The Republicans are indulgent.
Lawn maintenance is important to the Republicans.
"Tickled pink" is a favorite phrase of the Republicans.
Salted cashews, according to the Republicans, are a superb accompaniment to a gin martini.
The Republicans detest poorly made appliances.
The Republicans, when with other Republicans, bashfully admit to owning ebook readers.
Impeccable dental hygiene is important to the Republicans.
Republicans prefer fruity wines (chilled) when dining al fresco.
Dining al fresco inflates the Republicans with great breathy sighs.
The Republicans have a difficult time finding appropriate shoes.
The Republicans lament the lost art of letter writing.
The nuances of boat ownership are not lost on the Republicans.
The Republicans drive sedans.
Quiet fears haunt the Republicans.
The Republicans find the decline in the quality of Coleman outdoor products shameful.
The Republicans are wholesome.
* * *
Your humble hostess believes the solid majority of Republicans can laugh at this post, would not boo an American soldier, applaud execution tallies or rally around a cry to "let him die." Your humble hostess is relying on the benefit of doubt.
Your humble hostess also reminds the readership that she's had some fun at the expense of liberals as well.
* * *
91 comments:
A prose poem for sure, this is brilliant!
Madame, you will hear from our barristers regarding the violation of our copyright.
"The Republicans"
MR
wv: 'intenjoi' i picked up my viagra, and I intenjoi to follow
You have me worried. Too many items fit me. Fortunatley, the important ones did not.
Those quiet fears... that is what cause them to boo someone who would give his life in the service of his country because he dares to live according to how he was made and cheer the pain of someone who had to choose between eating and insurance.
They fear the feelings that they have battened down inside of them and it is a life that is so miserable that they'd wish ruefully that others had to live as well.
Peckerheads. No... f*ckers... that is what they really are...
I dont' think anyone was booing the soldier. I think they were booing the fact that, where you want to put your penis should have anything to do with serving your country. After all, you really don't need to discuss anal sex with your fellow soldiers but, if you do, you don't have to indicate whether it was with a male or female recipient. Know what I mean?
Bill, FYI many gay men do not engage in anal sex. but I admire your charitable nature in trying to find a silver lining in the audience's reaction to that soldier's comment.
It's fitting that you mentioned the anal sex thing, seeing as the soldier didn't bring up sex acts of any kind-former senator Santorum, however, has am impressive resume on the topic-I mean, you can google it-no, really, google it. MR
Aw, Bill. Nice try, but zero gain on that one.
So any soldier exhibiting sexual preference, by say--putting up a pin-up photo or kissing his girlfriend or talking about heterosexual activitiy--should face court martial?
Oh. I thought homosexuality was all about sex. I think I'm right about that.
Of course I'm only speaking for myself, but I've seen gay people do stuff other than have sex with my own eyes!
I saw a gay guy doing laundry once. no penis was evident.
MR
Good points Erin.
Exactly, MR and Erin, how did you know they were gay?
Bill, so what's your point? If someone does anything to expose their orientation, they shouldn't be eligible to serve in the military?
Sometimes you know if someone is hetero or gay. Sometimes you don't. WHO CARES? The fact should have no bearing on their eligibility for military service.
Aw hell. Go ask these people whether we should ask or tell.
He was my roommate at Kent State. And I assume I speak for many of the hetero constituency here when I say there is bedroom stuff off the beaten path many of us engage in and enjoy but which we wouldn't choose to use to identify us as individuals or human beings.
Feel free to comment.
MR
Don't ask don't tell worked. We'll see if the new policy has any adverse affects on the military. I hope it doesn't. Will a group of gay or stratight soldiers request separate accomodations, showering facilities? Will the UCMJ have to be changed? Is this a Pandora's Box?
I was stationed on a ship for 3 years while in the Navy. We had a couple of obviously gay guys on the ship. They served thier 4 year stints and I saw one of them, a few years ago, at a ship reunion. He brought his partner. He obviously enjoyed his Navy time.
MR: You just made the point for don't ask don't tell.
It seems odd to me that people are permitted to cheer or boo over anything at a debate. But then, these aren't debates, they're show biz.
