[besson3c]

Whoo hoo! Cultural progress... Exciting!

[turtle777]

F*ck, how unimportant.

Apparently, the US has no other problems, with 9.8% unemployment and 40 cents borrowing of every $ 1 spent by the government.

When will f*cking Congress do what's really important ?

-t

[Kerrigan]

Finally, this Congress and Senate have passed a bill that doesn't waste trillions of dollars, or incentivize illegal immigration, or screw up the economy, or reward people for laziness.

Imagine--Obama and the Legislature have actually passed something that improves the lot of hard working Americans! Such a novel idea.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Finally, this Congress and Senate have passed a bill that doesn't waste trillions of dollars, or incentivize illegal immigration, or screw up the economy, or reward people for laziness.

Imagine--Obama and the Legislature have actually passed something that improves the lot of hard working Americans! Such a novel idea.

That would be the tax bill, no?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

F*ck, how unimportant.

Apparently, the US has no other problems, with 9.8% unemployment and 40 cents borrowing of every $ 1 spent by the government.

When will f*cking Congress do what's really important ?

-t

Hey! Chicken Little... STFU. This is really important.

[ghporter]

This is something that is really, really overdue. I'm frankly surprised that the Republicans allowed it to pass. Correction: I'm surprised that McCain (an example of the "old guys in the top brass") didn't make it really hard to get passed.

It IS important in many ways. It means that the Republican party won't be able to prevent this repeal, and it means that the most contentious of issues facing the new Congress, the continuation of the "Bush tax cuts" and Don't Ask Don't Tell, are out of the way. We NEED the appropriations bills passed, but those should go very quickly in about 3 weeks. But now that these big, sore point issues are handled, the rest of the work of Congress should get going, and going smoothly.

[Kerrigan]

I agree with ghporter. This bill needed to get passed--the overwhelming majority of people in the US wanted DADT repealed. And now that the unpopular Dream act is dead, hopefully the legislature can work out a continuing resolution for funding, and then this extremely unpopular congress can pack up and go home...

[subego]

Welcome to the late 20th century.

[Doofy]

I'll get the popcorn out and see what happens (with open mind).
When we allowed homosexuals into the military, sign ups by heterosexuals went down.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'll get the popcorn out and see what happens (with open mind).
When we allowed homosexuals into the military, sign ups by heterosexuals went down.

I think the only noticeable drop in enlistment (and re-enlistment) will occur among infantry grunts, who make up only a small minority of the total military.

And that's actually a pretty serious problem.

Not to disrespect the infantry grunts, but they're trained killers, many of whom look like they just escaped death row. And many of them are extremely homophobic. As much as liberals might hate it, these types of guys are absolutely indispensable for the military, and any policy that keeps them from joining or re-enlisting will harm our combat readiness.

It may be in the best interest of everyone if they continue to bar openly gay men from the infantry, just like they bar women.

[besson3c]

Or the infantry grunts can learn to change, like many other grunts and stubborn minds before them in various parts of our society.

[OldManMac]

Awesome news! It shows that there are some people with sense, who are smart enough to know the world isn't going to end because we legalize what's been happening since the dawn of man.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Hey! Chicken Little... STFU. This is really important.

No, it's not. It's f*cking unimportant.

It's like that proverbial bag of rice in China.

I'm not necessarily against it, but this country faces so many more pressing issues than this.
If Obama / Democrats got other things done that help the economy, fine. But that's not the case.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'll get the popcorn out and see what happens (with open mind).
When we allowed homosexuals into the military, sign ups by heterosexuals went down.

With all due respect (seriously), I think British attitudes about homosexuality have been problematic for the whole British society for a very long time. And they appear to be so deeply rooted and so obviously an issue that it comes through in a lot of your media. Just how many skits did Monty Python get out of "not quite out" gays?

