Again. Cowards.Yup. Lotta "buyer's remorse" going around this holiday -- and not over presents for the kids.
I'd still vote like I did in '08. I knew what I was getting too.
Yup. Lotta "buyer's remorse" going around this holiday -- and not over presents for the kids.
Meh. I voted for Obama in '08. Put the same two people in front of me and I'd do it again. Sure would be nice if we had more than two choices though...
|
Yup. Lotta "buyer's remorse" going around this holiday -- and not over presents for the kids.Meh. I voted for Obama in '08. Put the same two people in front of me and I'd do it again. Sure would be nice if we had more than two choices though...
We actually do. The press and "conventional wisdom" say we don't. Oh, and people who don't realize voting for "R" or "D" is the actual wasted vote.
We actually do. The press and "conventional wisdom" say we don't. Oh, and people who don't realize voting for "R" or "D" is the actual wasted vote.
I don't know -- the "all-or-nothing" nature of our government seems to reinforce a two-party system. I just don't see how a third party can hope to become viable. It's like the prisoner's dilemma -- unless you know what everyone else is doing (and you know you can trust them), then there is little incentive to go outside the two party system.
In short, I don't think it is as simple as you're suggesting.
Edit: In any event, I'm glad DADT is being put to rest.
|
|
We actually do. The press and "conventional wisdom" say we don't. Oh, and people who don't realize voting for "R" or "D" is the actual wasted vote.I don't know -- the "all-or-nothing" nature of our government seems to reinforce a two-party system. I just don't see how a third party can hope to become viable. It's like the prisoner's dilemma -- unless you know what everyone else is doing (and you know you can trust them), then there is little incentive to go outside the two party system.
In short, I don't think it is as simple as you're suggesting.
Edit: In any event, I'm glad DADT is being put to rest.
Re: the edit. Agreed 100%
Re: the rest. That's exactly what they want. Are you seriously telling me if we, next election, decided to only vote Green and Libertarian, Republicans and Democrats would still run everything? If we elected people with zero obligation to the huge lobbying groups the lobbying groups would still win?
Damn, not even I can be that cynical...
Edit: In short, I think it is exactly that simple. We, the voter, just have to agree not to get complacent and keep voting the bums out every few years.
Re: the edit. Agreed 100%
Re: the rest. That's exactly what they want. Are you seriously telling me if we, next election, decided to only vote Green and Libertarian, Republicans and Democrats would still run everything? If we elected people with zero obligation to the huge lobbying groups the lobbying groups would still win?
Damn, not even I can be that cynical...
Edit: In short, I think it is exactly that simple. We, the voter, just have to agree not to get complacent and keep voting the bums out every few years.
I'm saying that getting us to do anything collectively involves a whole lot of trust and communication that doesn't exist. So while what you suggest can happen in theory, in practice it is virtually impossible.
I'd love to be proven wrong one of these elections...
|
|
Re: the edit. Agreed 100%
Re: the rest. That's exactly what they want. Are you seriously telling me if we, next election, decided to only vote Green and Libertarian, Republicans and Democrats would still run everything? If we elected people with zero obligation to the huge lobbying groups the lobbying groups would still win?
Damn, not even I can be that cynical...
Edit: In short, I think it is exactly that simple. We, the voter, just have to agree not to get complacent and keep voting the bums out every few years.
I'm saying that getting us to do anything collectively involves a whole lot of trust and communication that doesn't exist. So while what you suggest can happen in theory, in practice it is virtually impossible.
I'd love to be proven wrong one of these elections...
Of course the trust and communication doesn't exist. The media and our "leaders" (I hate that term, they're supposed to be our servants) make sure we're divided into our intellectually bankrupt ideological camps, with our talking points and "absolute political truths" to keep us warm and ignorant at night.
|
this... I totally totally agree. I don't care to analyze them or whatever, I just think people deserve respect.BTW, that wasn't directed specifically at you...there was some chatter up thread about people not caring. Sorry if it came across that way.
np. I just wasn't sure if I'd clearly stated my point.
Damn straight. This administration's been full of antigay bigot eruptions and hasty attempts to look good by doing something easy after the fact.I am happy this was passed.
I am ashamed that the "party of tolerance" waited until they got their heads kicked in in the midterm elections and passed this when there was zero political bravery required, during a lame duck session.
This should have been done January '09.
Cowards.
+1
I think DADT is a great example of why political compromise is very over rated. It was really the worst of both worlds.
|
I agree, The law was put in place as much to protect gay soldiers as it was to maintain order with in the military, as 17 year ago the world was not ready for open gay soldiers and life would have been very bad for them, I think that the world is ready now. I don't think that the law was "Evil" just outdated. Not picking a fight just telling what I think.
The world is never ready for social progress. It wasn't ready for race integration in schools, It wasn't ready for letting blacks and minorities serve with equal status in the armed forces, and it wasn't ready for gays openly serving in the military.
Thing is if you wait to enact social progress for when the world is ready... it'll never happen.
