of the plants are factors. Nuclear power plants are clean, safe, good neighbors.
The limits on new nukes are the political and regulatory risk poised by opponents of ANY new nuclear power who operated at the federal level or any place they can find leverage.
Quote
January 28, 2010, 11:54 pmBABH says:
Alfred J. Lemire,
The UCMJ is perfectly adequate to deal with the very rare instances of homosexual sexual harassment and rape. There are currently over 60,000 gays and lesbians in the uniformed services, and over 1,000,000 gay and lesbian veterans (cite). Yet there is no evidence of rampant homosexual abuse. I myself managed to serve four years in the Infantry — including three combat tours — without once raping a comrade.
tempora mutantur, et nos mutamor in illis. People under 40 (i.e., of military age) just don’t care about a person’s sexual orientation.
Quote
January 29, 2010, 12:55 amAnatid says:
Alfred J. Lemire,
So by your logic, we should also prohibit women from serving openly in the military, due to the significantly higher rate of male-female sexual abuse than male-male sexual abuse in the armed forces. Young men, who we’ve trained with utmost discipline to risk their lives under direct orders, just can’t be trusted. Right?
Quote
January 29, 2010, 1:25 amAlfred J. Lemire says:
Ptt, the professor who invited me to his home was known for invitations and somewhat more. He did not want to discuss the fine points of the English language and literature with a youth who had not yet started shaving his beard. That was my rational conclusion about 15 years later and two other people from the campus shared that view. As I recall, one of my informants was himself gay. He knew.
The point was that young and healthy males have appeal to at least some gay men and the military services are loaded with young, fit, and healthy young men. One does not fish on mountaintops or in parking lots; if one wants to fish, one goes where the fish are, which helps to explain why one continually reads of certain adults involving themselves with youths of special appeal to them.
One appreciates the reference to professionalism, but homosexual (and heterosexual) members of the clergy have been professionals, too. True, not all have caused problems, but many have not been able to resist temptation. As for the performance of their bishops, they acted with good intentions.
Anyway, it appears logical that the President will issue an Executive Order, but not until after he has roasted the military’s leaders on a spit into this summer, and not until after the November elections.
Quote
January 29, 2010, 1:44 amAlfred J. Lemire says:
I had not seen the comment of BABH. My concern and that of at least some others is not with orientation per se, but with what some people will do and the disruptive results. BABH’s comment is hopeful, however, and one wants to share his conviction, because the President will do as I suggest. He is easy to understand, especially if one has read a little about history and about Barack H. Obama.
And BABH’s knowledge of Latin or quotation source is pretty good. One source transposes the “et nos” to “nos et.” My high school Latin tells me BABH is correct.
Quote
January 29, 2010, 2:11 amAnatid says:
Okay. So some young straight men are creeps, and may harass the women in the army. So some young gay men are creeps, and may harass the men in the army.
This isn’t a problem of gay or straight, this is a problem of some people engaging in poor conduct, who should be disciplined accordingly.
Quote
January 29, 2010, 2:48 amRandy says:
Alfred: ” But one also has to recognize the deleterious effect on commands of gay-straight encounters, especially when gays have command control. Not every gay would cross a line. But some surely have and more would.
Except for those officers who have no idea what life is like in the ranks, one suspects that military leaders would rather go back to the policy that obtained before Bill Clinton became President, not because they are backward or intolerant of differences, but because they reason and have to deal with the real world. Is it pleasant to point any of this out? No. But one has a responsibility to tell the truth and oppose having another well-intended but mistaken policy harm the nation, like the pressure for lending to subprime borrowers.”
Pure baloney. The armed forces of Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and most of the NATO forces in Europe allow gays to serve openly, and nothing of the kind has occurred. Furthermore, the full integration of gays has happened more smoothly than expected, and not a single one of these militaries has suggested that the policy should change due to gays leering at guys.
The US military itself has never said that out gays in the military would cause the problem that you raise; instead, they merely argue that it would affect unit cohesion because the people who dislike gays would be uncomfortable.
I would suggest that instead of relying upon your outdated prejudices about gays as sexual predators, you actually look at the evidence where gays are allowed to be openly gay in a military.