Our forces have been quite aware that there are gays among them for many years. I recall when Don't Ask, Don't Tell became formal policy. I was a mid-level NCO, and we got a briefing from the Judge Advocate's office. The nice Lieutenant Colonel was uncomfortable talking about the subject, while his audience were split between well disguised amusement and not-so-well disguised amusement. Maybe I had a fairly open-minded group with me, but considering the age group and profession of those around me, I think we were pretty much a good cross section of the force. The biggest outcome for us was "so now I need to tell my commander if I see someone acting odd? I mean odd for these troops..." Otherwise it was a matter of yet another set of rules to read, follow and (worst) document on.

[besson3c]

Turtle: since you think that politicians are a bunch of **** ups, wouldn't it be more logical to not want all of them working on improving the debt and unemployment numbers simultaneously? Too many cooks in the kitchen?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Turtle: since you think that politicians are a bunch of **** ups, wouldn't it be more logical to not want all of them working on improving the debt and unemployment numbers simultaneously? Too many cooks in the kitchen?

I don't think so, because they don't need to come up with new and creative ways to interfere in the economy and tax policy. They need to simply undo the stifling, assinine policies and taxes that will make it easier for those who actually create jobs and wealth to do so.

Of course, I'm happy with this repeal and don't think that it was a waste of time.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't think so, because they don't need to come up with new and creative ways to interfere in the economy and tax policy. They need to simply undo the stifling, assinine policies and taxes that will make it easier for those who actually create jobs and wealth to do so.

I don't think that it is that easy, I think there are a number of things that the government can and should do to increase business in our global economy.

For instance, if we were to change our trade policies with countries like China (or any other country) that encouraged them to consume more of our products, we'd need to create jobs to accommodate our increase in exporting of goods.

However, I also wonder whether in some cases we are at the point where there simply is no level of tax (or lack thereof) that will encourage hiring of American workers in some areas. For one, an American company that hires American workers is generally expected to provide that worker health insurance.

There are many facets to this, I think you are oversimplifying things.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Or the infantry grunts can learn to change, like many other grunts and stubborn minds before them in various parts of our society.

In the long run, they will. No question about it.

Let's just hope that the repeal is implemented swiftly, so that the gay men and women in the military can start living happy lives with their partners, without the fear of getting fired. There is a distinct possibility that the gay ban might remain in place indefinitely.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

In the long run, they will. No question about it.

Let's just hope that the repeal is implemented swiftly, so that the gay men and women in the military can start living happy lives with their partners, without the fear of getting fired. There is a distinct possibility that the gay ban might remain in place indefinitely.

The ban won't last "indefinitely." There will indeed be some pushback from certain corners, but after a short time, most of the US forces will be settling into a new reality, and doing it pretty well. Military brass CANNOT simply say "we won't do it." And it seems that most of the resistance to a change like this has been from the upper levels of command, not at lower levels, where the work actually gets done.

The Pentagon has said that group most resistant to repeal has been combat troops; once these people find out that this whole time they have been serving with people who are gay -without any sort of issue whatsoever- they'll relax too. As I've said, there have been gays in our military since the beginning. Now they can simply stop having to say "he's my room mate" or "she's my best friend," and the whole culture of personal barriers will melt away.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

With all due respect (seriously), I think British attitudes about homosexuality have been problematic for the whole British society for a very long time. And they appear to be so deeply rooted and so obviously an issue that it comes through in a lot of your media. Just how many skits did Monty Python get out of "not quite out" gays?

With all due respect, we've got gay marriage.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

With all due respect, we've got gay marriage.

You sure do-and I'm glad you do. The more countries that accept this as a basic human right, the better, especially English speaking countries. But... U.S. service members are far less separate from the rest of our society than British service members. Our Soldiers (it's a title now...as are Airmen, Sailors, Marines) tend to retain the social attitudes from their upbringing, and they also tend to be from a very wide cross section of society. The MoD is still pretty class-bound and overly conservative. And yes, I've worked with British service members, officers and enlisted-it's pretty interesting to see the level of class-consciousness I saw in those I've worked with.