I disagree, it'll happen in some areas, and slowly spread, the difference is that there'll be pocket areas of resistance that hold out, but that happens with laws too, it's just harder. The Klan didn't disappear the same night the equal rights amendment passed. Progress happens eventually, it just takes longer and with more human suffering when left to peoples own devices.
I disagree, it'll happen in some areas, and slowly spread, the difference is that there'll be pocket areas of resistance that hold out, but that happens with laws too, it's just harder. The Klan didn't disappear the same night the equal rights amendment passed. Progress happens eventually, it just takes longer and with more human suffering when left to peoples own devices.
I agree, The law was put in place as much to protect gay soldiers as it was to maintain order with in the military, as 17 year ago the world was not ready for open gay soldiers and life would have been very bad for them, I think that the world is ready now. I don't think that the law was "Evil" just outdated. Not picking a fight just telling what I think.
The world is never ready for social progress. It wasn't ready for race integration in schools, It wasn't ready for letting blacks and minorities serve with equal status in the armed forces, and it wasn't ready for gays openly serving in the military.
Thing is if you wait to enact social progress for when the world is ready... it'll never happen.
But the Klan didn't start to disappear until the equal rights amendment was passed.
|
|
But the Klan didn't start to disappear until the equal rights amendment was passed.I disagree, it'll happen in some areas, and slowly spread, the difference is that there'll be pocket areas of resistance that hold out, but that happens with laws too, it's just harder. The Klan didn't disappear the same night the equal rights amendment passed. Progress happens eventually, it just takes longer and with more human suffering when left to peoples own devices.
I agree, The law was put in place as much to protect gay soldiers as it was to maintain order with in the military, as 17 year ago the world was not ready for open gay soldiers and life would have been very bad for them, I think that the world is ready now. I don't think that the law was "Evil" just outdated. Not picking a fight just telling what I think.
The world is never ready for social progress. It wasn't ready for race integration in schools, It wasn't ready for letting blacks and minorities serve with equal status in the armed forces, and it wasn't ready for gays openly serving in the military.
Thing is if you wait to enact social progress for when the world is ready... it'll never happen.
The Equal Rights Amendment (which was never passed, by the way) isn't the 1964 Civil Right's Act.
Different other thing. ;-)
|
As someone who is openly bi and use to serve in the US army and still stays in touch with a lot of people in the military today. I seriously doubt the rank and file is going to care or notice. While supposedly it was don't ask don't tell. The reality was everyone knew their was gay, bi and lesbians and many people knew who they was. Mostly it was, don't be a idiot and keep it behind closed doors. Of course that is mostly true of hetro as well. The military doesn't want to see guys and girls making out in public either. So really amoung the rank and file there was very little difference.
Sure just like in civy life there are exceptions to the rule. Honestly the only real difference i see this having is. When caught they will be slapped with a article 15 instead of discharged, like straight people caught. (by caught I mean normally it means you was having sex somewhere you wasn't suppose to. which happens a hell of a lot more than the military would ever be willing to admit :) ))
|
|
As someone who is openly bi and use to serve in the US army and still stays in touch with a lot of people in the military today. I seriously doubt the rank and file is going to care or notice. While supposedly it was don't ask don't tell. The reality was everyone knew their was gay, bi and lesbians and many people knew who they was. Mostly it was, don't be a idiot and keep it behind closed doors. Of course that is mostly true of hetro as well. The military doesn't want to see guys and girls making out in public either. So really amoung the rank and file there was very little difference.
Sure just like in civy life there are exceptions to the rule. Honestly the only real difference i see this having is. When caught they will be slapped with a article 15 instead of discharged, like straight people caught. (by caught I mean normally it means you was having sex somewhere you wasn't suppose to. which happens a hell of a lot more than the military would ever be willing to admit :) ))
No joke. When I was in the Army, there were a couple of openly (more or less) gay dudes in our unit, and no one cared. The only time a situation arose was due to mixed signals, and the guy who was hit on basically just said "not interested, bro". No drama, no fuss, no muss.
Much ado about nothing for nearly 20 years now.
|
|
Seriously? That's 'worthwhile'? Hardly.
Dark_Mistress and houstonderek are are right. It's pretty much a none issue and always has been to everyone but people who want to use it for political purposes.
How is it not worthwhile to begin the process of granting equal rights to our fighting men and women? Yes it was usually a non-issue...but try telling that to the, what? 13,000? service members discharged under DADT. Should they get over it because it's usually not an issue?
Besides, the military is often at the forefront of social change, so I am looking forward with hope that this will "trickle down" to society as a whole.
OK, back from vacation. Interesting thread.
Background: I'm female and spent 26 years in the Army, both active and reserve. I can start collecting retirment pay next year...which should indicate my age. The first gay person I knew about to be aware of his orientation was my dad's cousin, who was in a 40-year committed relationship with his partner. My daughter's Scout leaders were lesbians. Basicly, I've never really cared about an individual's sexual orientation as long as they could take no for an answer.
I've also always thought the 'what if the guy in the foxhole with you was gay' argument to be dumb. If you're in a foxhole, that implys a battle, being shot at, and all that. If all the other person there with you can think of is coming on to you he/she has more issues than orientation.