Pandora's box was actually a jar, not a box; and she opened it out of curiosity, not from any desire to correct the ills of the world. By this act she released evil, but kept hope inside by capping the jar. One interpretation is that hope is held in a safe place while evil is discharged from its prison so that we can conquer it.
I also lament the lost art of letter writing and the decline of Coleman products. I have a difficult time with shoes, too.
Republicans care.... Sorry, just being hopeful.
"Don't ask don't tell worked"? For WHO? Any of the dedicated men and women who volunteered to serve their country and whose careers were ruined by bigotry?
And how in hail does my comment make a point FOR DADT? It was exactly, precisely the opposite.
MR
PS-Harry-personally I lament the lost art of writing letters to Coleman about the decline of their products...
wv: compon-a free sample of a feminine hygiene product?
Big Mark,
Gotta say, that was the most ignorant, bigoted comment I've read here in quite sometime.
While i don't feel that I have to stick up for Al TRAG, I will use him as an example. I don't know him other than from this blog, but he's admittedly a Republican and yet he comes across as neither a peckerhead nor a fucker. Further, I've known a few Democrats who fit that description to a T. Look to the individual Mark.
BTW, olives are the only accompaniment I require for my martini. But then I'm a Libertarian.
I did not read Mark's comment as referring to all Republicans, but specifically to the loudmouths I pointed out in my italicized note at the bottom of the post.
And I have to admit, I don't have much good to say about anyone in that lot.
Here's a rather ironic footnote to the now-repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell law. I took it from wikipedia:
"In September 2005, the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military – a think tank affiliated with the University of California, Santa Barbara, and renamed the Michael D. Palm Center in October 2006 – issued a news release revealing they had found a 1999 FORSCOM Regulation (500-3-3 RC Unit Commander's Handbook) that allowed the active duty deployment of Army Reservists and National Guard troops who say that they are gay or who are accused of being gay. U.S. Army Forces Command spokesperson Kim Waldron later confirmed the regulation and indicated that it was intended to prevent Reservists and National Guard members from pretending to be gay to escape combat."
thought police
Got a feeling this guy won't be joining up.
Mark,
If it is as Erin suggests, you have my apology. I misinterpreted your comment.
Not a political post, but just a check to see if I meet the criteria to be considered a Republican in Erin's missive above ...
Lawn Maintenance - important to me because my wife's idea of lawn maintenance is to just mow the lawn, and let everything else grow unchecked.
Properly fitting clothes - well, who doesn't like properly fitting clothes?
Cashews for martinis - I have no idea as I don't drink them. I do know olives are a good addition, though. And from what I understand, they should be shaken, not stirred.
Indulgent - a term that, to my knowledge, has never been applied to me.
"Tickled Pink" - a term, to my knowledge, I've never used. I have, however, used the term "happier than a pig in shit." Does that count?
Poorly made appliances - yes, I don't like them simply because I hate having to buy something twice.
Mail Order Shopping - I either do my shopping for needed items in person or over the internet.
E-book readers - I don't own one, but I do have an iPad 2, with which one can do more than just read books ... like type this post.
Impeccable dental hygiene - I brush my teeth daily, but they are hardly what anyone could reasonably call "impeccable." In fact, I have an overbite which pulls the cheese off a pizza, a thing that irritates me to know end. I consider my teeth bad enough that when asked to smile, I usually just grin instead.
Fruity wines while dining Al Fresco - I don't drink wine, and my usual beverage of choice while dining al fresco is beer. If I'm driving it's usually water or iced tea. I drink Coke and other soft drinks occasionally.
Being a Republican - that I am, and am registered as such.
Finding appropriate shoes - not something I've ever had a problem with.
Letter writing - I don't lament the decline of it. I think it's great we can use the internet and email for correspondence.
Boats - I don't own one, and never have. I like it when other people own them and have to deal with the headaches of maintenance and ownership, whilst I get to enjoy just riding around in one on my annual houseboat trip with my former brother in law.
Quiet fears - I don't have any, so I guess I'm not haunted by them.
Coleman products - I haven't bought any in a long time, but the ones I have are pretty good. I actually had a two burner Coleman gas stove that my Mom sent to me during the first Gulf War that worked pretty well - great for making coffee after stand-to.
Wholesome - well, yet another term that's not been applied to me to my knowledge.
So, what does all this mean?
It means that I'm still a Republican, I guess.
