« Who's to Blame When Boys Don't Go to College? | Main | "Milbloggers" Not United on DADT Repeal »

May 12, 2010

Semper Gumby

Jimbo's comment is a damned sight more accurate than "Milbloggers Call for End to DADT":

The impetus for this letter was the simple fact that this is going to happen. As I mentioned in the post, Gates has said that the DoD study is to plan for implementation not to see if it should be done. Both he and Mullen are on record saying they support repeal. What we want to happen is a bi-partisan group to write the new legislation in Congress not just the left/Democrats. they should have some folks who may not agree with this in the room and making sure that they listen to the service chiefs and do this in the least-damaging way. We are hoping to provide a little cover for some Republicans to get in the game and watch the sausage being made so we don't end up w/ rules that allow someone to march in a gay pride parade in a beret, combat boots and a jock strap. There are plenty of difficult issues to deal with and the more folks who understand the military and support it involved, the better.

Spin, spin, spin. Anyway, I thought this needed clarifying but I was working Lilyea beat me to it! Now isn't that *just* like a man? Speaking of military men... if loving this is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

For what it's worth, I thought of signing the letter but I already said everything I wanted to on the subject:

The vast majority of Americans have never served in the military. Even fewer have served in combat. Basing enormous policy changes upon overly optimistic (not to mention fundamentally dishonest) assumptions is a recipe for disaster. Instead, such sweeping changes should be conditioned upon a full and fair assessment of both the benefits and costs of change. That can't happen in an atmosphere where certain viewpoints are privileged and others stifled and marginalized.

I am not sure any of us knows with certainty what the repercussions of repealing DADT would be. What I do know is that if this is such a no brainer, we should not fear opposing viewpoints.

There are real questions that remain unanswered by proponents of repealing DADT. We should make sure those questions get a fair hearing. And we should also strive to conduct ourselves in a manner that neither demonizes nor beatifies the participants: that avoids hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric.

We need to get this right, and shutting down debate is no way to usher in "change we can believe in"... much less live with.

I decided not to sign because any process where the outcome has been determined in advance of the investigation cannot possibly be considered an honest one, nor one conducted in good faith. I can live with either outcome (as will the vast majority of men and women in uniform).

But I am under no obligation to approve of the way this is being done. It smacks of the decision to allow the press to photograph coffins at Dover. It didn't take long for the folly of trusting the press to become apparent, did it?

Posted by Cassandra at May 12, 2010 03:09 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3661

Comments

I'll only note one thing from the comments at the Huffington Post piece.

"Most people go into the military today for the millionaire lifestyle benefits."

Who knew?

Posted by: Allen at May 12, 2010 05:45 PM

While I don't agree that people go into the military for "millionaire" benefits, that is exactly why a LOT of people *do* go into the military.

If you come from no money or a depressed area with no jobs, the military offers training and help getting your degree. If you're a single parent, it's a good deal. People join for a lot of reasons.

My husband signed up for two reasons:

1. He loves his country and he wanted to serve.
2. It offered stable employment and good benefits for his wife and child.

BOTH those reasons were important, and I start losing it when intelligent people say that only the uber-patriotic join.

That's sheer nonsense.

*sigh*

Posted by: Cassandra at May 12, 2010 06:15 PM

I know that, a whole lot of folks that enlisted when I did were more than happy to say they did it to get out of poverty. They also had other reasons as well. For the record the Army life was not for me and I never re-enlisted.

I just got a chuckle about the idea of enlisting and living the enlisted man's "millionaire" life-style.

Posted by: Allen at May 12, 2010 06:31 PM

I figured you knew :)

I just have a bee in my bonnet about certain things and that was one of them. I don't think any class of people deserves unthinking approbation.

Also we have a volunteer military now but it won't necessarily always be that way.

We humans never do manage to learn.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 12, 2010 06:53 PM

I decided not to sign because any process where the outcome has been determined in advance of the investigation cannot possibly be considered an honest one, nor one conducted in good faith. I can live with either outcome (as will the vast majority of men and women in uniform).

It appears that the writing is on the wall and that DADT will eventually be repealed, though it appears that if BHO has his way, it won't be anay time very soon. Y'all who are opposed will just have to "man up", "grow a pair", and learn to live with it. And if you're inclined to want to fight someone because you have a problem with what you imagine s/he does privately, you'll have to control yourself. Shouldn't be all that hard for you, right?

Posted by: I Call BS at May 12, 2010 07:55 PM

Y'all who are opposed will just have to "man up", "grow a pair", and learn to live with it. And if you're inclined to want to fight someone because you have a problem with what you imagine s/he does privately, you'll have to control yourself. Shouldn't be all that hard for you, right?

As usual, you are being insulting.

I have never said that I approve of attacking gays and that's a despicable thing for you to say.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 12, 2010 08:27 PM

I'm picturing a hypothetical America, say thirty or fifty years from now. The powers of the Left have passed on to their reward; as they are not being replaced today, there is not likely to be a strong liberal movement like the one, bred in the 1940s-60s, ascendant at this particular moment.

Meanwhile, immigration from Mexico continues to alter our demographics; but, while socially liberal on economic issues, Mexican culture is stridently anti-homosexual.

So, in thirty or fifty years, the Congress comes forward and declares that it will be re-instituting the ban on gays. Hypothetically, would this be an appropriate response?

"Y'all who are opposed will just have to "man up", "grow a pair", and learn to live with it."

Something to reflect on; because this moment will not last. Whether you know it or not, this is the high water mark. The tide is breaking even now.

Posted by: Grim at May 12, 2010 08:52 PM

Y'all who are opposed will just have to "man up", "grow a pair", and learn to live with it. And if you're inclined to want to fight someone because you have a problem with what you imagine s/he does privately, you'll have to control yourself. Shouldn't be all that hard for you, right?

I have never said that I approve of attacking gays and that's a despicable thing for you to say. You should be ashamed of yourself. Posted by: Cassandra at May 12, 2010 08:27 PM

Come on, Your Highness - I never said that the Blog Princess wanted to attack anybody (and I would never suggest that TBP "grow a pair" - Princesses do not need, nor do we want them, to have "a pair" other than the pair they already have).

Some of your readers like to talk about meeting people they disagree with in dark alleys to use some plausibly deniable means of persuasion to change their opinions. They know who they are, so I won't try to identify them by name. REMEMBER: THIS IS NOT PERSONAL AND IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU.

I was talking about people who oppose the demise of DADT (which, as I said, appears unlikely to happen any time soon, if BHO has anything to do about it), and suggesting that THEY "man up" and "grow a pair", and basically just do their jobs (assuming that they are in the military) and obey the (eventual) orders from higher up in the chain of command directing them to forget DADT, treat their fellow (and fella) soldiers the way they treat all the rest of them, and to stop worrying about what other soldiers do privately.

