Confederate Yankee
December 25, 2010
Christmas Reflections
The greatest blessing of Christmas is giving; giving to those you love, to your community, to those whose lives you might touch in ways you can’t possibly imagine. We often forget that something as fleeting as a smile can make all the difference to those upon whom we bestow it.
One of the ways I give is through music. I’m a classically trained singer, a professional singer...but not really. I often sing on a professional level, yet I don’t make my living by singing--relatively few singers do that--but I’m sometimes paid for my talents which, after decades of training and practice, is satisfying. I write these observations after three Christmas Eve services at the wonderful church that employs me to sing, a church modeled after English country churches, wrought of stone and wood, with stone floors, high, vaulted ceilings and a cruciform shape.
As I sat there, in that beautiful building that reflects the hopes, labors, devotion and dreams of many generations, and sang in each service, I had occasion to reflect. Here are a few things that occurred to me:
One of our highest aspirations should be to be a part of something greater than ourselves.
It is often the simplest, daily blessings we take for granted, things like waking up next to our spouse; it is these many small blessings that make up our lives.
Too seldom do we tell those who enrich our lives that they do. Thanks, Bob and Brigid. You enrich my life and I’m proud to be your colleague and friend. It's a shame my first name doesn't begin with a "B."
We too often take for granted the almost miraculous technologies that make our work and lives more productive. I learned to type on a manual typewriter and didn’t own a personal computer until the late 1980’s. My first cell phone came in a package the size of a large Bible and was out of range of a cell tower at least as often as it was in. We live in a time of magic.
We also need to keep such little bits of magic from isolating us. Human communication is best done face to face.
We need to listen to our loved ones; really listen to what they want to tell us. William Shakespeare said it best: “Man, proud man. Dress’d in a little brief authority” (Measure For Measure). Our time is short, and tomorrow is never guaranteed.
We need to tell our loved ones that we love them at least once every day; we need to mean it, deeply, truly and sincerely, for them, but particularly for us.
We need to believe that America is truly unique, and that Americans are--by any measure--the most generous, caring people on Earth. We also need to know that America is more than worth defending and that a people who do not understand and value the majesty of the Constitution and the blessings of liberty are doomed to lose both.
I need to thank our readers for their time, attention, comments and suggestions, and hope that what I do is useful to them.
But above all, we need to pray that we may become useful servants of God. I suspect there is no higher calling, no matter our profession.
But above all, on this, of all days, we need to remember that our Christmas can be Merry because of a sacrifice on a lonely hill, more than two millennia ago. There lies true hope, hope that can be realized not through fallible, transient government, but from the kind of change that occurs within an open, willing heart. Merry Christmas!
Posted by: MikeM at
03:35 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
God bless you this wonderous time.
To add a great view of giving...
The greatest gift for us to give is thankful praise for the gift given to us by Him. His Son.
Posted by: Tom Moeller at December 26, 2010 11:40 PM (Uq6g4)
2
I'm a brand new reader, and I think I'll be coming back for more. That was beautifully said; I need to go upstairs and give my wife and kids some hugs.
Grace & Peace,
Hank H.
Posted by: Hank H. at December 29, 2010 12:24 AM (91n0C)
3
Dear Hank H:
Thanks, and welcome! We're glad to have you.
Mike
Posted by: mikemc at December 29, 2010 02:28 PM (p5kd7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 24, 2010
Merry Christmas
It's Christmas Eve already?
Somehow the holiday season always seems to sneak up on me like a cat in the night. We typically host a Christmas Eve party, then have Christmas with the kids here, commute to my parents to have Christmas lunch with my brothers and their families, and then drive back to my in-laws for Christmas dinner and my father-in-law's birthday (he's a Christmas baby). At least that is what we do most years.
This year we're dealing with earaches, sinus infections, the flu, bronchitis, and other maladies throughout out extended family, so we're keeping it very low-key and staying home for Christmas. We'll miss the family fellowship, but will have a little less stress and time to heal.
Despite the illnesses, I have much to be thankful for this holiday season. I work for a wonderful company and with intelligent, friendly people.
I have two wonderful co-bloggers that have joined me here at
Confederate Yankee that are very gifted writers and just good people who give of themselves in everything they do, in writing and in their chosen professions.
I have wonderful support at Pajamas Media, have had a low-key but successful debut of my gun blog, and offers to expand my writing to other publications in the New Year.
And of course, I have a wonderful, beautiful woman at my side who isn't just my wife, but who is my best and dearest friend and who has provided me with two wonderful, miraculous daughters.
I am truly blessed by God, and so it is always important to me to remember the reason for the season isn't crass commercialism, but the celebration of birth of Jesus Christ in a stable in Bethlehem more than 2000 years ago. My older daughter, a very thoughtful and introspective 10-year-old, suggested that we start a new Christmas tradition tomorrow morning, by singing "Happy Birthday" as we place baby Jesus in our family's Nativity scene.
It is my sincere hope for all of you that this Christmas that you find what will sustain you and warm your soul. Presents are nice, but His Presence is the greatest gift of all.
God Bless, and Merry Christmas.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:31 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Merry Christmas and 'God Bless' to you and to all of your family/families. Your blog and its fearless comments has been a joy for me to read over the past year or two since I discovered it. Keep up the great good work, and have a Happy New Year.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at December 24, 2010 03:49 PM (Aaj8s)
2
Merry Christmas, and may the New Year find you and yours feeling much better! God Bless America.
Posted by: gDavid at December 24, 2010 10:43 PM (LN04d)
3
We are are blessed by those we have in our lives. May you and your family have a wonderful day and a new year that exceeds your expectations.
B.
Posted by: Brigid at December 25, 2010 10:46 AM (yKDjw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 23, 2010
Quick Takes: December 23, 2010
ITEM: Vice President Biden: The US will be out of Afghanistan by 2014 come “Hell or high water.” Achmed the Taliban in a cave: “Well OK. We’ll lay in supplies until then.”
ITEM: Vice President Biden: The Republicans forced us to extend the Bush tax cuts during the lame duck session. Republicans: “Hey, didn’t the Dems have the White House and majorities in both houses?”
ITEM: Vice President Biden recently declared that failing to tax everyone into oblivion is a moral issue. Oh, I get it: Being annoyed when people like Sheriff Joe forcibly take the money I earn to distribute it to their cronies and favored victim groups makes me immoral. Of course.
ITEM: Vice President Biden: “The President and I are space aliens.” OK. I made that one up, but how many of you thought “I knew it!”?
ITEM: During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama visited all 57 states. Now comes Janet Napolitano, director of Homeland Security who assures us that the DHS is working 24/7/364 to protect Americans. I wonder if the Jihadists know which day DHS takes off? Napolitano is apparently off every day...maybe that’s not such a bad thing...
ITEM: During an ABC TV interview with Diane Sawyer on December 20, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted that he knew nothing at all about the Dec. 20 arrests in England of 12 Islamist terrorists. The DNI had no idea. The man solely responsible for knowing everything about terrorism, and, you know, intelligence, had no idea. Oh well. He probably thinks his primary job is to install foot washing stations in public schools so no Muslim will feel unclean.
ITEM: President Obama and Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson are poised to announce new, onerous emissions regulations on power plants and refineries within the next few days as a means of bypassing Congress. When even Al Gore is admitting that the Global Warming jig is up, apparently all you have left is bureaucrats and regulations. Some in Congress are threatening to cut off EPA funding. What’s the saying? I’ll believe it when I see it? That’s the one.
ITEM: In a June speech to something called the “Network of Spiritual Progressives,” America’s only Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison (D; Islam)
prayed that America’s borders would become “an irrelevancy.” He also observed that military strength does not provide security. What does, you ask? Are you sure you want to hear the answer? Don’t say I didn’t warn you: Only policies of “equity, generosity and engagement,” provide security. Hmmm. Hasn’t President Obama been engaging the Muslim world senseless for the last two years? And hasn’t that hopenchangy approach been, you know, a total failure? Perhaps we just haven’t been equitable and generous enough as yet...