Al
TRAG
I love Al's comment.
Re: my dental hygiene routine:
1. Use tongue cleaner.
2. Floss (with extra tick dental tape)
3. Brush with dual-action electric toothbush for 2+ minutes.
4. Rinse with generic equivalent of Listerine.
Under no circumstances should a person buy a Colman sleeping bag--not that I know from personal experience or anything.
I like Al's comments too but, jeez, wouldn't you like to hear his take on DADT?
Cashews are pretty good with almost anything liquid. I'm having some right now with Canadian whisky.
Al's the real deal. I think he'd tell you a soldier doesn't have to love an order for him to carry it out (I trust, Al, you will forgive me for taking the liberty of saying that).
@ Harry: God knows that in my military career I received some stupid orders and even stupider "guidance" from above.
@ Bill: As I've said previously, I'm not commenting on DADT or any other political matters in this forum for reasons well known to our humble hostess. Email me if you want my take on it.
Al
TRAG
I have always likened our perpetual fascination for what another's sexual orientation is to the way pets greet each other on the street, curiously sniffing about each other's genitals.
"Hmm, where was this thing?"
"Wait, wait, don't tell me, it's that hot new schnauzer in the beige ranch, right?"
"I heard she's a bitch."
"Ya'know, I think I detect a hint of that chocolate Lab,too."
"The one with one nut?"
"Yep, that's him. Hey,let's go piss on tires."
"Let's."
It is always a bad idea to spend any time thinking about what other people do in bed.
wv: 'bangen'
Sorry couldn't let that one go
MR
The Guy in the pic is NOT a Republican. He's not wearing black socks.
The guy in the pic looks like a British Tory to me.
@ Bill: I don't know - I have a lot of different colored socks. I do wear black socks when in the kitchen as generally that is what is acceptable (that and gray or white). Some folks wear other colors in the kitchen as well (and by this I mean a professional kitchen, not at home). My guess is they're Democrats if we are to accept that Republicans wear black socks only. ;-)
Al
TRAG
P.S. Not a political post, but simply commentary on the legitimacy of Republicans and black socks.
"let him die", cried a few Repbublicans, about a hypothetical uninsured guy. "give him medical attention", was the cry, when an actual late term aborted baby didn't succomb to the proceedure and was refused attention.
Keep believin' that Bill, just keep believin'...
What was the kid's skin color? Was he destined for public assistance? Got Troy Davis?
Not sure of his race Erin. We won't know what would have become of him but he did not have access to the justice system.
I wish I'd written this, but I'm fortunate enough to know the guy. You know, in the Biblical sense, too.
I urge you to follow the links at the end of the post.
http://happyvalleynews.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/seize-the-auslander/
I have an ebook reader. It is the greatest invention since toilet paper and indoor plumbing.
I can never find shoes that fit right.
My 30 year old Coleman Oscar cooler is the best cooler I ever owned, I still use it and it works better than any cooler bought in recent times.
There are putzes (if that is the proper plural) who who chant silly things. Goofy fucks and stupid people find a home all across the political spectrum.
I purposely did not read any of the previous comments before posting this one.
I hope your Saturday is filled with goodness and fun.
Oh, and cashews are without question the bestest and greatest of the nut family and go with anything. Probably even martinis, but I don't drink 'em. I do drink beer to wash down my cashews (only the cheap broken halves stuff).
Joe - Be good to yourself during the holiday season and buy yourself some whole cashews.
-The readership shall be duly warned that I asked Al about his opinion on DADT in Dec, 2007 and received a 768-word response.
-Yes, I save all emails.
-Al, when you are in your kitchen at home PLEASE tell me you wear red socks and nothing else.
-The only sex a person needs to worry about is the sex they're having.
-I thought animals sniffed each other's rear ends to try to figure out what the other one's been eating.
-I like the idea of Joe and Harry Finch in a whole-cashew bromance.
-I have never approved of the word bromance until this moment.
Oh, and pistachios--and those new hot chile peanuts from Planters--and smoked almonds.
You forgot, Republicans never buy single ply toilet paper. Love it, but not the links, idiots are everywhere.
James Old Guy
A note inspired by the link twinks recommended:
One think I know about Al is that he always always always recognizes and thanks any US military personnel when he sees them, whether he knows them or not and whether it's in person or online. It is one of my favorite things about Al.