"Y'all who are opposed will just have to "man up", "grow a pair", and learn to live with it." Something to reflect on; because this moment will not last. Whether you know it or not, this is the high water mark. The tide is breaking even now. Posted by: Grim at May 12, 2010 08:52 PM

Grim appears to be saying that what remains (I won't say "what's left") of the elites in this country will be so reproductively inactive over the next half-century, and that Mexican immigration will so continue to pour across the Rio Grande like a tidalwave, that when the floodwaters finally recede we can expect to see that los nuevos ciudadanos de Los Estados Unidos will reintroduce "no preguntarlos, no contarnos" and we'll be right back at DADT anyway and then it'll be up to the bleeding-heart liberals to "grow a pair", "man up" and "live with" the hispano-catolico repression which our erstwhile neighbors have brought with them.

My family and friends will deal with that when it happens, if it happens, and i'm not convinced that it will.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 12, 2010 10:17 PM

What I'm really asking you is if you feel that argumentation along the lines of, "We're in charge, so suck it up" is something you're comfortable with. I meet a fair number of these Mexicans, and honestly, I find that I have a lot in common with them. Often they are cattlemen, or would like to be if the economics would permit it; often they are religious men. Often they are merry men, as I am.

I suspect that much will change in the future, some to your liking, and some to mine. But the end of your movement is upon you: Greece heralds the end of that style of government. This is the end of your age; but you still speak as if you knew the secret of Inevitable Progress. That basic assumption about the force of history is about to break before your eyes. A tide that flows one way can flow the other; and in that respect, I fear the future less than should you.

Posted by: Grim at May 12, 2010 10:59 PM

"I suspect that much will change in the future, some to your liking, and some to mine. But the end of your movement is upon you: Greece heralds the end of that style of government. This is the end of your age; but you still speak as if you knew the secret of Inevitable Progress. That basic assumption about the force of history is about to break before your eyes. A tide that flows one way can flow the other; and in that respect, I fear the future less than should you.
Posted by: Grim at May 12, 2010 10:59 PM"

Amen and Amen (ad infinitum) my brother!

Posted by: camojack at May 13, 2010 01:20 AM

Y'all who are opposed will just have to "man up", "grow a pair", and learn to live with it.

There are more good reasons to oppose lifting DADT than there are in favor of lifting it, since the *only* argument in favor of lifting it consists solely of "It's not FAIIIIIR!!11!'leben!!1!"

Life isn't fair, it's never going to be fair, and every Lib attempt at making it fair has only resulted in making things *un*fair for others -- grow up.

BTW, I've served with gays who impressed me with their professionalism and I've served with gays who outed themselves just to avoid going to combat, so don't play the "There have always been gays in the military, so there, you iggerunt reich-wingnut" card. And if you'd like a list of the *practical* reasons for keeping DADT in place, Ah'll be back...

Posted by: BillT at May 13, 2010 04:01 AM

...and then it'll be up to the bleeding-heart liberals to "grow a pair", "man up" and "live with" the hispano-catolico repression which our erstwhile neighbors have brought with them.

That's a farcical argument if I ever heard one. The bleeding -heart liberals are the reason the Cuban flag flies over city hall in Edison, NJ, right next to the US flag, and you can't walk into any public building in Newark and find a sign in *English*.

Posted by: BillT at May 13, 2010 04:10 AM

...basically just do their jobs (assuming that they are in the military) and obey the (eventual) orders from higher up in the chain of command directing them to forget DADT, treat their fellow (and fella) soldiers the way they treat all the rest of them, and to stop worrying about what other soldiers do privately.

What makes you so dirt-positive we *didn't* and still *don't*?

I love it when the clueless tell the clued to get a clue.

Posted by: BillT at May 13, 2010 04:16 AM

"I've served with gays who outed themselves just to avoid going to combat..."

Hell, I served with one (mid-1990's) who did it just to get out of going to Korea.

At least, he said he was gay.

Posted by: Greyhawk at May 13, 2010 07:29 AM

I hear that opposition is often based on the concern that with gay people not constrained by DADT, there will be orgies in the showers and nobody will feel safe bending over to pick up the soap, the barracks will have pink lacy curtains and instead of reveillie y'all will be waking up to Barbra Streisand songs. Do you really think that will happen? If y'all have known gays in the military before, and they have "impressed [you] with their professionalism" do you really think that guys like that are going to become flaming queens just because DADT is repealed? I suspect that the "gays who outed themselves just to avoid going to combat" may have been in the service (in the old days) because of the draft; guys like this probably won't enlist, dontcha think? I understand that there are several countries with reasonably powerful/competent/ respected militaries that have no prohibitions on "open homos" serving and they (apparently) haven't suffered any - I'm thinking primarily of Israel, here. The concern seems largely to be based on "prejudice" and "fear of the unknown" - and greatly based on concern about how the non-homo soldiers will handle it. In that sense, the arguments against repeal of DADT seem similar to the arguments raised in the past against racial integration of the troops.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 13, 2010 11:34 AM

...basically just do their jobs (assuming that they are in the military) and obey the (eventual) orders from higher up in the chain of command directing them to forget DADT, treat their fellow (and fella) soldiers the way they treat all the rest of them, and to stop worrying about what other soldiers do privately.

What makes you so dirt-positive we *didn't* and still *don't*? I love it when the clueless tell the clued to get a clue. Posted by: BillT at May 13, 2010 04:16 AM

BillT seems to be arguing against the "clueless" idea that the non-homo troops won't be able to "treat their fellow (and fella) [homo] soldiers the way they treat all the rest of them", and though he doesn't expressly state that "the non-homo troops will be able to 'treat their fellow (and fella) [homo] soldiers the way they treat all the rest of them' ", let's assume that BillT means exactly that. OK, BillT - if that is the case, what's the problem with repeal of DADT? Let's recall, too, that if orders come down from above to "carry on" even though there are homos in the ranks, those who receive the orders are supposed to obey the orders just as they are supposed to obey other orders, and that there are consequences to disobedience.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 13, 2010 11:41 AM

I hear that opposition is often based on the concern that with gay people not constrained by DADT, there will be orgies in the showers and nobody will feel safe bending over to pick up the soap, the barracks will have pink lacy curtains and instead of reveillie y'all will be waking up to Barbra Streisand songs.

Really? I don't read Straw Man Weekly myself. Tell me, what else do your "sources" tell you?

Like Bill, and like Greyhawk, I served with soldiers I knew to be gay. Didn't bother me in the slightest. My wife's "friend of honor" in our military wedding was a gay man. I DON'T CARE WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN BEDROOMS. Is that clear enough? BUT... I, and Bill and Greyhawk are NOT the ones who we're worried about. Can you understand that? STOP trying to tell US what OUR concerns are. You do NOT know, and yet you speak authoritatively for us? No thank you. Now, either ASK us what our concerns are, or shut the hell up.

Posted by: MikeD at May 13, 2010 12:00 PM

Mike, you ignorant slut :p

You are not the authority on what you think. ICBS is.

Just as addressing one's rejoinders to the actual arguments presented is not nearly as emotionally satisfying as mischaracterizing and then ridiculing your own invention.

ICBS, indeed.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 13, 2010 12:39 PM

I, and Bill and Greyhawk are NOT the ones who we're worried about. Can you understand that? STOP trying to tell US what OUR concerns are. You do NOT know, and yet you speak authoritatively for us? No thank you. Now, either ASK us what our concerns are, or shut the hell up.