ITEM: In a press conference on December 22, President Obama said: “And I think we are past the crisis point in the economy, but we now have to pivot and focus on jobs and growth. And my singular focus over the next two years is not rescuing the economy from potential disaster, but rather jumpstarting the economy so that we actually start making a dent in the unemployment rate and we are equipping ourselves so that we can compete in the 21st century.”
Hmm. Let’s review, shall we class? A number of states, including Illinois and California are bankrupt, but have yet to completely collapse, businesses are afraid to invest or hire because they know that whenever Mr. Obama’s lips are moving, he’s lying. Gas prices are rising, and Mr. Obama is trying to make good on his pre-election promise to ensure that energy prices “necessarily skyrocket” by doing a regulatory end run on Congress to protect us from the global warming that virtually no one outside of UN bureaucrats actually believes is occurring. And to top it all off, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has been making very pessimistic noises about the economy while simultaneously printing money as though it grows on trees. But Mr. Obama says the crisis is over, so I guess we just wait for his pivot. Oh wait. He’s vacationing in Hawaii and will, of course, be golfing as much as humanly possible. I bet he meant “divot.”
CODA: The good news is that after the mid term elections, America now has a chance to limit, perhaps even reverse some of the damage for the next two years.
And on that positive note, MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Posted by: MikeM at
09:35 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"The good news is that after the mid term elections, America now has a chance to limit, perhaps even reverse some of the damage for the next two years."
That optimistic outlook is contingent on the Republican Party actually doing something to reverse the decades of slow motion socialization of this country with them as willing accomplices. The Democrats are the Rapists and Republicans are the stupid friend who holds down the victim for them. I won't be holding my breath for anything to change in The District of Criminals anytime soon.
Posted by: Jeremy at December 24, 2010 12:28 AM (sBvvg)
2
Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Posted by: Old NFO at December 24, 2010 01:11 AM (+kQ7T)
3
"...to protect us from the global warming that virtually no one outside of UN bureaucrats actually believes is occurring."
Uh, the UN bureaucrats don't believe in it any more than you or I, but have simply latched on to something to justify their redistributionist agenda. Just like Obaman and the friendly folk over at the EPA using it to increase government control and reward cronies who've invested in alternate energy.
No, the only people stupid enough to still believe in global warming are the california state legislature.
Posted by: styrgwillidar at December 27, 2010 11:28 AM (xGZ+b)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
It's a Canine Christmas
Barkley the black lab watched me quietly as I sipped tea and picked up a book, Celtic Women Christmas playing softly, as I read out loud a poem by Boris Levinson. He picks his head up as if he can almost understand the words.
Posted by: Brigid at
09:32 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
One of the things I regularly give thanks for is our canine friends. They are both our companions and protectors, and we are sometimes the same to them.
Posted by: Tregonsee at December 24, 2010 05:37 AM (l9gy1)
2
Dogs are our hearts laid bare.
Posted by: Secesh at December 24, 2010 09:27 PM (NDH+f)
3
Merry Christmas Barkley. You're a good boy.
Posted by: Six at December 25, 2010 01:55 PM (eXdIs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sure, She Says For Us to Diet...
...but why do Michelle Antoinette's actions always amount to "let them eat cake?"
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:23 AM
| Comments (0)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Iran Just Shipped Missiles to Venezuela. Hello? Is This Thing On?
Where the Hell is the President?
Mikes' latest article is posted at
Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:47 AM
| Comments (0)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
December 22, 2010
What Do the ‘Holiday Terror Warning’ Targets Have in Common?
Our lovely elected leader do such an effective job of making us into unarmed targets, don't they?
My latest at Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:56 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Here's to hoping that the next General Assembly will pass some laws reforming NC's carry rules. I'll be there lobbying them for some sensible changes.
Posted by: Sean D Sorrentino at December 22, 2010 02:22 PM (VqfWn)
2
IntroductionNew York maintains a state level prohibition against the features listed in the now defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban. , forums.atozteacherstuff.com, [url="http://oc1.memoryteach.com/115.html"]forums.atozteacherstuff.com[/url], http://oc1.memoryteach.com/115.html forums.atozteacherstuff.com, mdkhcz,
Posted by: Ajgkwvtf at December 23, 2010 06:50 PM (WAaVN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Reparations, By Any Other Name
Our racist, Marxist (two decades in a church espousing Black Liberation Theology) President continues his divide and conquer, "I'm gonna get me mine" approach to racial divisiveness in the Pigford Scandal, where fraudsters could get a cool $50,000 payout for "attempting to farm."
One common misconception is that Pigford is about people who defrauded the government by pretending to be farmers. From the research I've done, there's almost nobody who pretended to be a farmer. The shocking truth is that you didn't have to fake a farming resume to collect $50,000 — all you had to do was to make a credible enough claim that you "attempted to farm."
This category of "attempted to farm" was a huge slap in the face to the bona fide black farmers that the Pigford case was supposed to help. Many of these farmers faced real discrimination at the hands of the USDA and it's clear they had legitimate claims.
I would love to see inside Barack Obama's mind, to know what motivated him here. Was it purely the old cry for reparations for slavery? Was it the cynical buyout of rural votes? These theories and more have been floated, and I would not be surprised if each theory had at least some merit. The "first post-racial President" continues down his path of polarizing the nation along racial and political lines, almost as if he hopes to cause an implosion.
I don't know that I believe in a Manchurian candidate, but the Hawaiian one proving to be every bit as effective in sabotaging this nation. Let us hope the Republic survives his term.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:52 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
December 21, 2010
A Dickensian Defense of Christmas
At this time of year, A variety of organizations--such as the ACLU--and other cold, narrow souls wrap themselves in the cloak of public morality and virtue and renew their yearly attack on Christmas and its related symbols. It’s not that they’re the embodiment of Ebeneezer Scrooge, no; they’re taking on this crusade for the good of us all, so that we may live up to our highest and most cherished principles:
Posted by: MikeM at
09:57 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It has long since ceased to amuse me, yet never fails to amaze me how the left enforces conformity in the name of ensuring diversity. My practicing my beliefs somehow infringes on their freedom not to believe, and practice as I do, so, in the name of their Freedom my Freedom must be crushed.
...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
--C.S. Lewis
Posted by: Bill Smith at December 22, 2010 12:20 AM (ThT1u)
2
Whoa, whoa! AC took his candy canes and went home. Don't you know that candy canes have been banned?
http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=126671
Posted by: Steve at December 22, 2010 12:25 PM (TaHHC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Tyranny of Technology
The Federal Communication is expected to declare themselves Lords of the Internet, disappointing leftists that wanted the tyranny to be more strict—perhaps more punitively Chinese—and infuriating everyone else.
It is just the latest example of the Obama Administration's creeping tyranny, delegating authority to itself that is not provided in the law or the Constitution. Like all leftists, Barack Obama's classmate Julius Genachowski
craves power and control. The wide-open, unregulated and free-wheeling, market-driven success of the Internet was far too much for him to bear.
Like Obamacare, this is yet another usurpation by petty would-be elites that will have to be overturned by the next Congress, siphoning away time and resources better spent restoring an economy leftists have likewise laid to waste.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:37 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
December 20, 2010
Yes, Virginia, There Is A Santa Claus
In I897, eight year old Virginia O’Hanlon wrote a letter to the editor of the New York “Sun.” The response of Francis Pharcellus Church in an unsigned editorial spawned the immortal, widely known phrase: “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus,” but many don't know the whole story. For all of us who have never lost hope--not hopenchange, but real hope in all that is kind, comforting, honorable and loving--here’s little Virginia’s letter and Church’s timeless response.