Quote
January 29, 2010, 7:15 amMichael Ejercito says:
There is a role for government to prevent such a thing.
Who is harmed by waste reprocessing?
Quote
January 29, 2010, 9:58 amBABH says:
Thank you for the correction — “nos et” is more elegant. The memory isn’t what it was.
Quote
January 29, 2010, 10:10 amPhatty says:
You are completly talking out of your ass here and have no real world experience to back up these claims. I grew up near a town that had a nuclear power plant. Even though that town had about 8000 residents, the school district was overflowing with more money than it knew what to do with because of the property taxes paid by the nuclear power plant. Besides the good jobs that the plant provided to the community, the property values in that town were much higher than normal. The high school in that town resembled an Ivy league university, with world-class athletic facilities. Meanwhile, the surrounding towns were poor and distressed, just like that other town would have been if not for the plant. Those surrounding towns would have given anything to have that plant in their town instead.
Quote
January 29, 2010, 11:30 amMark Buehner says:
Well thank god that worked so well.
Since ‘leading by the example of actually building thousands of nuclear weapons but not reprocessing peaceful fuel’ worked so well to keep any rogue regimes from starting nuclear programs, can’t we declare victory and start reprocessing again like France?
Quote
January 29, 2010, 11:59 amMark Buehner says:
Is there some other technology i’m not aware of that has plants that run for 50+ years without costs to extend their lives?
Look– WE don’t have to figure out if nuclear power is profitable. The wonderful thing about the market is that if the government and the lawyer and the activists can be made to step aside, businesses can either build the plants or not depending on if they believe they can make money. We don’t need to push phoney baloney numbers back and forth, the guys with their investments on the line have the incentive to figure it out, and if they screw up, they lose, no skin off our nose.
Yeah, you’re completely wrong and living in the wrong decade. Nuclear power is extremely popular where there are already plants and the surrounding communities that supply workers. Is their NIMBY? Sure. Is their NIMBY when somebody wants to plant dozens of hundred foot tall spinning rotors across the street? Of course. That’s part of real life. And again– lets let the market decide. If people REALLY don’t want nuclear plants, their local council wont zone for them and that will be the end of it. Why not find out instead of making assumptions about people?
Quote
January 29, 2010, 12:08 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Two Surprises in the State of the Union — Gays in the Military and “Drill, Baby, Drill” -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Marilyn Rich, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Two Surprises in the State of the Union — Gays in the Military and “Drill, Baby, Drill”: There weren’t many surpri... http://bit.ly/90B50Z [...]
Joseph Somsel says:
Nuclear plants require periodic and episodic maintenance. They were originally designed to produce 70% of of their theoritical power production (ie “capacity factor”) over a year but now the fleet averages 90+%.
Any machine needs work occasionally. Ever rebuild the engine on a car with 200,000 miles on it? Change the oil a couple times a year? Get a brake job? Had a recall for a sticky accelerator pedal?
Some of our plants have had major components replaced. Sometimes to increase power output and sometimes because they just needed replacement. When that happens, the costs are treated as capital expenditures and depreciated over 20 years.
Quote
January 29, 2010, 7:19 pmOren says:
Also because 50% of our fuel is coming from dismantled Soviet nukes. Then there’s the fact that it reduces nuclear waste by a factor of about 100, which is just good long-term policy.
Nope, that will cause Iran to develop weapons.
Quote
January 29, 2010, 9:05 pmwarner mobley says:
The paramount opinion regarding gays serving openly in the US military should be those who are now on active duty and yet they are not being considered at all.
Quote
January 30, 2010, 7:53 pmSteverino says:
Here’s my 2 cents on gays in the military.
My primary objection to lifting DADT is that I don’t expect senior leadership to do the right thing when push comes to shove.
If you want a recent example that has nothing to do with gender or sexual orientation, look at the issues surrounding Major Hassan. He caused great concern among his colleagues because of his fanatical religious beliefs. He even briefed his colleagues on the joys of jihad.
Why didn’t they report their suspicions about the “soldier of Allah?” because they knew their seniors wouldn’t want to hear it.
