Is Chuck Hagel About To Go The Way of Susan Rice?

December 23, 2012

Hagel Steve Clemons Hauser.JPGThe Atlantic had an Op Ed saying Chuck won’t fuck with the gays in the military. The wagons are circling. A sense a vulnerability. Getting Hagel in could be Obama’s dream cuz he pulls in the Ron Paul people. Sadly I think not only are these people a threat, they are also a threat to themselves. Obama wants intervention in Syria. Where does Hagel fit in here? Is he closer to the Shia or the Sunni? It is almost like the far right have their hand out to the Shia and Obama of course we know where he stands with the Sunni. To bring Hagel in would consolidate loyalties, but I’m not even sure Obama wants to be loyal to Iran because he’s loyal to the Sunni. This is a complicated dynamic. I’ve thought so badly of Obama for so long that it never occurred to me that he might not want Hagel very much either. Where did this slip of Hagel being a homophobe come from? The NYTimes? hmmmm…. my theory says Obama is backstabbing his own nominee. I think Obama wants to look like he is sharing power and then take it away. Yes,,, that is exactly what I think.

(Daniel Greenfield)Rice’s goose wasn’t cooked until liberals began attacking her over Keystone and Africa. There are now signs that Hagel is coming under fire from liberals as well.

Daily Kos is taking a shot at Hagel over environmental issues, which have ridiculously become a big part of the Pentagon under Obama Inc. And the New York Times is taking a shot at him over gay rights, which under Obama Inc, is ridiculously also a big part of what the Pentagon does now.
Hagel can and will quickly backpedal on global warming and gay rights. It’s certainly easier for him to do this than it was for Rice to undo everything that she had done wrong in Africa. But the liberal attacks are a symptom of what may be the growing conflict between liberals and Obama.
Approaching the 2012 election, Obama began insincerely throwing out a grab bag of party favors to liberals, including gay rights and an executive amnesty for Mexican illegal aliens, but the left intends to make sure that they extract maximum value from O’s second term and that means repeated confrontations that are meant to push him to the left while challenging the orthodoxy of his nominees.
The choice of Hagel was a strange one to begin with. Bringing in Hagel three years ago would have been a clever way to provide cover for an Iraq withdrawal with a Republican anti-war senator. Bringing him in now is mostly useless. Gay rights has been shoved into the military. Iraq is done. Afghanistan is coming up but not much political cover is needed for a war that most people think should end.
Romney hardly attacked Obama on foreign policy, aside from Israel, and that’s where Hagel has the worst possible record. There really is no benefit to a Hagel nomination without a pro-war and anti-war debate in the country. Indeed Obama these days is pushing his own “clean” wars that Republicans rarely dissent from.
Hagel is anti-military and favors major defense cuts, so bringing him to do the dirty work has some utility, but it’s not clear that anyone cares. Republicans have barely made it an issue. Romney failed to defend the military against Tricare health care cuts, which would have been a smart issue to jump on. Most Americans do oppose major defense cuts, but they had the chance to vote against that in November. And it’s not about to stop Obama. Nor does Obama have any further reason to care what the voters who stayed home or foolishly swung over to him, but are nevertheless pro-military, think.
Liberals naturally want one of their own in there. Why waste a major portfolio on a former Republican with a droopy face whose useful expired in 2007?
The second term is usually the spoils of war term. It’s the circular firing squads term. And the Republican collapse has made liberals even more eager to fight over the spoils. They don’t see any point in sharing them with Chuck Hagel.

We sometimes don’t give Obama enough credit. I don’t like him, but he got reelected by playing the game like a master. I really think he is sabotaging his own candidate.


Navy Would Allow Gay Weddings On Base

May 10, 2011
NavyTimes.com:

Once the military’s ban on gays serving openly is lifted, Navy chaplains will be permitted to officiate at same-sex marriage and civil union ceremonies on base, according to an April 13 memorandum from the Navy’s head chaplain.