James, Rick Santorum did not recognize that man's service or thank him for it--which any presidential candidate should have done. Hence, as far as I'm concerned, one of the biggest idiots around was on the stage.
Erin
No where did I say the idiots were just in the audience. As you know both Al and I are retired Army and we probably think about the same on DADT. Personally I am not happy about any of the choices, declared or other wise as president, and my opinion of congress is even lower. I do love reading your blog though.
James Old Guy
I think Joe and I should form our own presidential ticket for 2012 and run on a whole cashew platform. Joe will have to take the top slot as I want to be the one who gets to say whatever crazy stuff comes into my head.
No American should have to sit at home complimenting their beer with cheap broken half cashews. That's not who we are.
James, thank you for your readership and your service.
~~~Finch/Joe 2012~~~
Macadamia nuts. Of course they are expensive so only Republicans can afford them. However they are approved for purchase with food stamps.
@ Erin: Sorry to disappoint, but I don't wear red socks in the kitchen, either at home or work. And it's not a good idea to cook while wearing nothing but red socks - bacon grease is a very powerful (and potentially painful) thing indeed.
Al
TRAG
Seems to me the repeal of DADT puts the UCMJ back in play with respect to sodomy leaving us right back where we were in 1973 when a gay military member could be and would be brought up on charges depending on the CO and the chain of command. I believe we will see a return to that in the near future. So a wise soldier, sailor, marine, or airman should just shut up and keep out of sight until the UCMJ is amended.
Mike the retired Navy Guy.
@ Mike: If I'm not mistaken, they've already made the necessary changes to the UCMJ. And thank you for your service to our Navy and our country.
BTW, my dad was a Plank Owner on the Missouri (BB-63).
For those of you who don't know, the UCMJ is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, basically the "laws" the military lives by.
Al
TRAG
@Al TRAG. You are correct sir, the Senate Armed Services Committee did indeed amend Article 125 of the UCMJ. Those OLD BB's were a sight to behold I had the privilege of working with the IOWA prior to her gun exploding. And now I'm way off topic. In over twenty years of service I can't think of one time when a person's sexual orientation made a damn bit of difference to accomplishing a mission.
Mike, you are more than welcome to go as off-topic as you please on these pages. Thanks for your service and thanks for reading and dropping in to comment.
Right! The UCMJ was changed. Here's the change:
Removes from Sect 925 sodomy between consenting adults and unnatural copulation with an “animal” – offenses to be addressed as proposed “sex-related offenses” in paragraph 62, Part IV, MCM.
To be fair, it turns out that it was one schmuck who booed. A blogger at the debate said he was prompty shusshed.
The real nuttiness was the molestation of logic in Santorum's answer:
The other issue: Santorum's answer was incoherent, especially after Megyn Kelly's smart follow-up. He would reinstate DADT, but "people like that" (in the video) wouldn't be thrown out. How, exactly? Would there be a special dispensation for gay men and women who came out from September 2011 to January 2013? Santorum doesn't say, which leaves us to interpret his response as: "I won't say it to your face, but I don't think people like you should serve." And sadly, no serious candidate gets the question or gets a follow-up.
There's more and more discussion on conservative blogs about why, in a lackluster Republican field, Rick Santorum doesn't get taken more seriously. Here's one reason: The other candidates don't go through so many contortions when contemplating the privacy and humanity of their fellow Americans.
Link
Large majorities of Americans now support allowing gays to serve openly. This issue is settled.
@Mike-There is some irony that you mention USS Iowa in this context.
The original Navy investigation into the deadly explosion onboard Iowa in 1989 attempted to place blame on one of the dead sailors, Clayton Hartwig.
The Navy's investigation further attempted to assign Hartwig's motivation to his alleged homosexuality.
This was not one of the finer moments in Naval history.
MR
Repubicans have gaydar? How did Bristol know? gaydar
I've done some thinking ... and I think DADT is less a political thing and more of a social thing. Hence, I am able to comment.