Posted by: MikeM at
10:38 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I always wondered and now I know. Thanks.
Posted by: Titan Mk6B at December 21, 2010 05:36 PM (xgti0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Is Instapundit Ever Wrong?
They told me that if I voted for the crotchety old Republican, the evil Sith Lord Karl Rove would be prosecuting the nation's political enemies, and they were right!
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:54 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yes. Earlier this month, Instapundit Reynolds was pushing that bogus story about NASA discovering an alien life form living in Mono Lake. The space cadets claimed they had found a microbe that survived on arsenic when in reality it was a common bacterium that had adjusted (evolved?) to life in the high level arsenic environment of Mono Lake by replacing some of the phosphorus molecules with the related arsenic molecule in its DNA. If it hadn't, it would have starved to death. Not only that, but NASA had artificially increased the arsenic level when they force fed arsenic to the little beasties in the lab which required the otherwise quite normal bacterium to replace even more phosphorous with arsenic to survive.
Posted by: Indigo Red at December 20, 2010 06:14 PM (4OVMU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 19, 2010
.308 Winchester/7.62 NATO Outlawed by Iraq for PMCs?
I just had a very interesting phone with a defense contractor, who informed me that the Iraqi government just passed a law that outlaws the use of .308 Winchester/7.62 rifles in Iraq by private military contractors.
As a result, overwatch teams that have been using rifles chambered in this caliber for counter-sniper roles are going to have to find other long-range calibers that meet the standards of Iraqi law. I have no idea if this affects 7.62 machine guns as well.
Why has this been done? I have absolutely no idea, and cannot find the first mention of this in the MSM or military media at this time. There is the possibility that this is a false alarm or miscommunication of some sort, but if it is, it is a miscommunication serious enough that PMCs are reaching out for alternative weapons.
I'll update if I learn any more.
12/20 Update: This doesn't appear to be a "law" as such, but perhaps a directive or "suggestion." I can get my hands on the language, but it appears that the intent it to require counter-sniper weapons to be chambered in 5.56, something similar to a
Mk 12.
Considering much of the PMC work and Iraqi population is contained in urban areas with high population densities, it makes sense to reduce the risk of over-penetrating or off-target bullets to nearby civilians, and the reduced range is probably mitigated by the reality of reduced lines of sight anyway (that is purely speculative, btw).
All things considered, this seems to be a pretty logical request, does it not?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:11 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I can understand the prohibition on MGs, of any caliber, we were already starting that in 2008 when I was there. But a rifle is a rifle. 7.62/308 is no more or less lethal than the alternatives, and there are a lot of them. There is nothing special to distinguish that ammo from 30-06 or the very common 7.62x54R. Even overpenetration is common with 5.56mm so there is no real benefit of one over the other.
The only difference is that smaller rounds are less lethal to people using body armor and 7.62 is overmatch for the common armor styles worn by the peoples of Iraq, diplomats and contractors. But then again, the good guys aren't getting shot at by other good guys, so this is hardly an issue.
Posted by: professor Hale at December 19, 2010 07:35 PM (FJTpO)
2
There is nothing wrong with the .30-06, and on the plus side it opens up the option for heavier projectiles.
Then there are:
.300 Winchester Magnum
.300 Winchester Short Magnum
.338 Winchester Magnum
.338 Lapua
getting even more exotic we move to the H&H rounds, and the Weatherby stuff, and the Lazzeroni stuff, maybe even something by JD Jones.
I'm guessing someone is looking for an opportunity for a little graft with the approval process.
Posted by: ThomasD at December 19, 2010 08:43 PM (i/tnP)
3
I'm no military expert, but I did see the movie Mr. Mom. Perhaps they're going for bigger ammo, like .309s or 7.63s?
Posted by: Kevin at December 19, 2010 09:01 PM (1sB4u)
4
sounds like an M-1 Garand might be the answer.
Posted by: redc1c4 at December 19, 2010 10:58 PM (d1FhN)
5
I would worry more about .50 calibers...
Posted by: Norm at December 20, 2010 10:17 AM (d1W5L)
6
Could it simply be that Iraq, which has shown very little love for military private contractors, is just trying to make life more difficult for said contractors who must now rearm or get out?
Posted by: Indigo Red at December 20, 2010 06:22 PM (4OVMU)
7
Red,
I suspect it is just contract renegotiation time.
Posted by: professor Hale at December 20, 2010 07:23 PM (FJTpO)
8
Isn't this just like some school kid with a knife showing up to a fight and insisting there be rules that no one is allowed a knife?
I'm a LOT of years separated from things military, but seems to me that someone's trying to make ROE that benefits the enemy more than the FreeFor.
Again, I dunno snot about diplomacy or modern warfare, just my .02
Shy III
Posted by: JimShyWolf at December 20, 2010 11:33 PM (gxlpn)
9
Maybe they're just finding more creative ways of asking us to leave.
What size round would the walls in your house stop?
Posted by: lee at December 21, 2010 01:05 AM (bQ3er)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Cage Walker
I've been busy working on several projects at work and for some of the other publications I write for (just added one, and will have another coming soon), and so I missed World Extreme Cagefighting's WEC 53, and one hell of a performance from Anthony Pettis. His fifth-round cage climbing kick has got to be one of the most athletic I've ever seen.
That kick didn't knock out his opponent Ben Henderson, but it did help him win the WEC lightweight belt. The UFC (which owns WEC) is pulling the lightweight division into the UFC, and Pettis retires the WEC lightweight belt and posiitions himself for a fighting against the winner of the Frank Edgar/Gray Maynard fight at UFC 125, where Edgar is defending his title against the only fighter to ever defeat him. The title unification fight will then occur sometime in early-to-mid 2011.
Sports betting sites like BetUS are already picking their winners, and have Edgar over Maynard. I think that is likely, and if it holds, sets up a interesting match between Pettis and Edgar.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:28 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Thanks for that! I had it DVR'ed but the recording ended in the 4th round so I didn't know how it ended.
Nasty kick! Don't think I've ever seen similar before, and previously it was usually Henderson pulling off stuff you go "How'd he do that?"!
Posted by: SSG_Fuzzy at December 19, 2010 01:04 PM (mYoQy)
2
Nice jump round kick! It's great to see TaeKeon kicks actually being performed properly and winning events.
Shy III
Posted by: JimShyWolf at December 20, 2010 11:39 PM (gxlpn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 18, 2010
Unfounded Fears
I got into a couple of arguments about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" earlier today on Twitter. Quite frankly, they weren't really much in the way of arguments, just what I thought were logical reactions to rather hysteric fears of several people that seemed to be of the opinion that if they gay folks currently serving in the military were now free to admit who they are, they it would lead to them compulsively attempting to shag every soldier they see every waking moment.
I wish I was kidding, but some people seem to think that way:
The armies of other nations have allowed gays to serve openly in the military. The reason they could afford to do this is simple: they could allow homosexuals to serve in their military because we didn’t allow them to serve in ours.
They knew they could count on the strength, might, power, and cohesion of the U.S. military to intervene whenever and wherever necessary to pull their fannies out of the fire and squash the forces of tyranny wherever they raised their ugly heads around the world.
Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all.
It’s past time for a litmus test for Republican candidates. This debacle shows what happens when party leaders are careless about the allegiance of candidates to the fundamental conservative principles expressed in the party’s own platform.
Character-driven officers and chaplains will eventually be forced out of the military en masse, potential recruits will stay away in droves, and re-enlistments will eventually drop like a rock.
The draft will return with a vengeance and out of necessity. What young man wants to voluntarily join an outfit that will force him to shower naked with males who have a sexual interest in him and just might molest him while he sleeps in his bunk?
Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association wrote that, either fearing that the most combat-hardened military in world history is ripe for the picking, or perhaps, he's just guilty of a little fantasizing of his own.
His is an absurd position, one that portrays gay soldiers as uncontrollable rutting beasts, and our straight servicemen as docile sheep waiting to raped. Such a point of view is hysterical and illogical and shows that those holding such views think very little of the professionalism of all soldiers regardless of their sexual preference.
It also taps into a deep-seated phobia that some seem to have that homosexuality is a communicable disease, and that soldiers that serve with gay soldiers could be "turned gay."
I wish I was joking, but the folks who hold these views are dead serious. Some are borderline frantic, apparently unaware that tens of thousands of gays serve in the military right now. This kind of freakish paranoia brings out the worse in some people, and in some, it simply seems to be striking fears that their own sexuality isn't quite as black and white as they profess it to be.
I find a gay soldier willing to sacrifice his life for my family's safety to be on much firmer moral ground than a sputtering viper like Fischer the serves up division and fear.
Perhaps that is the greatest irony; a professed Christian, Fischer certainly seems to be batting for the other team.
MIKE'S UPDATE, 12/20: In the military, everyone knows who is and isn't gay, and there are regulations addressing public displays of affection and any kind of favoritism or misbehavior that might be likely to arise from this change in policy. Any additional regulations required should be relatively easy to identify and enact. Remember that the military has significant means of compelling proper behavior from its members that have no civilian analog. While I agree with Bob that the hoopla over this incident may well be overblown, it would be wise to keep a careful eye on things and not to allow this to become a camel's nose under the tent for additional "progressive" social engineering. Since the Progressives have had their noses whacked, and hard, in the civilian arena, they may well seek to implement on a captive audience--the military, members of which are not allowed to criticize Congress critters--what they can no longer easily do in the civilian world. And should this politically motivated change during wartime begin to clearly cost lives--no doubt there will be unintended consequences that cannot be easily foreseen; there always are--The Tea Party movement can perform another public service by running everyone who voted for this bit of political expediency during a lame duck session out of office once and for all. And while the "elite" colleges are now making noises about welcoming ROTC and recruiters, the depth and breadth of their understanding and implementation of honor remains to be conclusively demonstrated. Of course, the Obama Administration could simply enforce the law requiring fair treatment of the military at colleges that receive federal funds, but I haven't seen any flying pigs of late, nor is there snow in Hell's weather report when last I looked. There is much to watch out for in this situation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:29 PM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The next time someone gives you that crap, just remind them that homosexuality was compulsory in ancient Sparta.
Posted by: Timmeehh at December 18, 2010 10:55 PM (lkyIZ)
2
The problem with this is that number one, it is totally unnecessary. Number two, it panders to the degenerate class. See number one.
We don't need females in combat arms. Period. Its not that they may or may not be capable. We will never know that, because females are never judged by the same standards.
The problem with this is that if we allow the alpha females - who are allowed under an attenuated standard - then we are compelled to force the normal females to take part.
We ain't there yet. We have a HUGE pool of so far untasked males at our disposal.
There is nothing glamorous about combat. We should visit that upon as few as possible.
Forcing it upon our females is retarded.
There simply is no reason to take one of our few remaining honorable professions and regress it to the most basest of human depravity.
Does it work for our congress? Absolutely. You simply cannot be too much of a degenerate, or murderer, or thief to hold that office.
Spartans? Right. Look at Greece today.
Fine bunch. If the raging queens took them there - why do we want that here?
Posted by: george at December 18, 2010 11:33 PM (y0VOX)
3
George: "There is nothing glamorous about combat. We should visit that upon as few as possible."
George, one sentence later: "There simply is no reason to take one of our few remaining honorable professions and regress it to the most basest of human depravity."
Not that you're glamorizing it or anything.
---
Hey George? Re: Sparta, maybe you should check into a thing called the post hoc fallacy. Because hey, if seeing a red car drive down the street didn't cause me to fall ten minutes later then why did one happen after the other?
Posted by: fauxpopuli at December 19, 2010 12:51 AM (IYiMI)
4
You guys. Do you remember what the policy was before don't ask don't tell? No homos period. With out don't ask don't tell, the military is ...um...free to go back to no homos period.
Or is there a new policy I haven't heard of yet?
Homos are week willed.
How do they raise up thier children?...Oh yeah they can't have children.
Conservatives win again by God.
Posted by: ron at December 19, 2010 01:44 AM (PMk7+)
5
Stop the presses, right-wingers are mostly intolerant homophobes what a huge big surpise to everyone.
Posted by: David at December 19, 2010 02:21 AM (zrRaA)
6
Now there is one less reason to avoid the draft
... and one less way to get out of military service, once enlisted
Once we get women into combat, white straight males will finally have equality
Posted by: Neo at December 19, 2010 03:06 AM (tvs2p)
7
The problem isn't with (most of) the current homosexual troops, who chose to serve despite the restrictions.
It's with the homosexuals who chose not to serve because they couldn't serve and still get their sex drive satisfied while in uniform.
I'm also extremely wary of homosexual officers demanding sexual services from their subordinates in exchange of lighter assignments (or using punishment as a stick to force such services), any complaint being classed as a "hate crime" because you're obviously homophobic if you complain about a homosexual.
I'm not in the military, will never be (medical), but if I were to think of signing up I'd no longer do so now.
And that's the problem, you're going to loose a large percentage of recruits for the sake of political correctness.
Posted by: JTW at December 19, 2010 07:53 AM (hrLyN)
8
Pandering to a sexual minority at the expense of national security is down right stupid. The purpose of our militar should be to prepare for war and to prevail in war. Advancing dubious social causes dos not.
Brace yourself for females in combat arms next.
Posted by: DavidL at December 19, 2010 08:18 AM (0EsUX)
9
Bob, this is the second post in less than a week of yours that makes sense, is logical, and asks the reader to be logical and non-bigoted (the other was on Bradley Manning).
This is also the second time that the commentariat has been about as puerile as one can imagine. Imagine what DavidL would have said in '48 when Truman integrated the Armed Forces ("pandering to an ethnic minority at the expense of national security, blah, blah) and that doesn't even get into the repressed fantasies of the earlier commenters.
Seems to me, that a certain group of conservatives worships the armed services, but knows absolutely nothing about the military (for instance, the Israeli military, who shoots people as frequently as we do, allows gays and has yet to collapse into some sort a feminized orgy of gay sex, which Ron and George apparently believe should happen (the again, George's knowledge of the ancient world is so encompassing that he thinks Sparta happened ten years ago!)
In short, Bob, I think you might be out-growing your commenters. Good job
Posted by: timb at December 19, 2010 11:25 AM (iVFbj)
10
All Congress did with the repeal of DADT is let the commanders on the ground figure it out for themselves. If they feel that unit cohesion can be maintained with gays and women integrated into the forces, then let them deal with it.
Getting unwanted advances from a dude should be no different than getting unwanted advances from an ugly chick. As long as both of them respond like adults to "No", I don't see the problem.
And as far as those concerned about "raging queens", I doubt the "all drama all the time - loot at me I'm fabulous" types are going to be lining up outside the recruitment offices anyhow. They aren't big on loss of individuality.
Posted by: brian at December 19, 2010 01:49 PM (y05cf)
11
Thanks for your reasonable position on this issue.
Posted by: Green Eagle at December 19, 2010 09:09 PM (Ohupk)
12
The first immediate result you'll see is a uptick in "other" reasons for people getting discharged. No more just saying "I'm gay" so you can get discharged before being deployed or getting stuck in a bad overseas assignment.
Posted by: chenders at December 19, 2010 10:22 PM (XZFoq)
13
The restrictions against homosexuality in the military have always been flexible. I knew one LTC who was very gay--and no one cared at all. He did a great job, found his own dates, and was a great guy. I think most of the military could care less about who their teammates sleep with or find attractive as long as they could be trusted to get the job done.