What are your concerns? I'm shutting up now. And just so's you know, I don't think you are an ignorant slut.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 13, 2010 01:33 PM

What concerns me about repealing DADT is that no matter what the effect, good or bad, it's permanent. It will never ever be repealed. Ask yourself a question; do you think you would ever hear about a currently serving field grade or above officer questioning whether or not allowing more women in the military has harmed military effectiveness? Of course not, because just to ask the question is to pretty much end your career. The only thing that would end your career sooner would be asking the question and then presenting actual evidence showing that increasing the number of women harms readiness. I fear the same thing would happen with allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military.

Full disclosure: Served in the military, served with women. Would never question the role of women in the military. All women are super professional, salt of the earth, blah, blah, blah. Just asked a hypothetical question with no plausible basis in reality.

Posted by: Rob Smith at May 13, 2010 01:53 PM

I have a couple of questions that maybe someone here can speak to. I've been wandering around the UCMJ this morning and have come to some conclusions and I want to be "fact checked."

First, can someone be removed from service, or not be accepted for re-enlistment without a court martial? That second part has me really stumped, what's the procedure?

Second, it seems that the only thing that prevents gays from serving is that it falls under Article 134 (prejuidicial conduct kind of thing) is this correct? I'm assuming the Sodomy Article would probably be found un-Constitutional based on the Supremes and the Lawrence case.

Finally, the President, as CinC, could arbitrarily state that homosexuality is no longer to be considered as falling under Article 134 and end of story.

Posted by: Allen at May 13, 2010 02:01 PM

OK, BillT - if that is the case, what's the problem with repeal of DADT?

Because it's a straw man. DADT is only a POTUS-imposed policy that allows gays to serve in violation of the law, which is USC 10A para 654, without being prosecuted for false enlistment. DADT merely prohibits commanders from asking the question and prevents prosecution of the servicemember unless that servicemember admits to being a homosexual.

Surprise -- remove DADT and you have *removed* that protection. Ooooh, you didn't realize that, did you?

Let's recall, too, that if orders come down from above to "carry on" even though there are homos in the ranks, those who receive the orders are supposed to obey the orders just as they are supposed to obey other orders, and that there are consequences to disobedience.

Let's recall, too, that you're speaking to someone who spent 37+ years in the Army -- and has spent an additional four years in positions subject to the UCMJ.

Lecturing me on the necessity to follow lawful orders is like lecturing a fish on the necessity to breathe water.

Posted by: BillT at May 13, 2010 02:03 PM

You can begin with Eric Massa's behavior as a US Naval officer. He carried on in that fashion even though it could lead to immediate expulsion; he used his rank, ability to retaliate, and fear of embarrassment to get away with it.

Under the new rules, punishment for people like Massa would be drastically reduced: instead of immediate expulsion, the worst they would face is the kind of anti-harassment punishments that are already insufficient to restrain opposite-sex offenses. John Donovan pointed out the problem of opposite-sex harassment in another context, and he's right: that's a serious problem.

In addition, however, the Massas of the world would now have another tool of self-protection: an Equal Opportunity complaint against their accuser. These things have the same potential to be career-killers (in the sense of ending future promotion potential) as harassment accusations. So, you would be reducing the punitive potential to the offenders, while increasing the threat of reporting to the subordinate.

While there is no reason to believe that same-sex harassment is morally worse than opposite-sex harassment, it does have the potential to be more disruptive in the military context. For one thing, front line combat arms units do not include women; they do include men. Thus, this expands the highly disruptive sexual harassment issue to the front line units, in return for no obvious military advantages.

Indeed, there aren't any obvious military advantages to a lot of these little programs. Women serving on submarines? Why is that a good idea? To help the women's careers; but the military is free to pull you off your planned career and stick you in a completely different one 'for the needs of the Army' or 'Marine Corps' or whatever. Your career has never been the central concern: the central concern is whether the Army needs artillery officers, or Military Training Teams. If it decides it needs IO officers instead of artillery officers, it'll send you to retask and retrain. If you get hurt in such a way that you can no longer perform the tasks the military requires, it will release you in order to train another. If you're unable to meet the physical standards, you will be released. It's not about you. It's about the needs of the military.

That's as it should be, because the purpose of the military is to defend the nation and advance its interests by winning wars or creating strategic effects. The closest thing to a 'military advantage' anyone has pointed to is some variation of the 'what about linguists who are gay?' issue. Yet the military isn't denied their services simply because it won't let them serve in uniform; there are vast numbers of linguists operating in theater, with the military, as civilians. This is probably even more advantageous to the military than having them in uniform, since if it finds that next year it no longer needs Pashto-speaking linguists (because we withdraw from Afghanistan, say), it'll be free to release them and hire other linguists whose skills are immediately relevant.

Whereas women provide actual, demonstrable advantages -- female engagement teams, the ability to search female areas of houses in Muslim cultures without creating offense, etc. -- there's no similar benefit to inclusion of open homosexuals. It's vastly easier to justify women's service on the merits, because there actually are some merits. It's not clear that there are any military advantages to ending DADT.

If there are many disadvantages and no clear advantages, I'm not sure why the military should even consider this. The politicians want to impose it for reasons that have nothing to do with military advantage. That's not why we maintain a military, and it's always a bad idea.

Posted by: Grim at May 13, 2010 02:11 PM

Allen --

First, can someone be removed from service, or not be accepted for re-enlistment without a court martial? That second part has me really stumped, what's the procedure?

Yes, to both questions.

1. The commander of a unit may initiate paperwork to have an individual administratively discharged "for the good of the service." Unless there is a provision written into the individual's DD-214 (certificate of discharge from the service), the individual usually has the option to apply for an upgrade to "under honorable conditions" after a set period of time.

2. The commander has the option of imposing a bar to re-enlistment for any number of reasons, some of which can seem pretty arbitrary, such as a failure to pass a PT test. Usually, a bar is imposed as a threat -- shape up, or you won't be allowed to re-enlist -- and the bar is usually lifted if the individual accomplishes the requirements.

Second, it seems that the only thing that prevents gays from serving is that it falls under Article 134 (prejuidicial conduct kind of thing) is this correct? I'm assuming the Sodomy Article would probably be found un-Constitutional based on the Supremes and the Lawrence case.

No to both questions.

1. The law -- as in, passed by Congress and written into the US Code is Title 10A, Part II, Chapter 37, § 654.

2. The UCMJ is a different animal entirely, and the prohibitions in it are peculiar to the military. The body of the law was written to apply to people in situations where adherence could mean the difference between life and death. Condemning a cop to death because he took a nap in his patrol car would be cruel and unusual punishment, and unconstitutional. Condemning a sentry to death because he fell asleep and the enemy overran his unit through his position would *not* be cruel and unusual punishment -- but the death sentence might not be imposed.

Finally, the President, as CinC, could arbitrarily state that homosexuality is no longer to be considered as falling under Article 134 and end of story.

No, he couldn't. The President may not declare *any* US law null and void, and again, DADT is just a policy, but the prohibition on homosexuals serving in the military is a law.

Cleared up?

Posted by: BillT at May 13, 2010 02:26 PM

BillT, yes thanks. So, Congress has to repeal the law and the President has to sign it. No matter what the military thinks about it their hands are tied either way.