The repeal of DADT wasn't really about gays being able to serve. They always have, albeit in the closet. It had everything to do with a larger "agenda," so to speak. In other words, a repeal would provide a platform for those who espouse gay rights to say, "well, we can serve in the military, die for our country, and yet we can't X, Y, Z legally." In other words, it was a means to an end (acceptance). Recently, I read an article (I wish I could find it and link it here, but unfortunately I can't remember the publication - it's hell to get old) which lamented the extension of military benefits (on-post housing, dependent rate housing allowance, medical care, PX privileges, etc.) to gay service members with partners. Basically, the article argued that now that the ban has been lifted, that the other "benefits" extended to straight, married couples should be extended to gay couples. There is one thing stopping that ... the Defense of Marriage Act. Until that act is repealed, gay service members will not be eligible for the "with dependents" benefits that their straight colleagues are. My guess is we'll see more arguments in the future in favor of extending military married benefits to gays now that DADT has been repealed.
On a more practical level, I think the repeal of DADT makes more problems than it solves. Most of the problem solving power is delegated to company grade officers and below. LTCs, COLs and GENs won't have to deal with the headaches ... Staff Sergeants, Sergeants, Sergeants First Class, Lieutenants and Captains will (how convenient, huh?). If for example, a straight soldier doesn't want to room with a gay soldier, the company commander will have to find him a new room. If enough straight soldiers do the same thing, what will happen is you will have a "gay" wing in the barracks, and a "straight" wing in the barracks by default. As to the latrines, there is no plan to create separate gay/straight latrines. If you have straight/gay soldiers who are uncomfortable being naked in front of gay/straight soldiers, what are your options? Gay/straight hours for the latrine. Instead of bringing soldiers together, it's dividing them.
I may be proven entirely wrong. We just don't know what will really happen. I'm hoping it is not a big deal, and that our armed forces remain as potent as they are today. We'll see, I guess.
Al
TRAG
Erin knows what my thoughts are on the repeal of DADT. If you're interested, she has the 700 plus word email that she got from me on the subject, and can provide it to you. I won't provide my views here.
My guess is that the older folks in the military won't be as inclined to accept the changes, while the younger folks will be. We'll see, I guess.
For the record, I'm glad I'm retired. I don't have to deal with the headaches anymore. Gay or straight.
V/R,
Al
TRAG
@Al-"albeit in the closet" is akin to saying blacks in the South could always ride the bus, "albeit in the back or while standing".
MR
@@Al TRAG. You I'm sure are aware that this is not the the first time that the military has been used as an experiment in social engineering. It happened with incorporating, blacks, women and now it happens again with another minority population. And all of these groups have been and will be assimilated, not without rough edges but it will happen. You are right that it will be the NCO's and the JO's who will deal with these changes.
@AL
I have actually read about companies (or platoons? Forgive me if I've got the terminology wrong, but I think you'll know the grouping I'm talking about) within the military where most of the troops have served together for long enough for one man's (or woman's) sexuality really to matter. I don't know how true that is, but it seems to me that a gay soldier is going to be more inclined to keep his cards close if he doesn't know the other guys very well. In fact, that's the way gay people usually act in situations where they aren't sure how gay friendly their peers might be. So in that situation, I doubt you're going to see all the gay soldier coming out in droves. As they do, I'm sure it could be uncomfortable for some people at first, but at the end of the day, just as in any other group dynamic (especially one where people are together 24/7), everyone will realize that there was much ado about nothing. If they do their job as best as they can, and are otherwise easy to get along with, no one will care. Or as Barry Goldwater once said, "You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."
I wonder if we'll see a new Army recruiting office opening in the Castro. Republicans are practical.
@ Everyone: As I said, we'll see.
Al
TRAG
The Teapublicans have never explained why only straight soldiers deserve to die!
Less than 10% of our service members see combat. But, VideoDude, hyperbole is permitted here.
I love hyperbole! My point is: why should it matter? If someone steps up and says they want to defend our country, who gives a damn what they do in their private life?
The homophobic Teapublicans are afraid that straight soldiers might catch "THE GAY".
DADT! No one cared. Now, everyone cares. Go figure.
@Bill..."No one cared"...well except for the men and women affected by it...they cared.
MR
wv: 'santura'-deluxe santorum...