“Consistent with the tenets of his or her religious organization, a chaplain may officiate a same-sex, civil marriage: if it is conducted in accordance with a state that permits same-sex marriage or union; and if that chaplain is, according to the applicable state and local laws, otherwise fully certified to officiate that state’s marriages,” the memo signed by Chief of Chaplains Rear Adm. Mark Tidd states. The memorandum, designed to update chaplains’ training guidance for the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning openly gay members from serving, was posted by the conservative website Media Research Center.


n addition, the memo states that “if the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then base facilities may normally be used to celebrate the marriage. This is true for purely religious services (e.g., a chaplain blessing a union) or a traditional wedding (e.g., a chaplain both blessing and conducting the ceremony).”


Navy spokeswoman Lt. Alana Garas said that the new policy guidance was a revision to the repeal training and emphasized that no chaplains will be required to officiate at same-sex messages, if that conflicts with their faith.


The Plot to Destroy the US Military

March 21, 2011

The USS Enterprise crackdown, like the firing of General McChrystal and the push to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, completely ignore military realities for political objectives. A political military is also a useless military. Stalin’s purges of the Russian Army’s commanders left the Soviet Union completely unprepared for the Nazi attack. And the US military is being shaped along the same lines into a political military overseen by men whose chief credential is that they share the same politics as the politicians whom they serve.
A congressional report now says that the US military has too many white males at the top. Women are being kept out of the highest ranks because they lack combat experience. The report calls on the military leadership to “better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix of American society”. Which is code for affirmative action. If we didn’t have enough incompetents at the top, we can look forward to an affirmative action military in which the generals will be there because of the color of their skin or their gender, not because they’re the best at what they do.
…Such dramatic overhauls of the military usually take place because it is culturally out of step with the government. Would be tyrants, such as Turkey’s Erdogan, go after the military because it represents a barrier to absolute power. Others because the military is a barrier to their agenda. Sharon destroyed the once great IDF, purging its commanders and replacing them with political generals in order to push through his ethnic cleansing of the Jewish communities in Gaza, leading to the disastrous performance in the Second Lebanon War. The Democrats may not have anything as ambitious in mind, but they are determined to bring it culturally into line with their agenda. And that will destroy the military as anything other than a politically correct corps that will occasionally show up for UN peacekeeping missions. This did not begin yesterday. The left has hated the American military because it is a vehicle of national exceptional-ism. A strong military gives the country a sense of independence and confidence that many European countries have lost. During the Vietnam War, the Anti-War movement targeted the military as an institution and the soldier as an individual, in order to destroy America’s ability to take independent military action. Despite the abolition of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the left has continued its vocal opposition to an ROTC presence on campus. When a wounded Iraq War veteran spoke at Columbia, he was booed and jeered. Their excuse is that the military “discriminates” against transsexuals. And when that barrier too is dismantled, then there will be something else. It’s not about gays or transsexuals, it’s about a deep rooted ideological hostility to the military. Not because of any specific policy, but because of what it represents as the defenders of a country and an order that the left would like to see destroyed.