As DtP might say, go ahead and hold your breath Obama will get right on it.

Posted by: Allen at May 13, 2010 02:32 PM

Yup. Some folks seriously underestimate Dennis -- it's his secret weapon.

Posted by: BillT at May 13, 2010 02:44 PM

My personal concerns include the logistical. How do you house the homosexual soldiers? Currently, male and female soldiers bunk in separate rooms (if not separate floors of the building), have segregated rest rooms and are prohibited by regulation from relationships that the command construes as being detrimental to good order and discipline. Is sexual attraction (the only real reason for the current gender segregation) no longer to be of concern to a command? Or will we need some form of individual barracks room with no individuals being permitted to room with any other individual? While I'd have loved that while in service, who's prepared to pay for the construction that would entail?

I have other concerns that are more of worries, but they are not born of any kind of homophobia or dislike of homosexuals. It's more to do with the idea of using the military as a social engineering experiment for no other reason than "fairness". The military discriminates against people for any number of approved reasons. The physically handicapped are not allowed in. Should we change that? Nor are the mentally handicapped allowed to serve. Perhaps, in the interest of "fairness" we should allow them to serve. What about those that are too short? You know there IS a minimum height requirement. What about the elderly? Or the flat footed? Or the blind, the deaf, the mute, or those who have any other condition that the military currently doesn't allow to join? Why should they be kept out? Once more, I am certainly not implying that homosexuals are handicapped, anymore than I'd say someone with a perforated eardrum is handicapped. And while I DO believe homosexuality is genetic, I don't consider it a defect either.

As a point of fact, I have no serious objection to the repeal of DADT, ASSUMING that it places no impact on readiness, nor logistical hardships on the military. But there's the rub. WISHING that it will have no impact, or dismissing that impact out of hand is ludicrous. Wanting something to be other than it is does not make it so.

Posted by: MikeD at May 13, 2010 04:28 PM

"...nobody will feel safe bending over to pick up the soap, the barracks will have pink lacy curtains..."

Funny how so many non-military people have such a stereotyped view of the troops AS MALE. In this enlightened age you'd think most people would know better.

Posted by: Greyhawk at May 13, 2010 06:24 PM

I'm not seeing many arguments against repeal of DADT other than "we should go slowly because this is new", and nothing contending that open homos as a group are not qualified, or not able, to perform adequately in a military setting. The fact that Eric Massa misbehaved as a US Naval officer does not address the basic issue, as there will always be individuals who do not obey the rules, and one person's disobedience does not mean that others will similarly disobey.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 13, 2010 06:54 PM

And I'm not seeing any consideration on your part, ICBS, of the concerns Mike raised.

You ask for them, then ignore them. Telling us that we haven't put forward arguments we've been saying all along that we aren't advancing isn't much of a rebuttal is it?

I have presented evidence on several occasions that despite the claims of those who said integrating women into the armed forces would not adversely impact readiness, it has in fact done so.

You have no answer to that.

I have presented evidence that the presence of women has prevented the military - due to PC reasons - from enforcing regulations it was able to enforce before. And yet you say that there are regs on the books that will prevent some of the problems we've cited.

Yes there are. But they won't do much good if the military can't enforce them.

You have never really addressed any of the arguments I've put forth, ICBS. Your response is to throw out a whole lot of arguments I've never made and then ridicule them. Well no kidding - if I thought they were good arguments, I might have made them.

But I don't, so "shooting them down" proves precisely nothing about the validity of the arguments I have made.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 13, 2010 07:04 PM

And I'm not seeing any consideration on your part, ICBS, of the concerns Mike raised.

Mike: How do you house the homosexual soldiers? Is sexual attraction (the only real reason for the current gender segregation) no longer to be of concern to a command? Or will we need some form of individual barracks room with no individuals being permitted to room with any other individual? While I'd have loved that while in service, who's prepared to pay for the construction that would entail?
ICBS: Same quarters.

Mike: I have other concerns that are more of worries ... The physically handicapped are not allowed in. Should we change that?
ICBS: If their physical disabilities do not interfere with the job they are to do, yes - change that and let them in. If a military person must be able to do essentially any job, then the physical handicaps could/should warrant exclusion. Seems to me that persons with certain physcal hanadicaps could operate radios, but not fly airplanes or handle big guns. Can the military assign jobs according to physical abilitites?

Mike:Nor are the mentally handicapped allowed to serve. Perhaps, in the interest of "fairness" we should allow them to serve.
ICBS: Presumably mental handicap would disqualify a person from just about every job. Maybe not trash collector or janitor. I presume most military activities require a minimum IQ/mental capability/etc., which the "definition" mentally handicapped presumably would mean is not present.

Mike:What about those that are too short? You know there IS a minimum height requirement.
ICBS: See above.

Mike: What about the elderly? Or the flat footed? Or the blind, the deaf, the mute, or those who have any other condition that the military currently doesn't allow to join? Why should they be kept out?
ICBS: At what age does one "age out" of the military? Are flat feet an automatic disqualification for any/every conceivable position/assignment in the military? Are there no blind, deaf, mute people anywhere in the military? Otherewise see above.

Mike: Once more, I am certainly not implying that homosexuals are handicapped, anymore than I'd say someone with a perforated eardrum is handicapped.
ICBS: What military functions would you consider homos unable to perform?

Mike: As a point of fact, I have no serious objection to the repeal of DADT, ASSUMING that it places no impact on readiness, nor logistical hardships on the military.
ICBS: Explain how being a homo, or having homos in the military, would compromise readiness, or impose logistical hardships.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 13, 2010 07:53 PM

I've re-read TBP's piece Colin Powell on DADT: Then and Now and see that an assumption she makes is that homos in the military will "come on" to straights in the military as much as straight men in the military "come on" to women in the military. Is this an accurate assumption?

Remembering that there are already straight and homo men in the military now, is it not true that most straight men in the military now restrain their sexual urges when they are on duty around women, and most gay men in the military restrain their sexual urges when they are on duty around men? What makes TBP assume that the lifting of DADT will change that

Posted by: I Call BS at May 13, 2010 08:14 PM

TBP says you say that there are regs on the books that will prevent some of the problems we've cited. Yes there are. But they won't do much good if the military can't enforce them.

Is TBP assuming that the repeal of DADT will throw out all the prohibitions on fraternization among superiors/inferiors (or whatever other prohibitions currently exist)? Is this a realistic assumption?

Posted by: I Call BS at May 13, 2010 08:17 PM

Was it "realistic" to assume that the standing regs that make voluntarily making yourself undeployable would become unenforceable?

Apparently, it was since that is exactly what has happened.

is it not true that most straight men in the military now restrain their sexual urges when they are on duty around women

Straight men do not room or shower with women. Or is it your argument that if we allowed men and women to room and shower together, there would be no more problems than there are now? That if there were more opportunity, no one would take advantage of it?

... most gay men in the military restrain their sexual urges when they are on duty around men?

I agree. They do. I also think people behave differently in different circumstances. They weigh the pros and cons and decide whether the risk is worth the perceived benefit. People in the military behave differently than civilians do because the military has stricter rules and punishes infractions, so the risk outweighs the benefits. You can see huge differences between the services in the way troops behave, and they are related to the strictness with which rules are enforced.

