The military came out with the results of a year long study on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The conclusion is that repeal of DADT has had an even BETTER effect on our armed forces than the anticipated positives. Even the most intransigent hold outs who were convinced that the repeal of DADT, and the very existence of same sex oriented individuals serving in our armed forces, who participated in this study were persuaded that this had a positive impact on our military.
There are still some die-hard retired military idiots who are adamant homophobes, like the twit Lt. General William 'Jerry' Boykin, not to be confused with the wonderful spaniel breed of dog, or the much smarter Keith Boykin, gay and black White House media advisor in the Clinton administration. Both dogs and Clinton advisor are far more intelligent than the homophobe and islamophobe who now is paid by the Family Research Council that does junk research.
But anyone who has actually participated in studying gays in the military in other countries, as well as the adverse effects of DADT on our military, is persuaded by this study. Only the don't confuse me with the facts, emotional 'truthiness' crowd that relies on emotion in place of critical thinking still believes that we should repeal DADT.
Sadly that includes all of the backward and foolish Republican members of Congress from Minnesota and the GOP, which has made repeal of DADT part of their political platform.
We can only hope that the Log Cabin Republicans will have the courage of their convictions NOT to vote for the GOP this year, recognizing that they are waging culture war on too many people in our country - the LGBT community, women, the 47% who don't pay income taxes, our military, people of color, the Hispanic/Latino community, immigrants, the elderly.....to name a few.
Sack of the STrib nailed it again:
The conclusion is that repeal of DADT has had an even BETTER effect on our armed forces than the anticipated positives. Even the most intransigent hold outs who were convinced that the repeal of DADT, and the very existence of same sex oriented individuals serving in our armed forces, who participated in this study were persuaded that this had a positive impact on our military.
There are still some die-hard retired military idiots who are adamant homophobes, like the twit Lt. General William 'Jerry' Boykin, not to be confused with the wonderful spaniel breed of dog, or the much smarter Keith Boykin, gay and black White House media advisor in the Clinton administration. Both dogs and Clinton advisor are far more intelligent than the homophobe and islamophobe who now is paid by the Family Research Council that does junk research.
But anyone who has actually participated in studying gays in the military in other countries, as well as the adverse effects of DADT on our military, is persuaded by this study. Only the don't confuse me with the facts, emotional 'truthiness' crowd that relies on emotion in place of critical thinking still believes that we should repeal DADT.
Sadly that includes all of the backward and foolish Republican members of Congress from Minnesota and the GOP, which has made repeal of DADT part of their political platform.
We can only hope that the Log Cabin Republicans will have the courage of their convictions NOT to vote for the GOP this year, recognizing that they are waging culture war on too many people in our country - the LGBT community, women, the 47% who don't pay income taxes, our military, people of color, the Hispanic/Latino community, immigrants, the elderly.....to name a few.
Sack of the STrib nailed it again:
What does it say about a political party that it's platform planks include not only repealing DADT, but also denying women to serve in combat ... even though they are doing valuable service today (and some are dying.)
ReplyDeleteHas Raymond "Crash" (remember that was the nickname that he earned in the Air Force) Cravaack said anything about problem of sexual assault on Lackland Air Force base where too many female recruits say they were preyed upon by their instructors ? Thus far 42 victims have been indentified. In July, an instructor was sentenced to 20 years in prison after being convicted of raping one recruit and attempting to rape several others. Another instructor pleaded guilty to having sex with a trainee under his supervision and was sentenced to one year in prison. Staff Sgt. Peter Vega-Maldonado has admitted to having sex with a total of 10 trainees. Read this story and then ask, WHERE is your sponsorship on `Sexual Assault Training Oversight and Prevention Act' or the `STOP Act'. HR 3435 has 133 sponsors including Minnesotans Ellison, McCollum and Walz ... but not "Crash" Cravaack (or John Kline, Erik Paulsen, Michelle Bachmann, or Colin Peterson).
So tell me DG, would you like to take a shower in front of a bunch of men whom you are not attracted to, but whom you have some reason to feel ARE attracted to you? Would you feel as if you were on display?
ReplyDeleteI'm a pretty strong supporter of Gay rights, but there is an unspoken challenge the military (and police and sports teams) face to which I do not have the answer. If I'm uncomfortable exposing myself to the opposite sex, why am I? If my feelings are seen as right and proper (to be uncomfortable) why are they any less so if I feel the same way about exposing myself to the same sex? Isn't the reason ostensibly the same?
This is trying to compress a conversation we had by telephone. The military has gone to stall showers, not the open/'gang' showers that older locker rooms have. People have the oportunity to put on a robe. There has been an effort to provide as much privacy as possible.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of same sex or heterosexual attraction, it is my understanding that other nations have armed forces that have responsibly dealt with treating people with equal respect, regardless of sexual orientation.
What is there in the new policy which is different than the old policy in what you describe? No one should be the recipient of unwanted sexual attention or harassment. That should be true equally if it is same sex or opposite sexuality or orientation.
As I understand it this simply allows the same people who were already serving, many of them decorated war heroes, who had served as both officers in some cases, enlisted personnel in others, without their sexual orientation having been an issue within their chain of command, teams or units.
Frankly it seems the armed forces have a far greater problem with women being raped by men than they do with men oggling other men in the showers.
Let us hope that the new policies mean people are treated with respect, not like pieces of meat by predatory fellow military personnel.
We don't have to reinvent the wheel; it has been accomplished in other armed forces of our allies without serious or disruptive incidents. People who don't handle their own sexuality with maturity should be kicked out of the armed forces; if they're that immature - sheesh, do we want to hand them guns or heavier weaponry?
Apparently we have a need for increased professionalism; then let our military rise to that challenge. It doesn't seem that high a threshold to require.
I'll see if I can find a link to the text of the study that found the repeal of DADT to be an even more positive influence on the armed forces than had been anticipated, including persuading those who had been the most opposed to it.