Military people do have to focus on class issues because there's a rather important difference between what officers and enlisted people can do and how they must do it, but the attitude that enlisted people are "lesser humans" is something I have NEVER seen in U.S. military people over service in four different decades, and in working with people who joined anywhere from two months ago to well before World War II.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

You sure do-and I'm glad you do. The more countries that accept this as a basic human right, the better, especially English speaking countries. But... U.S. service members are far less separate from the rest of our society than British service members. Our Soldiers (it's a title now...as are Airmen, Sailors, Marines) tend to retain the social attitudes from their upbringing, and they also tend to be from a very wide cross section of society. The MoD is still pretty class-bound and overly conservative. And yes, I've worked with British service members, officers and enlisted-it's pretty interesting to see the level of class-consciousness I saw in those I've worked with.

Sounds like a trade-off.

We have a military less connected to a more tolerant society.
You have a military more connected to a less tolerant society.

Yep. It's a case of grab the popcorn and see what happens.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sounds like a trade-off.

We have a military less connected to a more tolerant society.
You have a military more connected to a less tolerant society.

Yep. It's a case of grab the popcorn and see what happens.

Sort of. The rank and file of our military are far more tolerant than the upper management. On the whole, our "social backwardness" isn't based on the majority's views, only the views of a number of relatively highly placed individuals who were put in place by (unfortunately) far fewer voters than would be best for us all. It's almost the same sort of issue as with the military-the grumpy old guys in suits that work in fancy offices have the authority to enforce their own views. Until the very recent passage of the bill in the Senate, of course. Now the brass has to change course-they MUST change course, by law.

Our next challenge is to make the conservative lawmakers see that what is arguably one of the most conservative segments of our society is FAR more open and tolerant than what our overall laws permit. This was the situation in 1948, when President Truman, by Executive Order, swept away the institutional racial segregation that was built into our military. It took about 3 years for everything to be sorted, but it happened, and society slowly caught up. Someone blazes the trail, and then slowly but inevitably, the rest of our society follows.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Hey! Chicken Little... STFU. This is really important.

Disregard if the above is sarcasm, if not... Why is this really important?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

On the whole, our "social backwardness" isn't based on the majority's views, only the views of a number of relatively highly placed individuals who were put in place by (unfortunately) far fewer voters than would be best for us all.

I'm not seeing that at all. Prop 8 passed in one of the most liberal States you have - and by public vote, not elite decision. Despite the "no" campaign spending more money.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Disregard if the above is sarcasm, if not... Why is this really important?

Well, it now means you can't dodge the draft by being flamboyant. Other than that, I'm not seeing it a really important. Not when you have tent cities popping up all over the place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Disregard if the above is sarcasm, if not... Why is this really important?

For one it's a very symbolic step towards granting equal rights to gays.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Disregard if the above is sarcasm, if not... Why is this really important?

Because any progress made to further the equality of gays and lesbians in our society is really important. If a few ignorant bigots decide to leave the military (or never sign up in the first place) so be it. The days of our gay youth coming of age feeling like second class citizens is finally ending.

<self-pity>Unfortunately now that the political pendulum is swinging back to the right the odds of me being able to live in the US anytime soon are dwindling.</self-pity>

[mduell]

Recall the old policy wasn't just "don't ask, don't tell" it was "don't ask, don't tell, don't persue, don't harass."

Anyone have a simple explanation of the new policy? Are we going back to the pre-1993 policy of investigating reports and dishonorably discharging gays?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For one it's a very symbolic step towards granting equal rights to gays.

Symbolism has no substance and if mistaken, could give homosexuals a false sense of security rendering them even more prone to mistreatment. I submit the problem of well-documented rape, assault, and harrassment of women in the military as more in need of symbolic gestures legislation than winning the expedient, feel-good political battle in the civilian arena. Why more focus on the treatment of roughly 2.8% of the armed forces over a demographic comprising over 20%?