I think it makes very little sense to argue that if the rules were changed, people would behave as though they had not changed.

It's not just DADT that will have to change. Right now sodomy is illegal in the military whether it occurs on or off duty. That will have to change. So will any regulation (and there are several) that makes homosexual behavior of any sort a punishable offense.

Fornication is also a punishable offense. Given that gays can't marry in many states, that will have to be changed or the military will effectively be saying you can be in the military but you can't have sex.

When the rules that make it possible to address problems are changed, it becomes harder to prove an offense has occurred. When it becomes harder to prove guilt, people stop trying. It's not worth it.

See the pregnancy example at the beginning of this comment. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 13, 2010 08:43 PM

I'm not seeing many arguments against repeal of DADT other than "we should go slowly because this is new", and nothing contending that open homos as a group are not qualified, or not able, to perform adequately in a military setting.

You're stuck in a Stupid Loop and still arguing that DADT is law, and not policy. Repeal DADT and you remove the only barrier to prosecuting homosexual servicemembers serving honorably for fraudulent enlistment.

Remembering that there are already straight and homo men in the military now, is it not true that most straight men in the military now restrain their sexual urges when they are on duty around women, and most gay men in the military restrain their sexual urges when they are on duty around men? What makes TBP assume that the lifting of DADT will change that?

You keep arguing from emotion, concentrating on human behavior. You're not addressing the *legal* repercussions homosexuals serving in the military will face. Yow keep arguing for a change in *policy* and ignoring that there's a *law* involved, because you keep confusing the policy for the law.

Your statement -- I'm not seeing many arguments against repeal of DADT other than "we should go slowly because this is new" -- means you haven't been reading the replies, merely scanning them without reading them.

Posted by: BillT at May 14, 2010 03:40 AM

Seems to me that persons with certain physcal hanadicaps could operate radios, but not fly airplanes or handle big guns. Can the military assign jobs according to physical abilitites?

The military isn't a Job Skills Center, it's not a Day Care Center, and it's not a Handicapped-Access Employment Center. Your questions and arguments reveal a no-doubt-blissful ignorance of both the military and history, and a willful disinclination to actually *learn* about the subject under discussion. You pose questions and ignore the answers, then triumphantly whine that no one has answered your questions. You answer logical points with emotional straw men, merely to avoid appearing that you're stumped for a reply.

I could go on, but you'd only preen at being the subject of the conversation.

Posted by: BillT at May 14, 2010 04:00 AM

The Left will overturn everything and replace the strife and misery of human times with an endless desert sea.

Sabak

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 10:13 AM

Thus will tranquility come into existence on this lonely planet, forever with eternal peace.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 10:13 AM

You pose questions and ignore the answers, then triumphantly whine that no one has answered your questions.

That's because he himself does not hold himself to the standard that his claims need proof or testing. He just puts them out there just because. Thus he expects everybody else to be at his level.

It's a social probability curve that says if everyone is average, then the average becomes the supreme.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 10:15 AM

Some of your readers like to talk about meeting people they disagree with in dark alleys to use some plausibly deniable means of persuasion to change their opinions. They know who they are, so I won't try to identify them by name. REMEMBER: THIS IS NOT PERSONAL AND IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU.

Hey Grim, Bill. Did Uncle JImbo all of asudden turn anti-pacifist here?

just checking.

Woah, there's a lot of comments to read and respond to. guess I'll metapad it. This up and down, post and read, looks too much like a Leftist revolving door Nigerian con scheme.


Y'all who are opposed will just have to "man up", "grow a pair", and learn to live with it.

This is like Ivy League Gates trying to tell me how to handle myself in potentially violent confrontations with the police, criminals, or killers.

This would make for a bad joke, except the author here is serious.

IC, who does not learn to live with anything foreign or truly alien, wants to tell other, more mature, people how to grow up to be a man? Boke joudan.

My family and friends will deal with that when it happens, if it happens, and i'm not convinced that it will.

It's always somebody else's problem for the Left. Assuming they even think about the future at all in this respect.

I meet a fair number of these Mexicans, and honestly,-G

You could form a Mexican rebel force with those and take over Mexico. Be like the Bay of Pigs, except not under a Democrat. Which, coincidentally, would prevent it from being a BoP or cluster.

BillT seems to be arguing against the "clueless" idea that the non-homo troops won't be able to "treat their fellow (and fella) [homo] soldiers the way they treat all the rest of them"

Hell, IC here can't even adequately deal with the people collected at VC. How he expects homosexuals to be able to deal with even greater social handicaps than IC has remains a mystery. Brother, art thou in Heaven?


You do NOT know, and yet you speak authoritatively for us?

The Left will define your existence(sonzaiyo) and the worth of your birth and your death, to the 9th generation of descendants. They are the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of human existence.

Or at least that's what the racist sensitivity instructors told me on a off the record moment.

Let's recall, too, that you're speaking to someone who spent 37+ years in the Army -- and has spent an additional four years in positions subject to the UCMJ.

Woah, Bill. You're like an Ancient Weapon from the Age of Sail or ... something


Well, assume the Apocalypse came. Now assume the Left gained political power, oh wait I repeated myself. Now 20 years after the Apocalypse came and gone, technology is at the steam-iron age level. So somebody that is an Ancient Weapon in those days, would be "high tech" and superior.

This relates to how the Left creates progress. You don't need to make things "better" to create progress. All you have to do is to break things down and then put 2 blocks on top of each other and say that the tower you just demolished now has "progressed" towards a better future.

It works great. Try it out.

Indeed, there aren't any obvious military advantages to a lot of these little programs. Women serving on submarines? Why is that a good idea? To help the women's careers-G

That wouldn't be such an issue if we had an actual submersible war and we were losing people and we would be golden with more experienced men or women in command or as crew. But that ain't the facts on the ground. It's a political decision designed to bolster women senators in the defense committees so that they can get more re-election funds so that they can funnel more defense contracts to their friends and husbands.

Not exactly a positive thing for military strength or discipline. (Of course, that was the plan)

That's not why we maintain a military, and it's always a bad idea.

The Left can't beat the US military at domestic social projects such as free healthcare or jobs training or security, so the Left has to undermine and corrupt the US military by destroying what makes it work. Turning it into another Leftist fiefdom or utopia, like DMV or city SWAT or urban machine politics or public sector unions (SEIU). The Left knows it can control corrupted and weak individuals. By planting them into an organization, they gain control of that organization. It's just like the Mafia corrupting the police. Got to insert/turn agents and put them in high status positions.

No, he couldn't. The President may not declare *any* US law null and void, and again

Dictator Obama can. Just let IC and his people do some more work. They just need more time. Give the proto-dictator some time here people. Can't expect him to clean up the mess Bush made of failing to translate America into full totalitarian awareness of social injustices.


Yes there are. But they won't do much good if the military can't enforce them.

The military has no authority to enforce rules on humans. That is the Final and Ultimate say of the Left and only the Left. They and they alone deserve the right and the power to rule over human beings. Civilians rule the military, darou?

ICBS: Same quarters.