And following his murderous rampage yelling “Allahu Akhbar!” the senior leadership confirmed their suspicions by issuing a report that did not even mention a possible religious motive even once. Because, again, they don’t want to hear it. They’d rather stick their heads in the sand.
That won’t stop them from placing the blame on those underlings who got their message loud and clear, though.
The problem is, gentlemen, diversity has become the main job of the US military.
It has been since the mid-90s when we lifted the combat exclusion rule preventing women serving in combat roles. I served on ships when they were all male, and when they became mixed gender. There were two entirely different social dynamics. After we integrated women I felt more like a high school hall monitor keeping the boys and girls apart then a member of a professional fighting force.
Earlier, disciplining the troops was straightforward. Later, discipline became a political football.
The Navy actively encouraged false sexual harrassment complaints. To prove a false claim, it was necessary to prove not only was the claim false, but it was filed with malicious intent (unlike sexual harrassment, where intent wasn’t a factor; just the subjective interpretation of the victim). I personally witnessed two women saying they intended to file false claims. And I wasn’t the only witness. One officer who was dissatisfied with an award (she thought she deserved more) who said on her departure that she was “going to throw a grenade through the door on her way out.” Sure enough she filed a false claim. One Petty Officer at a command with which we shared a building twice told her friends (she didn’t know I could hear and see her from my office) to “watch this” as she went to screw with our command. Then she’d walk through our building and deliberately take offense at the first thing someone said that could remotely be construed as offensive.
I told my seniors in all cases; they refused to act on the information. Nobody was punished eventually, but the command made administrative changes over nothing.
I was “highly encouraged” to document unsubstantiated cases, because despite the fact they were unsubstantiated I was told it could add up to a pattern of behavior. (Note: I didn’t do it.)
The reason why? Promoting women and proving you took sexual harrassment VERY seriously was the way to advance your career in the post-tailhook Navy. And more importantly for those in the Pentagon, showing you “get it” is the way to preserve or expand your budget. Justice, along with building a Navy that can sustain combat, took a back seat.
(I think the LCS is a monument to that attitude; a big $700M target that is stealthy when it comes to radar, but will operate in the littoral where you don’t need radar to see it, with a crew too small to give it a meaningful damage control capability. Yeah!)
It isn’t just the Navy. Recently the Army Times had an article that purported to show just how seriously the Army was taking sexual harrassment and assault in the war zone. The case they chose to highlight was one of a female Captain and a male, married Warrant Officer. The Captain admitted that the two had had a consensual affair in the states. But she broke it off just before leaving for Iraq. He pursued her. She filed charges against him. He was court-martialed. In the article, the Captain said she was satisfied with how the Army handled the case.
What’s the problem, boys and girls? A Captain is senior to a WO. The UCMJ is perfectly clear; the senior in such an improper relationship is primarily to blame. Yet she wasn’t court martialed and still serves.
I think the capper is the case of Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo. He issued an general order last November saying that any woman who gets pregnant, or man who impregnates her, will be court martialed.
This
iswas perfectly within his authority. No one familiar with the UCMJ would dispute that. But it was politically incorrect.NOW objected. So, four feminist Senators inserted themselves in the situation and demanded he rescind the order. He didn’t, but his senior, Gen. Odierno did.
One more Navy example before I move on to my remaining issue: recently CAPT Holly Graf was relieved of command and went to Admiral’s mast. Where she was administratively convicted of cruelty and conduct unbecoming an officer. What happened to her next? She had already been issued orders to a follow-on tour at the Pentagon. And she went to her next assignment as if nothing had happened.
In my 20 years in the Navy I have never seen that. A CO that is relieved at best may be assigned to a dead-end desk job and allowed to retire. That’s what happened to CDR Kevin Mooney of the USS San Francisco after his sub hit an un-charted seamount. The ADM relieved him, but also praised him at mast as a fine officer who should be allowed to retire. He only had 19 years in, so he went to a desk job until he hit 20.
He was forced out, but an officer who had treated her crew cruelly and acted unprofessionally was retained and given follow-on orders? That is a direct slap in the face to that crew who suffered under her command.
