In the next few days there will be a vote in the senate regarding the policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." In order to figure out where one should stand on this issue is just a matter of asking what is the use of such a policy in the modern military. One reason that i have found during my reading of reasons to keep the policy is that it will have profound ripple effects in the Organic Community of the armed forces. It would be asinine to claim that the repeal of this policy would not have some effect on the forces as a whole, but the problem with this statement is that it implies that any change is bad for the military. Change in this way is almost always good thing, if all policies were held up due to the fact that it is going to be a "period of adjustment" for the military then we should not have integrated the army.
Another objection to having openly gay men and women in the military is that openly gay soldiers will make the other members of the unit uncomfortable. One of the greatest things about the American military is that it is the people of this nation coming together and serving their country. As much as people would like to deny it, the military is pluralistic by the fact that it is made up of a pluralistic society. If we are to not allow some one to be open about their sexuality for fear that it would make someone uncomfortable then it would stand to reason that the armed forces would have to ban any thing that would make other members uncomfortable, so then it would stand to reason that the armed forces would have to ban all public displays of worship. this idea also answers the objection about the fact that army is about conformity and someone being gay will some how disrupt that order is that has been created.
With this in mind there is no reason that being openly gay in the military would be a problem. If it is a matter of safety for those individuals who are openly gay then steps must be taken to make it known that any harassment or violence towards other will not be tolerated. A persons sexuality has nothing to do with their ability to serve as a solider. and of they feel that they must serve then they should be allowed to do so with out having to hide.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
– Arianna Huffington on Christine O’Donnell, the GOP nominee for Senate in Delaware (via youngleft)
"She seems to think that masturbation is really a huge problem, and I don’t think... it’s as huge a problem for Americans given all the other problems they’re facing, like unemployment, foreclosures, etc… When you have 10% unemployment, people have a lot of free time… Self-love is deficit-neutral.
This is a quote is rises some very troubling thoughts about the recent tea party candidate. Now I do understand that every campaign needs to run on both a mixture of social and political issues in order to win any election. But rising the issue of wither or not masturbation is a big problem is like asking if someone washed the dishes in a burning house. The second part of this quote is right we do have greater economic and political problems that must be solved. But what is coming to the surface here is that the Tea Party is moving away from the libertarian roots that it once touted so highly. this has been a long time move away from these ideals starting with Sarah Palin becoming their golden goose and Glen Beck Calling them Heroes.
Christine O'Donnell has appeared frequently on Bill Maher's Television show as a conservative talking head. During her appearances she has spoken out frequently against things like abortion, homosexuality and pre-marital sex. This combined with Palin's heavily quoted comments on these issues are further evidence of the move away from the greatly valued lie and slogan of "Don't Tread on Me"
What is happening is that this movement that was at one time a movement of people who wanted to real in government spending has been taken over by the social agenda of the extreme right. But at the same time they have tried to keep the economic ideas that appealed to most of the moderates in the first place. So what has come about for the tea party is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. they want to keep their money. stating the government has no right to interfere with the private realm of business. But the government is allowed to say that two people can not be gay, let states have comprehensive sexual education programs, or keep a doctor and women to have the right to privacy. So the question is how much treading is this new Maverick party going to allow.