Posted by: iconoclast at December 19, 2010 10:40 PM (O3Wv1)
14
Luckily the Pentagons approach to "fairness" and "Equal Opportunity" has never resulted in any unqualified pilots who crash their F-14 off the Abraham Lincoln or psycho officers being placed in command of the USS Cowpens. Or resulted in self proclaimed Jhadi's being promoted and retained until they shoot 30 some people at Ft. Hood.
No, the Pentagon is really good at dealing with these issues in a sane, rational and responsible manner, and I'm sure they will handle gays just as effectively.
Posted by: Kevin at December 20, 2010 01:29 AM (f5KV9)
15
Notice that none of the congresscritters voting to repeal DADT has offered to berth with Barney Frank for the 9 months congress is in session...
Posted by: Adriane at December 20, 2010 01:51 AM (dIik4)
16
@Kevin - That wasn't the Pentagon, that was Congress.
@Adriane - But that's not because he's gay. It's because he smells like the underside of a dumpster.
Posted by: brian at December 20, 2010 01:55 AM (y05cf)
17
"Homos are week willed."
It's "weak", moron. And heteros are weak-willed, too, or didn't the Bible teach you anything.
Of course, disgusting bigots liks you and Fischer aren't worth defending, frankly.
Posted by: Bill at December 20, 2010 09:22 AM (CqXd2)
18
I see Mike had to come in and trash up an otherwise reasonable post. Social engineering, Mike? Doesn't it concern you more that the federal government was a discriminatory employer--that it was, in effect, trying to stamp out a natural phenomenon by banning gays and lesbians from serving in the military?
Posted by: Adam at December 20, 2010 09:57 AM (rG6fD)
19
Of course the ultimate reasons why Brian Fischer is so darn upset about this are:
1). after the army integrated in 1948, it was only 17 years until the Civil Rights Act was enacted, and he knows that civil rights for gays and lesbians is likely on the same trajectory,
2). Fischer basically makes his living demonizing homosexuals as evil people. What happens when an openly gay or lesbian soldier does something remarkable in combat and receives the Medal of Honor? His big paychecks are likely to disappear.
Posted by: Homer at December 20, 2010 11:05 AM (Ymquz)
20
It is going to be interesting to see what the dems say when the number of courts-martial increase. Removal of DADT has no effect on the UCMJ. In fact, upon removal of DADT the option of a honorable discharge goes away and the only option left is a court martial. I wonder what the gay rights groups are going to say when they see the uptick of felony convictions.
Posted by: ParatrooperJJ at December 20, 2010 11:25 AM (nx1/z)
21
I agree in that it seems to me that people who are afraid of homosexuality as a commutible disease are often closted themselves. Most people who are secure in their sexuality aren't concerned about suddenly becoming attracted to a different gender, nor are afraid of that happening to other people.
Posted by: Matt at December 20, 2010 12:14 PM (dtYFU)
22
Off the coast of Vietnam, late in 1968, nearly a dozen guys who wanted to go home got up one night, stripped naked, sat in a circle, each holding the penis of the guy to one side of him, and waited for the CPO to come through on his midnight walk.
The rest of us lost a little sleep from this, but the guys who had planned this out were all on their way back to the States within two days. And, no, they weren't gay, just lonely and wanting to go home.
Posted by: SplendidOne at December 20, 2010 12:28 PM (ZROZm)
23
"It's with the homosexuals who chose not to serve because they couldn't serve and still get their sex drive satisfied while in uniform."
Nio, JTW, the problem is with civilian concern trols like that have never spent a day in uniform, like that civilian waste of human flesh Elaine Donnelly in Iowa, who push their way into debates where they and their views have no place.
The idea that trivial pieces of filth like her would presume to say anything against people who actually serve ought to disgust anyone with a moral conscience.
Posted by: Jim at December 20, 2010 01:17 PM (aO1W9)
24
Reading through the comments here it's clear to see why wisdom finally prevailed in this case.
I'm sure those in the military will do just fine and if anything, be strengthened.
Posted by: Parker at December 20, 2010 01:26 PM (smFJU)
25
You mean our military could get worse!
lff
Posted by: l file at December 20, 2010 02:02 PM (wefTF)
26
To cautiously wade in among all the straw-men/emotional appeals and offer logic- We can’t get something as simple as an ammunition upgrade (5.56mm) because there’s not ENOUGH of an improvement to justify the cost- this result comes from years of studies and millions in acquisition time. Haven't seen a SINGLE study done on the improvements a homosexual declaring his sexuality would bring to the military. (don't fool yourself, that's all this is, we already have gays in the military) Just a lot of “it wouldn’t be that BAD” or “it shouldn’t matter” or “majority of soldiers are in favor of it.” Completely irrelevant. Where’s the logic-over-emotion that should prevail in the military? ROE changed to save your life (literally) takes forever, but the REMFs are tripping over themselves to implement this admin change.
Posted by: Ironsides at December 20, 2010 02:12 PM (qzoN5)
27
Ron @ 1:44 am:
How do they raise up thier children?...Oh yeah they can't have children.
Where did you get that idea? My partner is definitely a gay man -- believe me, I know -- and two of his three grown daughters are coming to visit us tomorrow. Of course he didn't have them with me, but with his ex-wife. But they're still his children.
There are plenty of childless gay couples who are nevertheless raising children. They're raising your children, Mr. Straight Man. They're raising the children of straights who were thinking of nothing but lust in the moment, not of the predictable results, and who proved incompetent to raise the child they conceived. That's why we call you "breeders".
And don't overlook the recent study that shows that children raised by lesbian couples tend to excel.
Posted by: Steve T. at December 20, 2010 03:13 PM (0AqdZ)
28
The argument that there are regulations to prevent blatantly open homosexual behavior from interfering with discipline is foolish. There were regulations to prevent anti-American and anti-military behavior before MAJ Hasan committed his crimes, and the prevalent atmosphere of political correctness kept him from censure. Once gays are accorded this same protection, they will be able to get away witrh almost anything, which is the objective.
I have no doubt that gays will fight well. So will child molesters, pornographers, and sado-masochists. That doesn't meen we want them in the service.
Posted by: Mike in Texas at December 20, 2010 03:31 PM (Cei+k)
29
"The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays."
Barry Goldwater, 1987
Posted by: mikeyes at December 20, 2010 04:04 PM (/AHDz)
30
From the same Barry Goldwater article:
"It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crazy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it "a bit of an old chestnut"
When the facts lead to one conlusion, I say it's time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable."
A lot of the comments here seem to be from people whose only military experience is with the 101st Chairborne Division, Keyboard Specialists. If you ever served in the military you will know that the sanctions for UCMJ violations are pretty severe including spending time in prison for showing disrespect for your boss, something that would never happen in civilian life.
As a military member you take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, an oath that is not taken lightly. Part of the Constitution allows Congress to set the rules and regulations of the Armed forces including Title 10 and the UCMJ.
MAJ Hasan did not murder his fellow soldiers because of lax enforcement of the UCMJ as implied above, he was a terrorist who will suffer the death penalty. In most states he would have just gotten life.
Any person in the military who sexually harasses another will suffer, the record is very clear on that in reference to heterosexual sexual harassment.
Any actions that are detrimental to good order and discipline will be punished. The UCMJ is not there to promote justice, it is there to make sure that the military is able to perform its job. To say otherwise is just ignorant and foolish.
Posted by: mikeyes at December 20, 2010 04:16 PM (/AHDz)
31
Mikeyes,
You're making (actually, Goldwater is making) the precise invalid argument I'm talking about. "It's inevitable"? "There's no reason NOT to"?? Where'd all the thinking people go? No one has made the argument FOR it, just the usual "not NOT for it" arguments. Someone, preferably an authority, lay out the TANGIBLE, measurable, strategic and tactical payoff to allowing people to define themselves by their sexual proclivities?! Our business is life and death people, and this move got less analytical support than choosing the color of MRE wrappers?!