I hope this change goes as smoothly as it's proponents want, but given the difficulties in integrating the military and in allowing woment to serve, I'm betting on problems. I hope I'm plesantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath. You're not dealing with ideals, you're dealing with people.
BTW, when I first signed up, a relative told me to be careful because 'only whores joined the Army'. It will work. It will take time.
|
|
Seriously? That's 'worthwhile'? Hardly.
Dark_Mistress and houstonderek are are right. It's pretty much a none issue and always has been to everyone but people who want to use it for political purposes.
How is it not worthwhile to begin the process of granting equal rights to our fighting men and women? Yes it was usually a non-issue...but try telling that to the, what? 13,000? service members discharged under DADT. Should they get over it because it's usually not an issue?
Besides, the military is often at the forefront of social change, so I am looking forward with hope that this will "trickle down" to society as a whole.
In this case, the military is pitifully behind the times, I'm afraid.
And the DADT repeal doesn't make being gay hunky dory, the military still has to change quite a few rules to be fully GLBT friendly.
It's a start, though.
In this case, the military is pitifully behind the times, I'm afraid.
And the DADT repeal doesn't make being gay hunky dory, the military still has to change quite a few rules to be fully GLBT friendly.
It's a start, though.
I bet the T part of that is still a good few years off. But getting GLB friendly is a good first step.
As someone who is openly bi and use to serve in the US army and still stays in touch with a lot of people in the military today. I seriously doubt the rank and file is going to care or notice. While supposedly it was don't ask don't tell. The reality was everyone knew their was gay, bi and lesbians and many people knew who they was. Mostly it was, don't be a idiot and keep it behind closed doors. Of course that is mostly true of hetro as well. The military doesn't want to see guys and girls making out in public either. So really amoung the rank and file there was very little difference.
Sure just like in civy life there are exceptions to the rule. Honestly the only real difference i see this having is. When caught they will be slapped with a article 15 instead of discharged, like straight people caught. (by caught I mean normally it means you was having sex somewhere you wasn't suppose to. which happens a hell of a lot more than the military would ever be willing to admit :) ))
Hey DM sounds like you served aboard MY ship during a med cruise or two.
We had one very young "lady" that was working her way through as many marines as possible during the 6 month deployment and she wasn't exactly discrete(she said it pays to advertise) anyway she and 7 marines all got caught in a fan room(small storage area for non-navy types) the guys all got booted out of the service after haveing to call their wives/girlfriends/parents and tell them why.She didn't get a write up in her record or even have to pull double watch.
Then on the same cruise we had two marines get caught in the shower together(can we say cliche) we had to get them off the ship ASAP befoe their fellow marines found out about it and decided to hurt/maime/kill them, and yes folks it really is that bad. There was alot of anger from the marines on my ship about the missed oportunity to do damage to those two guys.
My veiw on the repeal of DADT is that it will give those type of people the wakeup call that they can no longer do things like that and expect to get away with it. Some will try and there's going to be some false sexual harrasment allegations comeing i'm sure but at least the mindset will no longer be that if two "f+++" are caught they deserve a beat down or worse.
All of the above examples and experiances were based on MY time in service from 98-02 U.S.N.
The history of Negro serviceman in the Army might give cause to dissent from that assessement.
Besides, the military is often at the forefront of social change,
Except the military begin integrating blacks with little issue at least 15 years before the civil rights movement. Some problems did crop up during the civil rights movement, but those were civilian issues that spilled over into the military.
Before the late 1940s, is a different matter.
|
|
The history of Negro serviceman in the Army might give cause to dissent from that assessement.
Besides, the military is often at the forefront of social change,
Except the military begin integrating blacks with little issue at least 15 years before the civil rights movement. Some problems did crop up during the civil rights movement, but those were civilian issues that spilled over into the military.
Before the late 1940s, is a different matter.
Well, the civil rights movement started in earnest by the early 50s, so by a few years, at least.
|
|
stuff
No I was Army. I am sure most branches are the same with people having sex everywhere they can. I mean really what do you expect. Put a lot of young teen to mid twenty men and women together. Keep them all in good shape mostly stuck on base and of course they are going to hook up with each other. All I know is a M1 Abrams tank is not nearly as roomy as you would think by the size of the thing. :)
|
|
stuffNo I was Army. I am sure most branches are the same with people having sex everywhere they can. I mean really what do you expect. Put a lot of young teen to mid twenty men and women together. Keep them all in good shape mostly stuck on base and of course they are going to hook up with each other. All I know is a M1 Abrams tank is not nearly as roomy as you would think by the size of the thing. :)
Yeah, the M113 is better for that ;-)
(I was in the motor pool, if you ever want the complete vehicle comfort breakdown...)
I bet the T part of that is still a good few years off. But getting GLB friendly is a good first step.In this case, the military is pitifully behind the times, I'm afraid.
And the DADT repeal doesn't make being gay hunky dory, the military still has to change quite a few rules to be fully GLBT friendly.
It's a start, though.
Canada's working on it: (Canadian) National Post: "Dress rules established for transsexuals in military"