Sorry Ladies, Not This Time

March 4, 2011


To put it more succinctly, not NO, but HELL NO!
I was ambivalent on the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell debate because quite frankly I have a great deal of confidence in the average military service member to deal with any agent provocateurs that would infiltrate in an attempt to garner some headlines and be a martyr to the gay/lesbian community, but allowing women to be in front line Infantry units is not only a bad idea it is a deadly one.
Infantrymen are the pointy end of the sword. I was one for 20+ years so it is something I can speak on with fairly certain amount of expertise. We refer to ourselves as bomb dodgers and bullet stoppers. In the words of one senior NCO I had somewhere during my career, he stated that fully 95% of all weapons and tactics designed by man were developed with one intent. That is to maim or kill the Infantryman. The other 5% that were not specifically designed for that purpose could be quickly modified to do so.
Being an Infantryman comes along with a certain amount of unique characteristics. These are not only physical, but mental and sociological. Yes, the Infantry is the largest collection of good ol boys you will ever find, but that is exactly what molds them into the most effective force. When you throw females into the equation that delicate balance is upset, and anything which upsets that balance leads to greater chance of injury and death for all. Surviving as an Infantryman even when nobody is shooting at you requires a great deal of effort.
A lot people will go on and on about the physical issue, which is very real and regardless of what a bunch of eggheads want to theorize about, it is immutable and undeniable, but beyond that there is thing called trust. Trust is the one intangible that receives very little attention, but without it no front line fighting force can function effectively.
Trust is a reason I was ambivalent on the DADT question. I knew gays in the military, and while they were not in Infantry units my contact came through the medics assigned to accompany us. I could have cared two flips less that you were gay as long as two truths remained. You could patch me up or get me to safety should something happen and you didn’t go around dressed in drag propositioning me or my men. In other words I could count on you to do your job and all that I had contact with could and did. If they didn’t they would not have been around my unit very long.
Women are a completely different story. Infantrymen are macho, testosterone laden, Alpha males complete with an entire set of codes related to ensuring the safety and protection of the weaker sex. In addition to adding to their list of worries about bombs and bullets you now want to add the stress of protecting what used to be known as the kinder and gentler sex? Care to guess what happens when a couple of Alpha males wish to curry favor from the same female? I haven’t even come close to what happens when the rumor mill goes into overdrive concerning what Johnny and Jill are doing.
I can tell you a long litany of anecdotal stories related to when units I commanded came into close proximity of women while in field environments and the often negative effects this had on the unit cohesion, but the talking heads would say that these social behaviors can be modified over time. Gentlemen and ladies , who argue for this approach I would put this forth as an argument. Time is not an ally.
For much of my career, while stationed stateside I was part of what was then known as the Rapid Deployment Force. It’s mission was to have boots on the ground anywhere in the known world within 96 hours. Do you think your high minded social experiment will be ready for deployment in 96 hours?
Oh no. Before any of you elitist social engineering snobs want to go tinkering with the front line unit dynamics I would suggest you spend about 30 days with them out in Injun country far removed from anything approaching civilization. If you want to destroy the greatest military in existence you just go ahead and allow women to join the Infantry.


Context, Fairness, and Gays

June 8, 2010

When it comes to issues like “don’t ask, don’t tell,” part of the problem is missing context. As Robert Knight notes, the moral case against homosexuality is part of a broader sexual ethic. But upholding that traditional sexual morality implicates the behavior of a lot of heterosexuals, so it is easier to single out homosexuals. By singling out gays, however, it offends a lot of people’s sense of fairness.
Consider don’t ask, don’t tell. I believe the strongest argument against allowing homosexuals to serve in the military is it is simply a bad idea to introduce sexual tension into the armed forces (John Guardiano goes through some of the reasons why this is a bad idea). But we already let women serve, though we don’t yet let them bunk with men. The ban on gays in the military makes sense as part of a broader effort to uphold a martial culture. But if that culture is already being undermined, is there still value in singling gays out?

with the age of sexual hysteria and lawsuits I’m not sure why the military is tolerating sexuality interactions at all.


Will Allowing Gays in the Military Really Impair Unit Cohesion? The Relevance of Allies’ Experience

February 10, 2010

After reading Foucault’s analysis it is his presumption that many Greek soliders were gay almost by a rule, and not by acceptance. Does this mean that we should assume that this would work in an American military? Maybe in a gay cultured small band of men who were intimate in more then one way it might work. This logic fails when we apply it to one of the largest militaries in the world in the same way that we think we could apply one military culture to another military culture. That of course depends on if one accepts that any of these studies you mention on this When a gay military has no effect on the troops I assure you the men in the military will be telling you this. Till then don’t assume that any outside data is not pressured.

a response to the following:

In my view, the strongest argument against President Obama’s proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the military is the claim that it will somehow impair unit cohesion. Yet as columnist Steve Chapman points out, several of our allies allow gays to serve openly with no such ill effects:

It’s not completely implausible that in a military environment, open homosexuality might wreak havoc on order and morale. But the striking thing about these claims is that they exist in a fact-free zone. From all the dire predictions, you would think a lifting of the ban would be an unprecedented leap into the dark, orchestrated by people who know nothing of the demands of military life.