Posted by: Ironsides at December 20, 2010 05:22 PM (qzoN5)
32
Ironsides,
I think that Senator Goldwater's argument is that the government has no business imposing a limited view of morality on its citizen's private lives. In addition there was no proof that having gay soldiers in the military hurt the effectiveness of that body.
Remember, Barry Goldwater was the premier authority on the military when he wrote this article (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html for the full text) and he abhorred the introduction of the religious right into politics.
Other than prejudice, what is the reason for banning gays? It makes no sense to refuse to allow someone to lay their life down for their fellow countrymen (especially those who won't do the same) due to prejudice.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by: mikeyes at December 20, 2010 06:24 PM (Z7toi)
33
mikeyes,
First, thanks for not launching into name-calling upon first contact with the opposing view. There are too many red faces and bulging eyeballs on both sides of this. Not ready to say there's hope for civil debate, but who knows! I read the Goldwater statement and agree with taking every opportunity to keep the government out of private citizens lives... However, we aren't private citizens. Sure, we're afforded full constitutional rights, but Taxpayers spend massive amounts of money to ensure we can execute violence in dangerous places in a focused manner. This doesn't allow for the luxury of what you and I are doing now. It does demand, however, that our bosses, i.e. the people, get quality assessments from the experts. The people got no such assessment in this case. What other reasons for denial? How about overweight? 30,000 patriotic, lay-down-your-life types were kicked OUT for not fitting the 1950's-inspired measurements for a soldier. Mental disorders? Felony convictions? I could give more examples, but it's irrelevant to the point: NO factual, measurable improvements FOR public announcement of sexuality have been offered. That's not how logical decisions are made, that's how emotional ones are.
Posted by: Ironsides at December 20, 2010 10:05 PM (Nd/it)
34
Ironsides-
A policy which dismisses otherwise qualified individuals because of their sexual orientation has an obvious cost to it: the loss of trained and otherwise qualified members of the armed forces. So the measurable effect you're looking for is that those individuals will not be dismissed.
This is a good thing UNLESS there is some detrimental impact of allowing these people to serve. Thus, the arguments that there will be no such effects are highly relevant.
Posted by: Internally Valid at December 20, 2010 11:37 PM (2Mkt9)
35
Mr. Ironsides--
I'm also not interested in name calling, as you have stated, and ask that you consider what is discussed here with a true, deliberate thought process, not an emotional reflex/response that keeps you in your comfort zone.
I have a few things I would like to ask to help me understand what your insistence on having "Someone, preferably an authority, lay out the TANGIBLE, measurable, strategic and tactical payoff to allowing people to define themselves by their sexual proclivities"
By your last post you stated "However, we aren't private citizens. Sure, we're afforded full constitutional rights, but Taxpayers spend massive amounts of money to ensure we can execute violence in dangerous places in a focused manner. "
This gives me the impression that you are a soldier in the armed forces. I would like to ask, if it is ok, whether you are in combat or in an administrative or logistics role.
Second, I want to ask, whether you understand why this is an important civil rights issue.
I understand if the following concept may be hard for you to accept, but what I see as the problematic in your argument is that YOU are allowing a person to be defined by their sexual proclivities, to the EXCLUSION of everything else that constitutes their being. How most people deal with their sexuality (not to mention how it is coupled with their religious upbringing) is a very sensitive issue. Many commit suicide over the anguish or guilt that comes with being homosexual. I don't know whether you can even identify with how it feels to not be right in your own skin.
Despite the fact that their actions are considered immoral by many, it is something that is part of their landscape in the same way it is for someone to say they have blue eyes, or ten toes and fingers. They understand there are societal rules for conduct, and most of them really do conduct themselves to fit within working within the larger community that they interact with.
If they want to lay down their lives, particularly in order to defend others that are NOT like them, but are also Americans, then they should be allowed to serve with honor just like anyone else.
As with any other civil rights issue, a person is more than their color, gender, age, religious creed, or sexual preference. Religious discrimination? Jews have been slammed for eons. Protestants and Catholics had long been at each others throats in Ireland and other places. Racial discrimination? Slaves-Africans involuntarily captured and utilized for indentured labor, being 2/3rds or 4/5ths of a person in the original draft of the Constitution? Women, not being allowed to vote or engage in the same activities because they were "hysterical"? I don't even want to get into how senior citizens are just left out to pasture and are not revered more for their experience and wisdom.
I have one last thing I must ask: Does the Pentagon's review regarding the issues surrounding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" NOT represent a quality assessment? And does the belief that a Secretary of Defense originally appointed by President George W. Bush, who explicitly stated that he supports repealing the law, NOT represent a valid endorsement?
Posted by: Jester Pensgoo at December 21, 2010 12:46 AM (gUTcn)
36
Where to begin? So many assumptions to address and I have so few brain cells left!
Internally Valid: the military policy that "dismisses otherwise qualified individuals because of their sexual orientation" as you say, ended in 1993 with the institution of... wait for it... DADT+DP (+ "dont pursue", which most people forgot). Recruiters could no longer screen potential recruits with the infamous "are you a homosexual?" question BECAUSE of the potential loss of recruits. Add to this fact the military has no current problems with recruiting, and the argument that an UNrealized loss of qualified personnel justifies a major shift is... invalid (sorry, bad pun)
Jester:
You have some good points, but telling you about my experiences in front of all these people is an Appeal to Authority fallacy and would do nothing to support my argument on its own grounds, so I wont waste your time. Without going down the rabbit-hole on your civil rights assumption, I'll refer you to my previous post, where I imply that serving in the military ISN'T a right, regardless of gender, race, creed, etc. It's ability-based and willingness-based. Ability speaks for itself I think, but willingness involves submitting personal desires to the accomplishment of the mission, usually in uncomfortable (and sometimes fatal) form. It's the military, NOT a cross-section of society. Did you know it's illegal to lie to an officer in the military? Not "bad" but get-your-pay-taken-ILLEGAL! So morality isn't "legislated" here, its life.
To re-phrase, too much emotion in this debate, not enough research. Still no studies done on improvements to the military. It's mildly bad in a corporation, it's freakin criminal when your sons and daughters lives are at stake.
Posted by: Ironsides at December 21, 2010 11:30 AM (qzoN5)
37
Ironsides, you are right on the money. No one has ever articulated the benefit or positive gain to the military or the country at large for a repeal of DADT+DP. There is no RIGHT to serve in the military and anyone who says/thinks otherwise has an agenda. The military has always weeded out influences that undermined morale or unit cohesiveness because they were detrimental to the unit (micro) and the military (macro) as a whole. To keep such individuals regardless of what the issue was (drugs, crimes, UA, openly gay, etc.) was necesarry for the unit to maintain discipline and function as it was designed to do.
The military has alwasys been about ability first and willingness to serve second otherwise we'd have wheelchair brigades and blind battalions; not that those people aren't patriotic and wish to serve but there are abilities they don't possess and standards that they can't meet in order to do exactly what we are asked to do; kill people and break things. We aren't a social club.
We do give up certain rights when we swear an oath to the Constitution and yes, morality IS life. The UCMJ is specifically set up more stringently that civilian law because there ARE different standards due to the nature of our business. I have to be able to trust you completely and implicitly with my life as you have to with me, no distractions. Distractions mean death. Anyone who doesn't get that never will.
Posted by: Airgod at December 21, 2010 02:39 PM (5WP0y)
38
One question, what does homosexuality have to do with morality?
If an outstanding soldier happens to be homosexual, does that effect his performance? Do you trust him less because he is in love with a man?