Yes MR. No one cared what they did in their private life. Now they want everyone to know and care and it really doesn't matter. Why does "homosexual" have to be the number 1 attribute on ones resume'? I'm in the "we'll see" camp. I live in the SF bay area and have lived in SF for many years. I could care less what kind of sex and with whom anyone has. We have the gay pride parade, the gay mens choir, the dykes on bikes parade, and many other gay attractions. The politicians pander to the gay community for votes and there are many servics specific to the gay community. My advice to any gay person who feels ostracized is to move to San Francisco. He/she will be welcomed with open arms. I'm conservative and don't have any fear whatsoever of gayness. I have members of my extended family who are gay and lesbian. I have had a gay married couple at my home, friends of my son and daughter in law, many times. No homophobia here. I don't care.
"Now they want everyone to know"
Huh?
Bill. You say you don't care about the not-so-secret life of homosexuals, but you're sure leaving a lot of commentary about the DADT repeal. SF resident or not, you sure are worried about what "they" want.
Unless you're in the military, he DADT repeal is about a thousand light years from your reality.
Quit your bellyaching and go watch the dancing go-go chick video again. Or go on and make your own orgone box in your garage. You can buy steel wool at the hardware store.
"methinks he doth protest too much"
MR
It's an important issue and Polyannaish thinking isn't going to resolve it. When you join the armed forces of the United States you lose some rights. It's not a civilian neighborhood watch. I served 4 years and got out because I didn't like some of the restrictions and wanted to make more money. Sometimes, reality sucks.
@Bill; How bout them 9rs!
Colin Powell, Robert Gates and Adm. MIke Mullen all strongly supported the repeal, Bill.
source
source
Go call them Pollyannas.
Interesting but the three and four star ranks are all about being politically correct, speaking your mind gets you fired. Lots of examples. As for DADT, story over, law changed, actual impact to the military yet to be seen.
James Old Guy
American Military, victim of the hope and change hoax.
"Colin Powell, Robert Gates and Adm. MIke Mullen all strongly supported the repeal, Bill."
Colin Powell was retired when he supported the repeal. Robert Gates was on his way out, as was Mike Mullen. In short, they would not have to deal with any potential headaches that might ensue. The poor dumb schmucks at the company level and lower would.
Not what I would call leadership on the issue. But that's just me.
Al
TRAG
So, it's all about having to 'deal with any potential headaches'...I suppose Truman should have been more solicitous of the feelings of the line officers when he desegregated the military in 1948...what would BE leadership, keeping everyone in the closet? Men and women, all dedicated professionals, forced to live a lie to serve their country? Was it leadership when somewhat around 13,000 men and women were discharged under DADT? Many of whom DIDN'T ask and DIDN'T tell, but were outed by the unethical actions of colleagues or superiors?
Was THAT leadership? And we have a mealy-mouthed worm like Rick Santorum wishing those same men and women back into the closet, a Blue Falcon/Chicken Hawk who, like Dick Cheney, had 'other priorities' than to serve his country.
And please, spare me the 'you didn't serve' sentiments...I've never been to the moon, either, but I'm pretty sure the craters aren't filled with green cheese...
MR...but that's just me...
@ MR: I don't know if you've ever served in our Armed Forces (if you have, thanks for your service). I have, and my comment about leadership is more commentary on the men making/supporting these decisions rather than the actual policy.
Reference Truman and "keeping people in the closet," I will only say this: our military is subordinate to civilian leadership (and for good reason). All of our officers take an oath to obey the orders of those appointed over us (to include the President), to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. In other words, we follow the rule of law as established in the Constitution and as legislated by our Congress. DADT was enacted under Clinton, and our military followed that law as it is bound to. Failure to do so would not only be an abrogation of leadership, but also insubordination, leading to prosecution under the UCMJ. Now, were some gay/lesbian soldiers "outed" as you say? Certainly, and that is of course wrong. But once it happened, under the law, military leaders had no choice but to discharge these folks. It would be nice if they could have picked/chose those laws/orders they could follow, but unfortunately, they can't.
Anytime there is change in the military (integration of African-Americans, women, etc.) there will be potential problems and issues. Change is never easy, either in civilian or military contexts. But change is often harder in the military since it is a much more rigid, hidebound environment as compared to that in the civilian sector. Yes, the military will implement (and is implementing) the repeal of DADT, and doing it without complaint. There will be problems, however. You just don't repeal something like DADT and expect everything will go smoothly with no bumps along the way.