As it happens, we now have a wealth of experience on which to evaluate the policy….

A couple of dozen countries already allow gays in uniform—including allies that have fought alongside our troops, such as Britain, Canada, and Australia. Just as there is plenty of opposition in the U.S. ranks, there was plenty of opposition when they changed their policies.

In Canada, 45 percent of service members said they would not work with gay colleagues, and a majority of British soldiers and sailors rejected the idea. There were warnings that hordes of military personnel would quit and promising youngsters would refuse to enlist.

But when the new day arrived, it turned out to be a big, fat non-event. The Canadian government reported “no effect.” The British government observed “a marked lack of reaction.” An Australian veterans group that opposed admitting gays later admitted that the services “have not had a lot of difficulty in this area.”

Israel, being small, surrounded by hostile powers, and obsessed with security, can’t afford to jeopardize its military strength for the sake of prissy ventures in political correctness. But its military not only accepts gays, it provides benefits to their same-sex partners, as it does with spouses. Has that policy sapped Israel’s military might?

The Australian, British, Canadian, and Israeli armed forces are all among the best in the world. If they allow gays to serve openly with no ill effects, that strongly suggests that the US can as well.

I have not followed the literature on this subject in detail. So it’s possible that there is a body of data somewhere showing that these nations’ military capability really has been impaired in some way by allowing gays to serve. I highly doubt it, but I lack the knowledge and expertise to be sure.

One could also argue that the US armed forces are so different from those of these other countries that their experience is irrelevant. Given the quality of these armies and the fact that all of them rely heavily on US-style weapons, organization, and military doctrine, I’m skeptical of that claim too.

It may be that US troops are much more homophobic than those of these other countries, and therefore won’t effectively serve with gays. That too seems a dubious argument. An April 2009 poll showed that 50% of survey respondents in military households support letting gays serve openly, with 43% opposed; 56% reject the view that allowing gays to serve openly would be “divisive.” That suggests that homophobia in the military is far from universal. As Chapman points out, there was no outcry by servicemembers or decline in unit cohesion when the ban on openly gay troops was temporarily lifted during the 1991 Gulf War. Attitudes towards gays are considerably more favorable today, which makes problems even less likely.

To my mind, opponents of allowing gays to serve openly in the military need to show that the ill effects they predict have actually occurred in these other countries. If they can’t, they should support the idea of allowing the armed forces to choose the best available recruits regardless of sexual orientation.

Since when has this blog become so enthusiastic about science and data that we would decide that data could not be obscured? Was Al Gore’s data real science? Surely you know that a biased experiment is possible by controlling the axioms? The problem with science is one creates the testing axioms. judging merely by skill you create a bubble that ignores a correlative of the environment of the subject. Do we really know yet what the setup of the experiment you claim is? given the right setup one could say that pornography causes violence to women. That is what the feminists were saying for two decades. it was hogwash. I’ve gone over the studies. science works within the context of it’s controls. The studies on porn were concluding as to what was angering people. The data was completely irrelevant to the study. Here is some more information on the flawed http://xrl.us/porn studies that the feminists sold to the mainstream

Given Science the progressives have pushed an agenda that is hateful of heterosexual men and spent most of the last half century pushing drugs like Ritalin on young boys who were merely different then their femme counterparts. Could this not just be more of the same Blue State hatred that has destroyed society and has led America to decline?