Betas always think solutions to problems are simple. Either force will solve it. Or anger will. Or more power. Or more money. Or just shouting. They try one failed thing after another, devoting both energy and stupidity to the problem. Betas are betas and that's why they aren't considered fit for leadership positions.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 10:52 AM

You keep arguing from emotion, concentrating on human behavior …

Golly-gee: Even though it is her blog we’re enjoying, it seems a bit disingenuous for The Blog Princess to throw “human behavior” into the discussion [“There is a basic truth here: laws that ignore human nature don't change human nature.” See http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2010/05/milbloggers_not.html Posted by Cassandra at May 13, 2010 01:03 PM] but for others to be scolded for attempting to discuss the same dynamic … curious sort of ROE …

Your questions and arguments reveal a no-doubt-blissful ignorance of both the military and history, and a willful disinclination to actually *learn* about the subject under discussion.

Listen, you ****** [voluntarily self-censored because only ICBS’s insults are prohibited around here], I’m trying to address your points and you accuse me of ignorance and disinclination to learn. If you’ve got something to say on the subject, perhaps the discussion would be advanced if you’d answer questions posed to you at your request rather than dismissing them out of hand with a scornful personal attack …

Just sayin’ …

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 11:24 AM

ICBS: Same quarters.
For men and women as well then? If sexual attraction is no bar to rooming/bathing/etc now, why maintain separate rooms/latrines? Now before you answer, don't think of yourself as the male in that relationship, think of your wife/daughter/sister in the female's place and tell me how comfortable that idea is for you.

ICBS: If their physical disabilities do not interfere with the job they are to do, yes - change that and let them in. If a military person must be able to do essentially any job, then the physical handicaps could/should warrant exclusion. Seems to me that persons with certain physcal hanadicaps could operate radios, but not fly airplanes or handle big guns. Can the military assign jobs according to physical abilitites?
You ARE aware that every soldier is required to serve as an infantryman as a secondary job behind whatever their MOS is, right? It's why we have annual rifle qualification. For the Marines, every Marine is considered a rifleman first, and their MOS second. That's not hype, that's policy. The physically handicapped CANNOT perform in that role, therefore they may not serve. But because you are speaking from a position of ignorance (not a bad thing, ignorance is neutral, stupidity is negative, and I am not accusing you of being stupid here), you didn't know that. And yet you were willing to support a change in policy anyway. Now extrapolate that to what you don't know about potential impacts of DADT repeal and consider that there are impacts you are currently ignorant of. Do you see the parallel yet?

ICBS: Presumably mental handicap would disqualify a person from just about every job. Maybe not trash collector or janitor. I presume most military activities require a minimum IQ/mental capability/etc., which the "definition" mentally handicapped presumably would mean is not present.
Minimum ASVAB scores. It's an aptitude battery. As far as I am aware the MOS for the Army requiring the absolute lowest ASVAB score is in Graves Registration. But regardless, the mentally handicapped are barred from service. Why? Because legitimate questions could be raised about their ability to even sign the enlistment contract.

ICBS: See above.
Again, while you might consider the height requirement to be arbitrary, it certainly is not. Nor is the bar to individuals being too tall to serve shipboard or as tank drivers, or as pilots. Just because you're not aware of why those restrictions are in place, does not mean there is no reason. Once again, apply this logic to what you don't know about potential impacts of a DADT repeal.

ICBS: At what age does one "age out" of the military? Are flat feet an automatic disqualification for any/every conceivable position/assignment in the military? Are there no blind, deaf, mute people anywhere in the military? Otherewise see above.
I can't speak to the age limit for service (never affected me), I do know there is a maximum age to enlistment. But I do know that flat feet and somnambulism are both bars to enlistment. And yes, there are no blind, deaf nor mute servicemembers. At all. Why? Because they're all limitations on the servicemember's ability to perform as a combat soldier. Which is the REASON the military exists. It is NOT a jobs program, it is NOT a universal employer, it is NOT there to give folks something to do. It is an ARMED service with all the weight that the meaning of that phrase carries.

ICBS: What military functions would you consider homos unable to perform?
I'd prefer you don't refer to them as 'homos', but addressing your point, I don't believe there is actually a role they cannot perform. I DO believe that there are impacts that you are unaware of (and that we've been trying to make you aware of) that will impact the military's PRIMARY MISSION. But you seem willing to engage in hand-waving to dismiss those concerns, even though by now you probably should be questioning why those of us who have served and do not hold prejudices against homosexuals are concerned about the impact of the policy change. Maybe, just maybe we know something you don't? Lord knows we keep trying to explain it. Stop trying to dismiss it out of hand.

ICBS: Explain how being a homo, or having homos in the military, would compromise readiness, or impose logistical hardships.
Cass has done a fine job laying these out, and while you seem willing to ignore them, and the housing issue, what point is there in me listing them over and over again?

Look, the main lesson I am attempting to impart here is, do not casually dismiss our concerns even though you don't understand them. Attempt to understand something before discarding it. If you were not aware that having flat feet was a bar to enlistment, and didn't understand WHY than just consider that there are other things you don't know that factor into this. Our reasons are NOT that "we hate teh gayz" nor "back in my day..." nonsense. Think on it.

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 11:30 AM

Seems that a lot of the comments here assume that homo men are really women [or is it that the straight men in the showers will be perceived by the homo men in the showers as women!], and that having homo men in the communal showers will be the same as having straight men and straight women in the showers together, because we ALL know that men around women cannot control themselves. Somehow I don't think that is true, and I think that this is a phony argument, or an appeal to fear of the unknown.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 11:30 AM

Look, the main lesson I am attempting to impart here is, do not casually dismiss our concerns even though you don't understand them.

I know about height requirements [my son has a friend who'd never fit into the cockpit of a plane or into a submarine, to his dismay, I might add]; I've heard of the flat foot prohibition; the "deaf, dumb and blind" thing makes sense. No argument from me.

Several of you have commented that when you were in the service, you knew that there were homos in there with you and that they served admirably [not including those who sashayed around to be excluded from combat missions].

If the guys you knew there who "preferred meat over fish" were able to do and did the job they were supposed to do, your opposition to the repeal of the DADT policy and the repeal of the statutory prohibition that DADT was thought to mitigate neglects to address the reality you experienced with "your" homos [no offense meant; I'm just meaning to refer to the guys you knew who served admirably, etc.].

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 11:40 AM

So in other words, there is no reason to house men and women in separate quarters?

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 11:41 AM

Sorry: I forgot my HTML tags on this part:

sarcasm on " ...because we ALL know that men around women cannot control themselves. sarcasm off

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 11:42 AM

Listen, you ****** [voluntarily self-censored because only ICBS’s insults are prohibited around here]

Knock it off.

I've lost track over the years of the readers who have informed me that only they are ever asked to tone it down.

There must be a lot of confused folks out there. They can't all be the "only one".

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 11:43 AM

You haven't answered my question, ICBS. Is there any reason to house men and women separately?

Can't we just assume the men (and women) will "just control themselves"?

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 11:44 AM

So in other words, there is no reason to house men and women in separate quarters? Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 11:41 AM

We're not talking about housing men and women together. We're talking about housing "straight"** men who want to serve their country in the military with homo men who want to serve their country in the military.