So, ptt, Alfred has a point when he talks about officers who don’t know or care what it’s like in the ranks. You may not like his examples, but it’s a fact.
My other objection is this, and it has nothing to do with your strawman about “homophobes.” It’s going to open up a pandoras box of problems. And no, I’m not saying that because I’m “afraid” of the gay sexual predator. I served prior to DADT when there was just as down-the-line ban on homosexuals, and then after when they could serve as long as they kept there identity secret. And even when there was a ban, we knew who our gay shipmates were. It’s kind of hard not to notice a couple of corpsmen going off on liberty in halter tops and capri pants. It was more of a joke. Especially when they had their gay porn collection confiscated by the British Indian Ocean Territory police in DGAR.
But live and let live. They didn’t cause problems, we didn’t care.
But lift DADT, and when they cause problems, let’s face it. Gay rights groups will weigh in saying they are being persecuted. Congress will weigh in, just as they did when NOW went on the warpath.
And for all I know, ptt, you will be part of it.
Improper relationships will be ignored, just as they are now. Disciplinary problems will be ignored, just as they are now. The UCMJ will be ignored, just as it is now. And when a commanding officer acts well within his lawful authority to enforce good order and discipline, the pressure groups will riot. Just as they have done in the past.
And a Congress or President who are hell bent on pleasing the pressure groups because they value reelection will demand the military stop acting so much like a military. Just as they do now. We have civilian control of he military. There’s now way to push back. So, the senior leadership will do their dancing bear act and give in.
Also there will be more social engineering than you either are willing to admit, or are aware of.
For instance, let’s say that two gay servicemen stationed in a state that allows gay marriage approach their chaplain and ask that he marry them. He’s a Catholic chaplain and says he can’t.
What do you suppose will happen?
In any case, I’m glad I’m retired because I won’t have to deal with a whole new category of sexual harrassment and EO complaints.
I expect a lot of snide remarks from people who don’t know what they’re talking about to say they’re glad I’m retired, too.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 6:55 pmptt says:
Pointing out that the military already deals with problems with heterosexuals doesn’t seem like much of an argument to keep out homosexuals.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 9:08 pmptt says:
You seem to have me confused with someone else. I didn’t use the word “homophobes” — I very, very rarely do. And I find no strawmen in my comments above.
There may indeed be problems, though I think the one you suggest is rather unlikely. I suspect the Chaplain corps has some method of dealing with this sort of issue. I doubt many Catholic priests perform Hindu weddings for str8 couples.
What never ceases to amaze me is that, in order to avoid hypothetical problems and other problems that are just parallels of heteros-behaving-badly and which might, in fact, involve people the military could well do without, YOU and others are so willing to chuck out other good soldiers who are not problems and never would be.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 9:23 pmSteverino says:
ptt, you’re right, when I used the term “homophobe” I did confuse you with someone else. Sorry.
I was actually thinking of Randy, who to be fair, didn’t use the term either. That’s why I put it in quotation marks. It was just shorthand for what he wrote at length.
But from your last few comments, it’s clear you didn’t read what I wrote, either.
Pointing out that the military already deals with problems with heterosexuals doesn’t seem like much of an argument to keep out homosexuals.
Uhh, no, I said the military ISN’T dealing with those problems.
And if you go back and read what I wrote, the problems it is refusing to deal with aren’t all sexually related.
Why didn’t they report their suspicions about the “soldier of Allah?” because they knew their seniors wouldn’t want to hear it. . . . And following his murderous rampage yelling “Allahu Akhbar!” the senior leadership confirmed their suspicions by issuing a report that did not even mention a possible religious motive even once. Because, again, they don’t want to hear it. They’d rather stick their heads in the sand.
The reason why, again, is because these are all political footballs. The military really can’t deal with these because elected officials and appointed officials won’t allow them to do so.
For instance, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if their were mentions of Maj. Hasan’s open embrace of jihad in the draft report, but they were taken out by the principals. One of whom was former Secretary of the Army, Togo West. Who announced that Islam had nothing to do with it.