If there are no negative side effects, the United States government should always err on the side of liberty
Posted by: MAModerate at December 21, 2010 10:46 PM (06rIW)
39
The issue is not with homosexuals serving, but rather the possible detriment to unit cohesiveness that repealing DADT+DP will have. Politicians and such will muck with regulations until you have a situation that gets people people killed. Reference Maj. Hassan for a excellent example, PC got people killed. Now that soldiers can "express themselves" there will be issues, what exactly they will be I can't foresee.
Personally I don't care if you're not "straight", just that you can shoot straight.
Posted by: Real Deal at December 22, 2010 10:51 AM (z2S93)
40
MA"Moderate":
No negative side-effects equals positive effects? Did you actually say that? Ooooo, here's a blast of the obviously obvious: establish data! Run a couple of test units to see how things go? All we have now is a bunch of pseudo-intelligentsia with social agendas cramming shit onto our plates while FIGHTING A F*CKING WAR! Naval gazing crap like "what does morality have to do with homosexuality?" Mount up men, we're outta here, dumb might catch and my ass is showing...
Posted by: Ironsides at December 22, 2010 12:15 PM (qzoN5)
41
I'm really glad the Leftys got slapped in the face on this one. For years, they've been telling us that The Pentagon should get rid of DADT. (Not Congress) I've always condecendingly scolded them that we don't want the military to literally have more legislative power than the US Congress. That would border on Facism. I don't mean that as a crazy metaphor, either. A military coup is a bad idea. Libs are intrinsically wrong.
Liberals are on the wrong side of history on this one. Many of them are now creeping into the woodwork, pretending like they never claimed it. It's good to keep rubbing their faces in it, so they don't forget. I can help with that.
Also, I think there are too many people here wrongly diagnosing others with DSM-4 Homophobia. Lying is dishonorable. That exact type of phobia is pretty rare. If you've ever commited either of those 2 wrongs, you should think seriously about coming clean. All apologies can be sent to me. pro_good@hotmail.com
Posted by: brando at December 22, 2010 12:50 PM (IPGju)
42
"the military policy that "dismisses otherwise qualified individuals because of their sexual orientation" as you say, ended in 1993 with the institution of... wait for it... DADT+DP (+ "dont pursue, which most people forgot)"
Wrong. The policy which has been rejected by congress and military leadership, still allowed for the dismissal of officers and enlisted men/women based on their sexual orientation. Changing the policy regarding questioning during recruitment etc. did not change the fact that individuals were dismissed by the thousands because their sexual orientation was discovered. There is no legitimate justification for incurring these very real and very obvious costs to retention.
Brando-
The reasons I can imagine that "lefty's" wanted the Pentagon to repeal DADT were either a.) they did not know that DADT was a law passed by congress and not a policy created by DOD; I suspect many people, left and right are unaware of this OR b.) they just wanted DADT repealed and didn't care how it got done. These may be dumb reasons, but certainly not malicious.
You will note, however, that the Obama administration and military leaders, in contrast with people on internet message boards with whom you have a beef, sought to repeal the law in congress rather than through executive order or through the courts. I assume these are not the liberals you refer to when you say they are on the wrong side of history?
Posted by: Internally Valid at December 22, 2010 02:56 PM (2KkOM)
43
"they did not know that DADT was a law passed by congress"
What? No way. Everyone knows that. Eveyone. Certainly all Liberals. They're smart. Liberals are never ignorant.
IV, The people I'm talking about are full blown Liberals; the monsters like this:
"I think the military should carefully consider changing the policy. We need the most talented people, we need the language skills, we need patriotic Americans who exist across the board in our population. We don’t need moral judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs."
--- Nancy Pelosi
Nobody can reasonably say that Pelosi doesn't know that Congress passed DADT. She personally voted for it.
Maybe of the people that have been saying "repeal" in the last few weeks, have been the same people who have been saying that The Military, or even the USMC itself should change it. They've been saying it for over a decade. And I happily correct them each time. It's a horrific idea.
Either they're stupid or they're malicious, and Lefty's sure aren't stupid. That type of madness is just plain evil. If some non-Liberal made the mistake of not knowing that Congress passes laws, I suppose I could just dismiss it as dumb, but I've met a lot of hyper-smart Libs, many whom I've explained it to, and they insisted that it was the Pentagon's fault, even after I've given them a direct lesson on how bad it would be for the people who have all the big guns to be literally making Federal Law.
Heck, I've even heard it a half dozen times on NPR.
We don't even want police to be making local law that they are enforcing. That would be bad. Now imagine it on a scale of the most powerful military in the world. That's what Lefty's have openly stated they'd love for over the last decade. They were wrong, and I was right. Just because they pretend to be ignorant, doesn't make them correct.
How many times have you read an article that has the phrase detailing DADT as "The Military Ban", when everybody knows full well that it's Congress' Ban?
Posted by: brando at December 22, 2010 07:40 PM (IPGju)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Quick Takes, December 17, 2010
ITEM: At 0001 Sunday, December 19, the Federal Government will shut down unless Congress can pass a temporary funding bill. As this is being written, there is no bill in sight, at least in part because Democrats (and a number of Republicans) are desperate to moon the voters one last time, and to pass a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, a massive land grab that would make even more acreage off limits to development of any kind, and that would make even more of our southern border off limits to the Border Patrol for environmental reasons, carving in stone union favors, illegal alien amnesty, environmental measures sure to hasten national bankruptcy and a wide variety of other looney tune measures in the two or so weeks before many Congress critters have to return to--the horror!--real lives.
Shutting down the Federal Government for any period of time would be a bad thing because...?
ITEM: At a recent “Environmental Justice Conference” at the White House, Janet Napolitano, former Governor of Arizona and current head of the Department of Homeland Security professed her undying belief in climate change, which is causing and will cause “increased drought,” “catastrophic [wild]fires in the West,” “more category four and five hurricanes,” and “other natural occurrences that are affected by changes in climate.” All of this, and more, of course, is directly related to national security, well...because she says so, and she’s the head of DHS! She's the very same head of DHS who thought the system was working beautifully when the underwear bomber’s bomb, through incredible dumb luck, only torched his junk instead of blowing an airliner out of the sky. I suspect his fellow passengers, exposed to the sights, sounds and smells of that little bit of systemic competence, might think otherwise.
But in a deranged, bureaucratic way this makes all kinds of sense. After all, we now know that NASA’s proper, enlightened, primary mission is to make Muslims feel good about the scientific accomplishments of other Muslims who have been dead for centuries. Why then shouldn’t the DHS be primarily concerned with hurricanes, climate change, rising sea levels, toads, delta smelt and melting glaciers that really aren’t melting? After all, it’s not like DHS is in charge of keeping Americans secure from terrorist attack or actually has any real work to do. Right?
ITEM: In the aftermath of the December 14 shooting at the Bay County School Board in Panama City Florida, some interesting, recurring misconceptions have popped up. The gunman, who would like his name to be mentioned, fired approximately 15 rounds from a semi-automatic handgun at ranges from 5-20 feet, and didn’t hit anyone. Fortunately, School Security Chief Mike Jones was present and shot him. The gunman dropped and briefly exchanged fire with Jones, hitting no one before shooting himself in the head. The misconceptions? (1) The gunman obviously didn’t want to hurt anyone, because he was shooting at close range and didn’t hit anyone. (2) This just goes to show how important and effective gun free schools zones are.
And now for a quick dose of reality. It is very common for people, including police officers, to get into gunfights at inside-a-telephone-booth range, empty their weapons, and hit no one. Outside of movies, calm, deadly accurate marksmanship is unusual, not the opposite. It would be interesting to know how those school board members feel about gun free school zones today. The GFSZ signs around the Bay County School District obviously weren’t terribly effective in protecting the innocent, but a handgun in the hands of someone ready and able to use it was. But what would have happened on December 14th if Mike Jones was home with the flu? I wonder what the School Board would have thought of that--if they were still around to think of anything. It was Winston Churchill who said that nothing is more stimulating than being shot at without result. Perhaps the School Board, post-stimulation, learned something: Good intentions and thin metal signs protect no one.