We idolize Asia’s strong educational ethos, but seem to fear Asia’s strong cultural patriarchal view of the family. Strong traditional Jewish values were patriarchal too. I’m not saying that we should turn the world upside down for anyone, but the gender revolution and the ability to create innovators seem to be running parallel. Femmes have strengths. their emotional quotient gets work in the modern world, why are we still doing this to men? more on this argument here http://xrl.us/feminists

My personal take is that, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is a disaster. I differ with Sarah Palin who pardon my French doesn’t have any balls to say the reality that sexuality in the military doesn’t mix. does anyone remember Abu Gharaib? the social left condemns Abu Gharaib, but was not that a homosexual act in the military? Nothing like that ever surfaced before and photography is one hundred years old. this is mass sexual hysteria. It isn’t like Gay people are financially burdened as an segment group either. It is the straight men that really need the military for financial reasons… not that affirmative action should lead decisions, but still considering the amount of meat and potatoes guys out of work, this is unfair. just because there are gay men in the military already doing well for themselves doesn’t mean they are not hurting people around them. Funny the way everyone is so keen on diversity and tolerance, but you can’t respect difference until you understand what different is. I love gay people. I respect them as well. I want to see them do well, but I don’t want to be naked in the same shower with them. women don’t want men looking at them naked, but most ladies in the Blue States are trying to force gay men into the military. It is wrong. The military is a team effort. being able to shoot a gun well is not as important as contribution to the team. No skill is as important as the team. the team gets demoralized by sexuality. In the end… it comes down to the majority of the military to decide. they are the ones to sacrifice their lives and they should be honest with what they want and what they are thinking about. Perhaps it is better to allow the military to do what was working before they became sexually confused. we used to win wars with the good old boys.

The ladies on the View said that the boys in the military want this.

I’m wondering what stat leads “The View” to the idea that the military wants this? Shouldn’t they at least reference this information for the rest of us who don’t have an inside track of what is going on? They just made this up and expect us to all nod our head and agree. forget the politics here and just think about what kind of shoddy information is being distributed here. it isn’t just an oops moment. They just spoke for all of the armed service men. the best analysis on sexuality to this day still remains in Freud’s pen because he never had the presumption to control the experiment like Gloria Steinem’s friends do. He merely wrote down the experience and that is why Freud is still useful today. It is why Freud is still talked about… even when he is wrong. These people on this TV show think their “VIEW” is their opinion. Your “VIEW” starts with what you see, not how you interpret what you saw.

the APA said there is no GAY GENE. indeed there is no nature, only nurture when it comes to a person’s unobjective biological activities. that means people aren’t born gay according to either one of the largest if not the biggest psychological association. assuming demons based on behavior would take away the free will argument that the social left is doing anyway. social liberals and superstitious nuts have so much in common. The cultural opinion of an organization rarely has any influence on my opinion, but the depth of their study is impressive. perhaps if the gay community were more objective then midevil freaks it might help us improve their condition. as offensive as this ritual might seem it pales in how it disgusts me to see the hypocrisy of those that believe that gay men are born that way and fail to apply the standard of judgment towards everyone else. would it seem fair to many of the readers here if I were to say women are born more likely to nurture? it is fair to me, but I suppose my values aren’t punitive. my take is that there are many causes that lead to a person’s taste. I would rule out Demons and Gloria Steinem however and would not ask any government to set any government contracts like marriage based on such arbitrary abuse. I ask the same behavior for the military. Let the soldiers decide what they want and stop pushing one survey. There are some huge egos involved in this and they have proven in the past to not be taking accurate surveys.

Volohh continues on the next post….

I thought I’d ask again what I brought up a few years: How can the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — or for that matter, any similar exclusion policy — be justified as to lesbians? As I understand it, the main argument in favor of such a policy for male homosexuals is that in all-male or nearly-all-male combat units the possibility of sexual tension may undermine unit effectiveness. I’m skeptical about this argument, but it at least seems plausible.