My point in the leadership quote is that it is easy for these men to support the DADT repeal knowing that they will not have to respond to any problems that occur along the way. For example, if a gay soldier is assigned a barracks room with a straight soldier who's religious beliefs, background, upbringing, you name it tells him that homosexuality is wrong, and doesn't want to room with a gay soldier, the company commander/first line leader has only one solution - move that soldier to another room. While this may seem innocuous, if enough soldiers do this, what's created in effect is a separate "gay wing" and "straight wing" in the barracks. In other words, instead of achieving integration into the force, it's achieving the exact opposite and has the potential to affect morale (an "us vs. them" mentality). These are the very real problems that junior leaders will have to address, not retired Admirals, retired Generals and retired Secretaries of Defense/State.
To me, that is abrogating responsibility and leadership. You may call it whatever you wish, but if I'm supporting a policy/order I know is not going to go over with some folks, at least I'll be around to take the heat for it, and also to make sure that it's implemented efficiently and in accordance with the law. That these men didn't tells me, at least, that it's a "you deal with it - I'm outta here" kind of situation. Based on what I learned over a twenty year military career about leadership their actions are anything but.
As I've noted above, we shall see how this all falls out. It may be much ado about nothing, but only time will tell if it is.
Al
TRAG
Thanks, Al for a thoughtful and intelligent reply...MR
wv: almost too easy...'they'll have to get a 'gripp'...
@Al-btw, I never had the honor of serving, though the service was pretty strong in my family...My maternal grandfather served in France in 1918. He was wounded twice and gassed. His discharge paperwork is one of my most prized possessions. My dad served in DDs USS ROWAN and USS HENDERSON in Korea. He was called up in 1960 during the Congo crisis and served aboard USS WASP(II). My older brother was nearly a career Marine but had to bail about 39 months early due to a health problem. My younger brother served a hitch with the 101st Airborne.
My dad was a recruiter with the Army Reserve in Cleveland when I was in high school in Portage County. He badgered me into going downtown to take the aptitude test my senior year, and I guess they scored me ok because I got a lot of phone calls...I knew it wasn't for me because even though they mentioned OCS I knew with a smart mouth and and over-developed sense of self-importance that there was no chance of surviving boot camp without a discharge and/or brig time.
Thank YOU for your service, and again, for a well-considered reply to my, in retrospect, snotty and ill-worded post.
PS-I pass the Memphis Sausage Shoppe on my way home from work...lemme know if you want anything sent next day...dry ice is a miracle drug...freight is on you sausage is on me...
MR
wv: almost too good to be real='preigoe'-mess that around and dontcha get perogie? Karma, zen, and an order of fries...
@ MR: I may have to take you up on your offer re: the Sausage Shoppe. Thanks!
V/R,
Al
TRAG
Here we go. Let's see how General Powell weighs in on this. Not that there's anything wrong with it. here we go
Nice link, Bill.
The Washington Times is to journalism as Cheez Whiz is to cheese...
MR
wv: 'squirr'...does 'u' always follow 'q' in WV too?
MR: Do you think the story is bogus?
Bill, I don't think the story is bogus. I do think The Washington Times is a deliberately slanted right-wing entity.
MR
MR,I'll try to link to more Mother Jones and The Nation stories. Wouldn't want any slant.
I take the Nation with a grain of salt...the writing is a bit stilted and it is lefty...but they are out front about it...they own it. They would never try to trumpet a slogan like 'Fair and Balanced' as Fox does, and the Washington Times is generally considered to be the print equivalent. Mother Jones is less reflexively lefty and has a broader base of columnists, and content outside of politics.
If you truly want to see what smart people on the left are thinking go to The New Republic and Atlantic Monthly on a regular basis. Wide range of opinion among their regular columnists, outstanding writing, and arts/literature criticism content to take your mind off just how dysfunctional the Congress has become.
Now if you REALLY want some no-nonsense, straight-from-the-hip conservative content go to...wait for it...The New York Times...David Brooks, Russ Douthat, and Joe Nocera are outstanding writers and journalists, and if you find them liberal, then Stalin was a liberal too. Even Maureen Dowd, who most on the right view as a Red menace, savaged Clinton, especially in the second term as the vultures started circling.
MR
Post a Comment