ITEM: You owe it to yourself, during the Christmas season, to attend a live performance of Handel’s “Messiah.” My article on the history and experience of “Messiah” can be read
here. You also owe it to yourself to acquaint yourself with the finest female voice--ever--in popular music: Karen Carpenter. Sadly, Carpenter died on Feb. 14. 1983 from complications of Anorexia Nervosa. But her delightfullly beautiful “Merry Christmas Darling” is more than worth your time.
Merry week before Christmas until next time!
Posted by: MikeM at
01:37 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am all for shutdown. As a snivel servant, i know that govt shutdown = paid time off.
I would much rather other parts of the government are also not at their desks, regulating and spending the rest of us into ruin.
Posted by: professor Hale at December 18, 2010 09:05 PM (FJTpO)
2
After watching the available video I would agree that the Panama City scumbag was not 'shooting to miss.' He was simply inept. His first shot seemed to be the most deliberately aimed, but his grip was weak and he jerked the trigger - pulling the shot low and to the side. his second shot was reflex/panic that went into the floor. Only then did he begin to walk over towards the dais, no doubt to reduce his shots to contact range.
Thankfully that's when Jones arrived and put some well aimed rounds on target. Had he not arrived then, or had he not been accurate with his fire, things could have gone much worse for those school board members.
There were a number of heroes that day, from the woman who tried to knock the pistol from his hand (she took on a gunman with a purse - that's somewhere between crazy and badass), to the board members who kept him talking for so long, and finally Jones who stopped the attack.
Posted by: ThomasD at December 18, 2010 10:03 PM (i/tnP)
3
That woman was badass to the core. As I understand it, she was home free, and then chose to take him on -- with a purse, probably hoping to buy a little time for somebody to do something. Which seems to be what happened if I understand it correctly.
Do we doubt what that Lady Warrior armed with nothing but a freakin' PURSE would have done if she'd had a Lady's sized .45 IN that purse?
There were two life-saving heroes there that day, and neither one was a damned SIGN PAINTER!!
Posted by: Bill Smith at December 18, 2010 11:08 PM (nRbqw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 17, 2010
Lessons in Socialism
I worked hard all year, barking at strangers, fetching game birds and keeping Brigid company. So I earned a toy!!! I'm proud of my toy.
MY TOY! Hard work and loyalty DO pay off!
But Barkley, there is a dog down the road that doesn't do anything but lay on his ass and whine all day. HE doesn't have a toy. So the man will come and give him YOUR toy.
Come on, we're not taking it we're just redistributing the toys.
How do you feel about the whole idea now Barkley?
Bad Politician. No Vote!
Posted by: Brigid at
11:12 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Oh, that is not a happy looking puppy. Watch out Toy Re-Distribution Man!
Posted by: Larry at December 18, 2010 05:59 PM (7Y12r)
2
LMAO!!! Thanks, this made my day!
Posted by: REB in Raleigh at December 20, 2010 08:41 PM (mz9Zk)
3
I am glad to talk with you and you give me nike air max great help! Thanks for that, I am wonderring if i can contact you air max 90 email when i meet problems?
Posted by: Cheap Nike Shoes at December 20, 2010 10:16 PM (L3uve)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Go Green... and Kill People
Reality comes to Cancun with a lesson from Stephen Crowder.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:33 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It could be noted that letting your sense of human compassion overrule your sense for righteous justice could be a mistake.
I've got lots of compassion for all the Murderers, Rapists, and suchlike out there. As do I have compassion for the Traitors. But to my lights, Our Lord's Justice and that of this world may be two different things.
If he's truly repentant, he can go to Our Lord with a smile. As can all those who we have to execute.
OTOH, if you did it here "Under the Sun", you have to deal with the consequences that you get here, too.
I sincerely hope he never sees daylight for more than one hour a day ever again in his life.
Posted by: jefferson101 at December 17, 2010 11:22 PM (LL9ZV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Good. I Can Go Back To Hating The Traitor Again
It turns out Bradley Manning, the treasonous little turd that leaked thousands of documents to Wikileaks, is being treated "just like every other maximum security detainee at the military brig" in Quantico. He's not being singled out or abused, despite claims from Manning supporters.
I know I should have followed that age old advice, "never trust a sockpuppet with a taste for Brazilian cabana boys."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:32 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He's not being singled out or abused,
pity about that.
Posted by: iconoclast at December 17, 2010 06:48 PM (Srqoz)
2
I think they may have changed your link.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/17/pentagon-denies-mistreating-wikileaks-suspect/
Posted by: Barry at December 17, 2010 10:44 PM (Vtkx1)
3
Your heart was in the right place. No matter what Manning stand accused of he should be treated properly according to the UCMJ.
I have a bit more faith in the military. Not to say that there are not bad eggs, just that the mechanism in place tend to keep most in line, particularly when the profile of all involved is so high.
Posted by: ThomasD at December 18, 2010 09:52 PM (i/tnP)
4
...Do I get a cookie for being skeptical in the last thread?
Posted by: Casey at December 20, 2010 01:58 AM (Ok5WP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
That'll Do, Donkeys
The Obama tax increase failed, and the earmark-packed budget was pulled in favor of a continuing resolution.
It wasn't a perfect outcome—that would have involved torches and pitchforks, which is desireable nearly every time Congress is in session—but considering what the bitter, vengeful and outbound liberal caucus had hoped to ram through, it wasn't a bad night.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:41 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Not too terrible, all things considered.
Just have to pipe up and appreciate the blog-post title. I find myself saying that to my employees on a daily basis. That, and, "Good night. Good work. Sleep well; I'll likely kill you in the morning." of which that last sentiment would be a great way to end every session of Congress, were I in charge.
Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at December 17, 2010 08:55 AM (FVkio)
2
Now to defeat the DREAM act and card check. This would be the crowning achievement of the Republicans to thwart the final Reid/Pelosi/Obama agenda. Call all your Congresscritters and tell them very politely to vote NO!!!! to these last agenda items.
Posted by: Stan25 at December 17, 2010 10:03 AM (N1Gru)
3
Not perfect but much better outcome than I had hoped for.
Posted by: Tim at December 17, 2010 12:54 PM (s0R0P)
4
Don't forget START - The Dems attempt to further nueter our missle defense program.
Posted by: Bram at December 17, 2010 01:13 PM (K5g5u)
5
What I want to know is what the Republicans had to agree to, in order to get Mr. Reid to climb down on this outrageous Budget bill. Did we have to agree to pass the START treaty, without proper discussion and debate? Or, God forbid, the DREAM act luring even more illegals to invade our country? Just what did we lose here, in order to terminate the Omnibus bill?
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at December 17, 2010 02:05 PM (Aaj8s)
6
Hmmm, torches and pitchforks. I reckon there's a time and place for those.
Currently, though, I'm trying to research and learn more about the old practice of tar and feather. It sounds like a fun time to be had by all.
Merry Christmas, even to those who might deserve some tar and feathers.
Posted by: Charles at December 18, 2010 01:08 PM (Nl5yF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 34 >>
Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.2341 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2211 seconds, 115 records returned.
Page size 105 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MY TOY! Hard work and loyalty DO pay off!
But Barkley, there is a dog down the road that doesn't do anything but lay on his ass and whine all day. HE doesn't have a toy. So the man will come and give him YOUR toy.
Come on, we're not taking it we're just redistributing the toys.
How do you feel about the whole idea now Barkley?
Bad Politician. No Vote!