Yet that doesn’t seem to apply to lesbians, since presumably they would very rarely be serving in all-female units, and never in all-female combat units. Moreover, even if we set aside antidiscrimination arguments and focus solely on military effectiveness (which may or may not be the right approach, but let’s use it here), it seems lesbians would tend to make better soldiers than straight women:

  1. They are less likely to get pregnant.
  2. They seem less likely to get sexually transmitted diseases.
  3. If the stereotypes about lesbians tending to act in more masculine ways are generally accurate — hard to tell, for obvious measurement reasons, but that seems to be the conventional wisdom — then that cuts further in favor of lesbians as opposed to straight women. Many women may well make great soldiers, but if we’re speaking about generalities, and the military policy is generally defended using generalizations, I’m happy to at least tentatively assume (as I suspect would the military) that stereotypically masculine traits and attitudes tend to be more useful for soldiering than stereotypically feminine ones.

Is it just that the military fears that straight soldiers will so dislike lesbians that this itself would cause morale problems? I guess that just doesn’t strike me as that factually plausible.

Is it that the military wants to treat male and female homosexuals equally, for fairness or public relations reasons? That seems odd: Can it really be that discriminating against homosexuals is just fine, discriminating against women (as the military long has done, and still in considerable measure does) is just fine, but discriminating based on sex among homosexuals is wrong, even when there’s a perfectly sensible argument for such discrimination?

Is it that the worry is that having lesbians using communal shower facilities with other women would make the women uncomfortable, because the straight women would be worried about being ogled by the lesbians? I suppose that’s possible, but isn’t that a pretty minor concern, especially given the broad surrender of privacy that is expected in the military?

immediate note by me—-> I know many women who don’t like being oggled by lesbians. In the same respect I don’t like gay men doing it to me in the locker room.

Or is there something else I’m missing here? By the way, an AP story published by Stars & Stripes in 2009 reports that “Women accounted for 15 percent of all active-duty and reserve members of the military but more than one-third of the 619 people discharged last year because of their sexual orientation. The disparity was particularly striking in the Air Force, where women represented 20 percent of all personnel but 61 percent of those expelled.”

REQUEST: Could you please focus the discussion in the comments on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as applied to lesbians, and set aside the unit cohesion arguments related to male homosexuals? Those unit cohesion arguments could be commented on in the comments accompanying Ilya’s “Unit Cohesion” post.

Frank Drackman says:

In my experience 99.999999999% of Female Marines were lesbians, at least thats what 99.9999999999% of the ones I hit on said…

Jon says:

I’m the executive officer of a mixed gender battalion in Iraq and have two observations; first, that lesbianism seems to be far more of an “open secret” and accepted than male homosexuality, and second, that there seem to be more instances of physical fights between lesbians than between men in the unit. This may be entirely coincidental and unrelated to DADT. I do wonder, though, if the dynamic would be different without DADT.

Noah David Simon says:

I wouldn’t want to fight with women either. Straight ones. ….and I really don’t get where you are going with this. I can’t think how many times I nearly got my ass beat down by jealous lesbians on the NYC subways because I was looking at them. Bad for morale for certain.

…and I would agree with some of the commenters above like Jon. Lesbians are more likely in my opinion to be Bisexual then their male counterparts.

Honestly I would have no problem having gays in the military (just like women). In fact I think having a better communicating sex or personality would be a positive thing. The military needs the best PR in the world and if it is good for Madison Ave then it is good for the soldiers that have to sell their occupation every day.

…but the soldiers out with their guns fighting the war should be straight guys.