The facts can not be allowed to interfere with the previously decided outcome.
If you want to read another example of what I’m talking about, go back and read what I wrote about how NOW, via feminist legislators, forced Odierno to rescind a perfectly lawful order his subordinate issued regarding pregnancy in the field.
What never ceases to amaze me is that, in order to avoid hypothetical problems and other problems that are just parallels of heteros-behaving-badly and which might, in fact, involve people the military could well do without, YOU and others are so willing to chuck out other good soldiers who are not problems and never would be.
Now you’re putting words in my mouth. That is exactly opposite from what I said. I said prior to DADT, even when there was an outright ban, neither I nor anyone I knew took any particular interest in throwing out good sailors who did their job and weren’t a problem. Even though we knew they were gay.
But live and let live. They didn’t cause problems, we didn’t care.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. This isn’t about what I like or dislike. I don’t care if there are gays in the military or not. I don’t care if they serve openly. And I also don’t care if NATO countries or Israel allow gays to openly serve.
What I care about is national defense. And Congress, and the senior leadership at the Pentagon, have a lousy track record of dealing with these hot-button issues. The policies are written more to please outside pressure groups than with any eye toward military necessity.
That is not a hypothetical problem; that is an established fact.
If you go back and read, I wasn’t giving examples of “heteros-behaving-badly.” In the Major Hasan instance, I wasn’t giving an example of Muslims-behaving badly (although in Hasan’s case, he was). I was giving examples of not just leadership failures, but institutional failure.
Diversity has become the de facto primary objective, even it becomes suicidal to pursue it.
Whatever replaces DADT will follow the well established pattern. It will be more dysfunctional than the policy it replaces.
That is certain.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 2:35 amAlfred J. Lemire says:
To clarify some points: using my name a controls my rhetoric. However, that also may overly restrain my choice of words. When I wrote of “more aggressively” I vastly underplayed experiences. Not to worry: after my death, I will forget them. “Sexual overtones” also drew a curtain on the past. My notion that gays in certain situations in the military present grave risks is not based on “prejudice,” nor would my reluctance to have women in the same situations be one of prejudice. Things will happen. One does not condemn a class of people because of what a few do. But a few suffice.
I recall seeing a documentary on TV a year or so ago, in which some Navy petty officer diddled with a female in his command in port and wound up broken in rank or broken in career or just broken or all three. Human nature is what it is.
Two of the 8,697 young blondes who appear on Fox News recently saw no problem with gays in the military. They are young, but also, they belong to a class of people who push words around for a living, whether in writing or speech, and tend to think of people and situations in abstractions, ignoring the concrete. They, as with most people in civilian life, have no idea what it is like to be in continuing, close quarters with others outside their families, every day, at work, at play, at sleep. Or to be young and male and have, as others have written, freely running sap in the springtime of life. Or be a male seeking another male and have more rank or be bigger and stronger. Or be the junior and weaker of the two.
It was written that the only concern that the military gives is all there is: “unit cohesion.”, I do not recall anyone asking what those words mean. Commanders may be as reluctant to describe certain situations as I have been, perhaps fearing an onslaught of objections.
As Steverino pointed out and I had completely ignored, present commanders have fears that may not blind them to reality, but when they issue what I think were called “fitness reports,” fear may command them. How they evaluate certain Others may determine how they in turn are evaluated and whether they will get promotions or stay in rank and directed to seek other opportunities in civilian life. So we get 12 dead soldiers at Fort Hood.
I also forgot an alleged statement by Gen. Peter Pace on homosexuality that may have led to Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommending against his renomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Whatever the reason for the SecDef’s decision, whatever the actual language of the statement, whatever its alleged timing and setting, surely many a career officer recalls the situation and has drawn a lesson about being most careful in whatever he or she says or does.
And BABH misunderstood. A Latin expression he or she recalled from memory has to be more correct than a list of Latin expressions on the Web, which offered “nos et” rather than “et nos.” I should have mentioned this bit of Latin: “et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo.” I said those words often enough years ago. They have some relevance to the issue in discussion. One is concerned with temptation and likely actions, not anyone’s nature as a person.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 4:25 am