** It has been said (somewhere - http://books.google.com/books?id=2XtWDhgljvkC&pg=PA1097&lpg=PA1097&dq=%22a+stiff+prick+has+no+conscience%22&source=bl&ots=S9XGxUR37P&sig=65QMmzFFiH53hQO8oKbcE4TQHw8&hl=en&ei=AXDtS9imEIuQsgP_2pTPDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22a%20stiff%20prick%20has%20no%20conscience%22&f=false) that "a stiff prick has no conscience", but for the purposes of this discussion we'll continue to distinguish between "straight men who want to serve their country in the military" with "homo men who want to serve their country in the military".

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 11:46 AM

Listen, you ****** [voluntarily self-censored because only ICBS’s insults are prohibited around here], I’m trying to address your points and you accuse me of ignorance and disinclination to learn. If you’ve got something to say on the subject, perhaps the discussion would be advanced if you’d answer questions posed to you at your request rather than dismissing them out of hand with a scornful personal attack …

Stop abusing poor IC here. HIs flagship, battleships, and destroyers have all gone into the bottomless depths of the oceanic debt pool of the Left.

Be Fair!

P.S.

Love the voluntary self-censorship. That'd get you a mocha coffee and a sliced neck from Islamic fascists, even though they are your allies.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 11:47 AM

Why are men and women housed separately ICBS?

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 11:47 AM

If the guys you knew there who "preferred meat over fish" were able to do and did the job they were supposed to do, your opposition to the repeal of the DADT policy and the repeal of the statutory prohibition that DADT was thought to mitigate neglects to address the reality you experienced with "your" homos [no offense meant; I'm just meaning to refer to the guys you knew who served admirably, etc.].

Once again, please stop referring to them as 'homos'. And I'll give one last swing at this before admitting to myself you don't really care what objections we have.

Under DADT, a gay man in the squad bay wasn't a problem because if he acted on his sexual impulses, he would be chaptered out of the Service. You might know he was gay, but he was not going to so much as flirt with you because doing so would bring the law down on his head. Without it, you will have men and women who do not want sexual advances from their own gender ON GUARD for it. In other words, EVERYTHING out of a gay servicemember's mouth, every word, every action will be viewed with the filter of "is s/he hitting on me?" This is GOING to add stress to an environment which is already stressful in and of itself. You have no idea what it is to live in close quarters with sixty other men day in and day out. Don't pretend you understand, you don't. I am telling you, from my personal experience, problems WILL occur. Problems that WILL affect unit readiness. Problems that WILL hurt unit cohesion.

And before you give me the tired old excuse "but men and women..." YES men and women do this. It's WHY they have separate housing. And there are regulations against the kinds of actions I'm talking about. And if you're stupid enough to believe it doesn't go on anyway between men and women anyway, I cannot help you. You're adding to the problem and not even providing the distance that separate housing allows. THERE WILL BE PROBLEMS! Do you understand yet?

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 11:53 AM

Why are men and women housed separately ICBS?

Because women are a victim class.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 11:55 AM

Knock it off.

ICBS is just trying to make a humorous editorial observation about how certain people who, ICBS will refrain from naming seem to get a pass when it comes to insulting others, e.g."

"I love it when the clueless tell the clued to get a clue"

"I don't read Straw Man Weekly myself"

"You are not the authority on what you think. ICBS is"

"In this enlightened age you'd think most people would know better"

"You're stuck in a Stupid Loop"

"you'd only preen at being the subject of the conversation"

"he himself does not hold himself to the standard that his claims need proof or testing"

Just sayin' ...

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 11:59 AM

"Under DADT, a gay man in the squad bay wasn't a problem because if he acted on his sexual impulses, he would be chaptered out of the Service. You might know he was gay, but he was not going to so much as flirt with you because doing so would bring the law down on his head. Without it, you will have men and women who do not want sexual advances from their own gender ON GUARD for it. In other words, EVERYTHING out of a gay servicemember's mouth, every word, every action will be viewed with the filter of 'is s/he hitting on me?' "

Are there not already prohibitions on soldiers hitting on each other? Is anybody proposing the elimination of those prohibitions?

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 12:02 PM

"Even though it is her blog we’re enjoying, it seems a bit disingenuous for The Blog Princess to throw “human behavior” into the discussion [“There is a basic truth here: laws that ignore human nature don't change human nature.” See http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2010/05/milbloggers_not.html Posted by Cassandra at May 13, 2010 01:03 PM] but for others to be scolded for attempting to discuss the same dynamic … curious sort of ROE …"

Try understanding rules of engagement first.

"Once again, please stop referring to them as 'homos'. "

Homer isn't a Homo!!!???

NOooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOO... UHHH no home?

Tune in the ICBS channel for all your news of utter conflagrations and conflations. It is your one true source. We decide what you report.

We decide what you report. Down from downtown, ICBS.

Just sayin’ …

No say, hose. Hoseiiiia. No SAY.

Self-censureship means no good say on the day. Self-censorship means less say or let's say what we don't want to say against Muslims by doing a Christian thing.

Thruu the Rwabbiit Hole we go, down the Looking Glass we shinnneEEEEEE, in a twinkle of a Solar Star! Such is the Left praise, as we are.

Such is the state of humanity as we shingle up the polar stars.

Hahahah. Oh, man. ICBS's fleet got sunk. Totally. Without mercy. The Russians set the survivors afloat until they survived NO MORE.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 12:03 PM

Repeating the question does not make it a valid question. Remember: we're not talking about housing men and women together.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 12:03 PM

At least, that's what Alice described.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 12:03 PM

Actually I don't think it's a good idea to house men and women together, Ymar.

I think MikeD nailed it here:

This is GOING to add stress to an environment which is already stressful in and of itself. You have no idea what it is to live in close quarters with sixty other men day in and day out. Don't pretend you understand, you don't.

Living in the barracks IS stressful. When I was in school I had a good friend who was a Sergeant. He had recently been divorced and had to move back into the barracks.

He hated it, and from his descriptions of the stuff that went on all the time that was not surprising. It's stressful enough living with that many folks as it is without the added complication of sexual attraction.

I don't think most civilians have any idea what life on a military base is like.

When I was 38 (hardly a spring chicken) I worked on base and went to school at night. I have never had so many men hit on me in my life. They used to make excuses to come sit in the office just to be around women. These are guys who were easily 20 years my junior.

In a normal environment they wouldn't look twice at a woman my age, but a military base is NOT a normal environment. You are looking at an unnaturally high concentration of very young, very fit men.

I'm female and I can testify to the effect being in fantastic shape has on your sex drive. For me, it goes through the roof and I'm not a man.

And there is no way to get away.

Finally ICBS, you act as though men are never raped or sexually harassed in the military. I can tell you that's not true. A neighbor of mine was arrested years ago for drugging young sailors and molesting them.

He always gave me the creeps and I didn't know why until some poor kid woke up to find this dude all over him.

Men don't tend to report abuse like that, and I feel more sorry for them than I do for women who are raped. A lot of them end up messed up for life.

There's a special place in hell for rapists. Or there should be.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 12:07 PM

ICBS is just trying to make a humorous editorial observation about how certain people who, ICBS will refrain from naming seem to get a pass when it comes to insulting others, e.g.