I would like to point out the obvious flaw in the Volokh comparison to the Israeli military. I have read in several studies in the South Pacific that societies that are small and intimate are more likely to accept Gays into their culture. Perhaps Israel reflects this dynamic. When a society is intimate then differences like sexual tensions are accounted for by the intimacy of close family. I posted the link to that story below:

Gay men’s evolutionary advantage: being ‘super uncles’ – http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2523199 via Kittybergers http://ff.im/fvqn6

I don’t agree with the article’s findings which makes the argument that being Gay is a born trait in conflict with the APA findings, but much in line with some of the rhetoric being pushed by our media and is reflected in our culture obviously: Majority supports gays in U.S. military: poll http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2547240 via Kittyburgers http://ff.im/fK759 ,but the study is interesting in that they found that smaller numbers causes acceptance. Differences are always workable when people become intimate with those that are different. We begin to respect each other and our boundaries better then those that are exactly like us.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck Supports Gays in the Military

February 10, 2010

Airhead faux-conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck of ABC’s anti-male hag-fest, “The View,” isn’t just about outing Federal Air Marshals to Islamic terrorists. She also supports allowing gays to be out in the open in the U.S. military, because–she claims–it’s all about their ability to “be free.” See the video below and see how many times she and fellow ditz Meghan McCain use the word “like” (hint: so many times, it could be a great drinking game). She’s for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which would be a big mistake.

Um, no, our military is about defending our country, not about gays’ ability to be free inside a military organization. It’s about keeping the rest of us free. There are many freedoms soldiers give up to serve. And not allowing free and open homosexuality in the military is about the cohesion of the unit. It’s the same issue with women in the military, especially in places like ships, where whole ships of military chicks need to be sent home at taxpayer expense because they end up pregnant. Straight men in the military don’t wanna be sleeping next to guys who wanna sleep with them. But the thought hasn’t occurred to Ms. Vacant. Nor thought, period.

What you do in your bed and behind closed doors is your business. But what you do in tight quarters on the taxpayer dole with everyone watching isn’t. It’s not just everyone’s biz, it’s a national security issue. Bret Stephens has a great column in today’s Wall Street Journal about gays in the military and responds to many argument the libs put forth. At the same time, he also discusses how it hasn’t hampered the Israeli Defense Forces to have openly gay soldiers. (But we’re not Israel, even if both are liberal western democracies.) It’s a pretty good analysis, even if I don’t agree with all of it.

I’m wondering what stat leads “The View” to the idea that the military wants this? Shouldn’t they at least reference this information for the rest of us who don’t have an inside track of what is going on? They just made this up and expect us to all nod our head and agree. forget the politics here and just think about what kind of shoddy information is being distributed here. it isn’t just an oops moment. They just spoke for all of the armed service men. the best analysis on sexuality to this day still remains in Freud’s pen because he never had the presumption to control the experiment like Gloria Steinem’s friends do. he merely wrote down the experience and that is why Freud is still useful today. it is why Freud is still talked about… even when he is wrong. These people on this TV show think their “VIEW” is their opinion. Your “VIEW” starts with what you see, not how you interpret what you saw. My personal take is that, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is a disaster. I differ with Sarah Palin who pardon my French doesn’t have any balls to say the reality that sexuality in the military doesn’t mix. does anyone remember Abu Gharaib? the social left condemns Abu Gharaib, but was not that a homosexual act in the military? Nothing like that ever surfaced before and photography is one hundred years old. this is mass sexual hysteria. It isn’t like Gay people are financially burdened as an segment group either. It is the straight men that really need the military for financial reasons… not that affirmative action should lead decisions, but still considering the amount of meat and potatoes guys out of work, this is unfair. just because there are gay men in the military already doing well for themselves doesn’t mean they are not hurting people around them. Funny the way everyone is so keen on diversity and tolerance, but you can’t respect difference until you understand what different is. I love gay people. I respect them as well. I want to see them do well, but I don’t want to be naked in the same shower with them. women don’t want men looking at them naked, but most ladies in the Blue States are trying to force gay men into the military. It is so wrong. The military is a team effort. being able to shoot a gun well is not as important as contribution to the team. No skill is as important as the team. the team gets demoralized by sexuality. In the end… it comes down to the majority of the military to decide. they are the ones to sacrifice their lives and they should be honest with what they want and what they are thinking about. Perhaps it is better to allow the military to do what was working before they became sexually confused. we used to win wars with the good old boys.