Once again, our priorities are woefully askew IMO.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Because any progress made to further the equality of gays and lesbians in our society is really important. If a few ignorant bigots decide to leave the military (or never sign up in the first place) so be it. The days of our gay youth coming of age feeling like second class citizens is finally ending.

It will never end. It is not for others to validate your lifestyle for you. There is absolutely zero evidence that gays feel less like second class citizens in regions of greater tolerance toward homosexuality. I would submit the rates of homosexual suicides in the US vs the Netherlands for example, as exhibit A of this mistaken notion. Bigots are bigots regardless of the actions of their government. You are not defined by those who hate you.

<self-pity>Unfortunately now that the political pendulum is swinging back to the right the odds of me being able to live in the US anytime soon are dwindling.</self-pity>

Allowing gays to do something the overwhelming majority of them have no interest in doing does way more for political self-aggrandization than any meaningful progress toward "gay rights". Let it be done I suppose in order that we might focus on the real problems in the military such as waste, fraud, abuse, and the well-documented mistreatment of women.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Recall the old policy wasn't just "don't ask, don't tell" it was "don't ask, don't tell, don't persue, don't harass."

Anyone have a simple explanation of the new policy? Are we going back to the pre-1993 policy of investigating reports and dishonorably discharging gays?

I read an article about it this morning (which, unfortunately, I can't find right now). The text of the bill does not seem to be online yet, but the article stated that the bill does not repeal DADT right away, but rather gives the service chiefs and/or the Defense secretary the power to end it when they are prepared to do so. Since this was one of Obama's key campaign promises, he will likely see to it personally that it doesn't take too long.

The different branches will take a while to establish procedures on benefits for same-sex partners and other issues that might come up when the policy goes away. The policy is technically still in effect until then, although I doubt it will be considered a priority to enforce. I inferred from the article that after the policy goes away, US military personnel can be as gay as they want, and nobody ought to care.

(It should be noted that the military was in favor of repeal in this manner, because if repeal came through court order then it would likely take effect immediately or after a short time, which would give them no time to change their processes.)

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

F*ck, how unimportant.

Apparently, the US has no other problems, with 9.8% unemployment and 40 cents borrowing of every $ 1 spent by the government.

When will f*cking Congress do what's really important ?

Government can only do one thing at a time!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Symbolism has no substance and if mistaken, could give homosexuals a false sense of security rendering them even more prone to mistreatment. I submit the problem of well-documented rape, assault, and harrassment of women in the military as more in need of symbolic gestures legislation than winning the expedient, feel-good political battle in the civilian arena. Why more focus on the treatment of roughly 2.8% of the armed forces over a demographic comprising over 20%?

Once again, our priorities are woefully askew IMO.

Rape, assault, and harassment of women is only shaped by policy, not controlled by it. Whether or not we allow gays to openly serve is purely a matter of policy, therefore is much lower dangling fruit.

The treatment of women brings up an interesting point though against those who are concerned of having their performance sacrificed because they are worried about people of the same sex ogling them: this is nothing new to women, they have had to put up with this for years. If people are worried about somebody checking them out, maybe they aren't tough enough to be in the military?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Rape, assault, and harassment of women is only shaped by policy, not controlled by it. Whether or not we allow gays to openly serve is purely a matter of policy, therefore is much lower dangling fruit.

Good point.

The treatment of women brings up an interesting point though against those who are concerned of having their performance sacrificed because they are worried about people of the same sex ogling them: this is nothing new to women, they have had to put up with this for years. If people are worried about somebody checking them out, maybe they aren't tough enough to be in the military?

I don't think it's a matter of toughness. Women should be able to serve without being harassed. It's possible we're compounding an obvious problem in the military by adding another group of people we're not going to be able to protect adequately.