If this is their view of self-censorship, no wonder their allies incite bomb attacks from every side of the political spectrum. They just can't leave the bar without throwing a F U (to whom it may concern) over their shoulder, go out in style.

To whom it may concern, bitter bible clingers and gun nuts.

To whom it may concern, domestic terrorists.

To whom it may concern, stupid people that the government should terminate while on life support.

These people, on their high horses, telling us we should ketchup because we're too scared and weak in the eyes of Obama, then riding off in the sunset after poisoning the food and water, are typical of the Left. Of Arabs too.

Remember, IC isn't (SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH)

Mention any names now, ya here. He can man up if he wished to.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 12:08 PM

OK - the word is "homosexual".

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 12:09 PM

Actually I don't think it's a good idea to house men and women together, Ymar.

No,no, that wasn't what I said. That was what IC told me last night, when he said he could see the future of today.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 12:11 PM

When I was in school I had a good friend who was a Sergeant. He had recently been divorced and had to move back into the barracks.

sarcasm on I see that now you want to exclude divorced men and other emotionally fragile people from service sarcasm off

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 12:11 PM

No argument from me.

Nods. As expected of you. What's unexpected is all this false self-censorship stuff.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 12:13 PM

sarcasm on I see that now you want to exclude divorced men and other emotionally fragile people from service sarcasm off

hidey hoi.

Good negation of Cassandra, IC.

Keep working at it and you too can be worthy of serving in Obama's Inner Circle of character assassins.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 12:13 PM

This is GOING to add stress to an environment which is already stressful in and of itself. You have no idea what it is to live in close quarters with sixty other men day in and day out. Don't pretend you understand, you don't.

Keep stacking the pressure. Eventually the hated US institutional slavery and all its supporting pillars will crash.

Then we too will be elevated to power and influence!

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 12:16 PM

sarcasm on I see that now you want to exclude divorced men and other emotionally fragile people from service sarcasm off

Huh???

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 12:29 PM

First, I'm not going to let this pass:

"I don't read Straw Man Weekly myself"

You set up a Straw Man argument and I pointed it out. If that's "insulting" then you REALLY don't know what life in the military is like.

Are there not already prohibitions on soldiers hitting on each other? Is anybody proposing the elimination of those prohibitions?

NO! Good God, man. There's a REASON that soldiers are prohibited from flirting/dating/sexing up others in their immediate unit or chain of command. It's called "good order and discipline". It's bad enough trying to compete with 11-30 other highly motivated and driven men and women without having to worry about if PFC Snuffy got the promotion to SPC, or if SSG Gumby got picked as Squad Leader only because they're giving it up to the Platoon Sgt.

For crying out loud, if you don't understand THAT, then why you can't get what problems will be cause by housing hetero and homosexuals together isn't just clear... it's glaring. You don't have the slightest idea about the military, and yet feel qualified to tell us we're wrong about what we know.

And while you might want to say "we're not talking about men and women, we're talking about hetero and homosexual" as if that makes the argument go away, it misses the point. As it stands now, men and women have consensual and non-consensual relationships forbidden by regulation, and that's kept as low as possible by housing men and women separately, you're talking about allowing homosexuals to freely room with their sexually preferred gender (whether straight or gay is really immaterial). So it IS the same idea. If there will be zero harm allowing homosexuals to room with the gender of their desire, then it ought to be ok to allow heteros to. But you're not prepared to argue in favor of that. Why? You'd have to tell me. But I suspect it's because you know how ridiculous it sounds.

Posted by: MikeD at May 14, 2010 12:31 PM

If there will be zero harm allowing homosexuals to room with the gender of their desire, then it ought to be ok to allow heteros to. But you're not prepared to argue in favor of that. Why? You'd have to tell me. But I suspect it's because you know how ridiculous it sounds.

Bingo.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 14, 2010 12:37 PM

Persons other than ourselves will decide this, and we'll all deal with the consequences.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 12:40 PM

I wouldn't be too sure of that, MD.

IF IC did think it was too ridiculous, he would just use that omnipresent power of self-censorship of his.

Ic, your social skills are deficient. Now maybe you could blame this on the internet being an unfamiliar format, that nobody taught you the right from the wrong way of holding a knife in virtual conversations, but you don't even want to learn. Nor are there indications you are improving on your own.

Those are objectively bad results. You don't have to listen to us about how to improve yourself. But not improving yourself, while still telling us that you know best, starts to look more and more ridiculous as time goes on.

You don't even know, truly, what it is expected of you here by us or Cassandra. You are in a shared space and Cassandra, while holding a complex number of hats as proprietor, hostess, or participant, can have interlocking gears working. If you have a problem with what she said as a participant, don't escalate the problem by bringing in external elements such as her proprietary relationship with VC.

But that's not even most of the issue. Your problems aren't just with Cassandra, but almost everybody here. Almost everybody, in your lexicon of "self-censorship" rules that is.

You escalate the issue, whatever it may be. You make it personal. You treat this shared space as your personal space. You negate the thoughts and emotions of other people. You negate their life experiences, their important people, their pivotal and life changing events, and treat it as you would your own thoughts and emotions, to be felt or discarded at will.

Telling yourself that you are only "defending" yourself against "other people's insults" is evidence of your personal lack of control. You don't know where boundaries are so you aren't qualified to judge when people are in your space or not in your space, trespassing on your territory or simply standing on this shared space that only looks to you like your personal space. You don't have an adequate control over your own emotions to be able to tell any of us what we are doing right or wrong. And you certainly will never get there by conducting sarcastic comments or sideways and nebulous insinuations.

Self-discipline is the soul of the warrior. Because a warrior is a person first and foremost.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 12:42 PM

Persons other than ourselves will decide this, and we'll all deal with the consequences.

See? He did just that.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 12:43 PM

The King (Leftist-Aristocratic alliance of Those Born To Rule) commands and you obey.

You have nothing that was not given to you by the King. You owe everything you are to the King.

Your freedom, nay your very existence is his to command. You die at his command. You live at his command. You work and produce wealth and luxury for the King, at his command.

That is how it always will be under those who seek power and give nothing back except an IOU.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 12:47 PM

You all think "it" will be a problem for the reasons stated; I don't think it will be a problem for the reasons I have stated. I have not persuaded you to embrace my view; you have not persuaded me to embrace your view. I see that you think caution is in order; I think that it is not so much an issue of caution as it is a question of change and concern about the unknown or the imagined.

Posted by: I Call BS at May 14, 2010 01:04 PM

You all think "it" will be a problem for the reasons stated; I don't think it will be a problem for the reasons I have stated.

Incorrect.

The people here are re-stating the problem only for clarification. They already have solutions in mind or at least they have requirements that solutions would only work if it addresses specific things about a problem.

That is very different from your lackadaisical treatment of the subject as something that will "magically" be solved by the President or some other "Strong Man" authority.

Caution is different for different situations and problems. The Left was seen as reckless in the bailouts and further bailouts and nationalization (now doesn't that sound familiar) of industries.

Bush was said to be reckless, and not cautious, in 2002.

Don't talk about caution as if you know all sides of the situation here.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at May 14, 2010 01:20 PM