[subego]

I could just as easily see that helping. It's not like the culture of the military is going to remain the same on the other side of this.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think it's a matter of toughness. Women should be able to serve without being harassed. It's possible we're compounding an obvious problem in the military by adding another group of people we're not going to be able to protect adequately.

Harassment of women has been a problem in the military for a very long time. The major issue seems to be that the brass doesn't know how to encourage young men to use tough, aggressive, risk taking behavior only when it's appropriate, and then how to strongly discourage such behavior in completely inappropriate situations, such as when dealing with women.

I spent about a year as a rape crisis counselor in the Air Force. Like on college campuses, military bases concentrate the prime target demographic along with the prime demographic of perpetrators. Mix in alcohol (one cultural issue the military has a long way to go on) and you wind up with an extremely volatile situation that almost guarantees problems. The culture of the Air Force is 100% against this sort of abuse, yet it happens far more frequently than can be explained by simply looking at civilian statistics, especially in the context of "military members are more disciplined and dependable than their civilian peers," which is completely true. The other services, with a much higher emphasis on young enlisted men being extremely aggressive and risk tolerant, have a much greater problem. The Army can't figure out why people who get repeatedly deployed into combat keep killing themselves-they are certainly not by themselves going to figure out how to control sexual assaults. Much like they haven't by themselves come up with a way to sensibly deal with members who are gay.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Harassment of women has been a problem in the military for a very long time. The major issue seems to be that the brass doesn't know how to encourage young men to use tough, aggressive, risk taking behavior only when it's appropriate, and then how to strongly discourage such behavior in completely inappropriate situations, such as when dealing with women.

So you're saying that the women in the forces can't handle tough, aggressive, risk-taking behaviour?
Why are they in the forces then?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think it's a matter of toughness. Women should be able to serve without being harassed. It's possible we're compounding an obvious problem in the military by adding another group of people we're not going to be able to protect adequately.

I agree that women should be able to serve without being harassed, but I think if you were to talk to most attractive women they'd tell you that it can be awkward being ogled even if the ogler doesn't say anything harassing. However, they've learned to deal with this.

My point about the military is that I've heard the argument that some guys would find it distracting being checked out by other guys, which to that I would say would be a questionable demonstration of toughness. I'd like to think that the toughest marines can endure any gender checking them out or even seeing them naked.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't think that it is that easy, I think there are a number of things that the government can and should do to increase business in our global economy.

For instance, if we were to change our trade policies with countries like China (or any other country) that encouraged them to consume more of our products, we'd need to create jobs to accommodate our increase in exporting of goods.

However, I also wonder whether in some cases we are at the point where there simply is no level of tax (or lack thereof) that will encourage hiring of American workers in some areas. For one, an American company that hires American workers is generally expected to provide that worker health insurance.

There are many facets to this, I think you are oversimplifying things.

I don't think I am.

Take your China example, how would you suggest that we encourage China to buy more of our stuff? Our products need to be cheaper without sacrificing quality. The government does more to increase the cost of doing business than any other cause.

By reducing the taxes and riduculous restrictions on EVERY DAMN THING BUSINESSES DO, we will lower the cost and make it easier to do business HERE which is good for everyone.

Yes, healthcare costs are an issue but that opens up a whole can of worms on the subject...AGAIN.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't think I am.

Take your China example, how would you suggest that we encourage China to buy more of our stuff? Our products need to be cheaper without sacrificing quality. The government does more to increase the cost of doing business than any other cause.

- Attractive tariffs/import costs
- Deals with Chinese government that relate to inspection and basic regulation of health and safety
- Accessibility
- Compliance with Chinese government regulations

All of this is the domain of the government. It doesn't matter whether government increases costs of doing business generally speaking, the above is their gig, period.

By reducing the taxes and riduculous restrictions on EVERY DAMN THING BUSINESSES DO, we will lower the cost and make it easier to do business HERE which is good for everyone.

The Chinese don't care about our taxes, and may even be willing to pay a premium for some of our products, in several instances - cost is just one factor, and great cost alone is insufficient if there are barriers with any of the above, or anything else I have failed to list.

[Doofy]

Did my brain just play tricks with me because it's nearly 7am (late night, not early morning), or did Smac and Bess just post in the wrong thread?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Long overdue. The 'argument' that "tough guys" won't join the military because they're afraid of gays (who ALREADY ARE in the military, as everyone knows) is so laughable. If true, that makes the case for let's develop more drones and robotic droids,and smart weapons to defend the nation, and let homophobic meatheads go back to doing whatever it was they were doing before they got the notion to join the military. Stuff like, oh I dunno, shooting at hubcaps in the backyard, or putting the car they just wrecked up on blocks in the front yard. That we need all these types as cannon-fodder for the enemy is a backward notion anyhow.

[OAW]

I for one am glad to see DADT repealed. In an all volunteer military, to deny a qualified individual the right to serve his or her country simply because of their sexual orientation is beyond retarded.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The 'argument' that "tough guys" won't join the military because they're afraid of gays (who ALREADY ARE in the military, as everyone knows) is so laughable.

But true. Now the main problem isn't that the tough guys are scared of being checked out... ...it's that they're tough guys and tend to tell off-colour jokes (including gay ones).
So. No DADT means that they must restrict their camaraderie to the politically-correct sort (lest someone decides that a joke offends them and decides to lawsuit). Which will lessen camaraderie.

[SpaceMonkey]

I heard Andrew Sullivan make the point, drawing from Britain's experience, that relatively few gay service members are actually likely to "come out," so the concerns about camaraderie seem overblown. Gay people aren't stupid.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I heard Andrew Sullivan make the point, drawing from Britain's experience, that relatively few gay service members are actually likely to "come out," so the concerns about camaraderie seem overblown. Gay people aren't stupid.

I agree. I imagine most gay service members won't necessarily go out of their way to hide their sexual orientation, but given the expectations of professionalism in the military workplace they won't be going around advertising it either. Just like a straight soldier who likes his girlfriend to tie him up and spank his bare ass probably isn't too eager to discuss his sexual proclivities on the job either. The good news with the repeal of DADT is that a gay service member who was doing his/her job like everybody else won't have to worry about being run out of the military and having their career ruined because someone happened to see them off-base and off-duty hugged up with their partner and then decided to snitch.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I heard Andrew Sullivan make the point, drawing from Britain's experience, that relatively few gay service members are actually likely to "come out,"

To be honest, I don't think there's that many to actually come out. We don't have the same type of "serve your country" patriotism over here, so the atmosphere in our army is much less gay friendly and much more "thuggish" - I can't imagine any gay bloke wanting to spend 24/7 in that kind of atmosphere (most of them are much more likely to be at the anti-war rallies than at the war).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

To be honest, I don't think there's that many to actually come out. We don't have the same type of "serve your country" patriotism over here, so the atmosphere in our army is much less gay friendly and much more "thuggish" - I can't imagine any gay bloke wanting to spend 24/7 in that kind of atmosphere (most of them are much more likely to be at the anti-war rallies than at the war).

Regarding your last comment, I'm sure there are gays who are not flamboyant and are as tough as hell. However, some might only be interested in dominating other men like people do in prison and would otherwise be hetero, if you believe that the raping that goes on in prison is about alpha dogness and not natural attraction. Do you believe that prison rapers are gay? I'm ambivalent.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Regarding your last comment, I'm sure there are gays who are not flamboyant and are as tough as hell. However, some might only be interested in dominating other men like people do in prison and would otherwise be hetero, if you believe that the raping that goes on in prison is about alpha dogness and not natural attraction. Do you believe that prison rapers are gay?

There's very very very very few prison rapes in Britain - in fact, I've never heard reference to a single one. Ever. So, I could assume from this that British thugs simply aren't as prone to the gayness as North American thugs.
But then, that's to be expected, isn't it?