Reading is Fundamental

| May 12, 2010 | 34 Comments

The letter that many Milbloggers signed on to today and we posted below has hit the internet and it’s been immediately characterized by the illiterate press as a call from Milbloggers to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Although some of the signatories may hold that opinion, that’s not what the letter says.

It urges Congress to wait on repealing the law until the service chiefs finish their study of the impact changing the law will have on the force. It’s right there in the letter in the third paragraph, for Pete’s sake.

We ask Congress to withhold action until this is finished, but no longer. We urge Congress to listen to the service chiefs and act in accordance with the recommendations of that study.

But that doesn’t stop Huffington Post and Politico from pushing whatever intellectually vacant agenda they’re engaged in.

huffpodadt-letter

politicodadt-letter

Illiterate fucks.

Category: Liberals suck, Media

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (36)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Operator Dan says:

    Jonn,

    No shit I was just about to email those two articles to you.
    Honestly do you expect anything less from the HuffPo?

  2. OldTrooper says:

    I don’t expect anything less from any of the leftist trash, including Huffpo.

  3. Coalition warefare at its finest, as if we didn’t learn the mistakes of Desert Storm. Some milbloggers, like Uncle Jimbo and McQ, are unquestionably supporting the repeal of DADT. Is that the crux of the statement, no, but what do you expect from the media?

    Do I support the repeal of DADT? No, I do not. Do I think its going to happen anyway, regardless of my opinion or the opinion of any other soldier in the military? Yes I do. In that respect, I agree with this letter in that we need to wait until the Pentagon study is complete to minimize the damage as much as possible.

  4. Ben says:

    Yeah, but in reading the whole thing it sounds like you welcome the end of the policy.

    I wouldn’t have signed any such statement. I disagree. Staunchly.

    This will have a terrible effect on the armed forces, on the freeom of our troops to exercise their religion and to speak, as well as on morale and recruitment. The media may never report on it, just the same way they don’t report on the effects of women in the ranks, but it will happen nonetheless.

  5. Just A Grunt says:

    Hot Air teased the statement with the same headline.

    Everybody is reading this thing wrong. All it says is the administration should do what the military recommends, whichever way they recommend.

  6. I see that Bruce did come out and call for repeal, which will give Politico and HuffPo (who essentially just reposted Smith) all the cover they need.

    There’s certainly some heat over at B5 on the issue.

    Me? I didn’t live through Truman’s integration of the Armed Forces, but my career soldier father did – and I lived (at a remove, as an Army brat and a Lieutenant) the tail end of finally getting that mostly tied up… in the late 70′s/early 80′s. I did pretty much live through the integration of women, and commanded a unit with women in it.

    While I understand the position that homosexuality is a choice/behavior, vice skin color and gender which are not – I find that many of the same arguments about impacts are being put forth. Many of them are as unpersuasive to me on this topic as for the other two.

    My take in putting my name to that letter was: It’s probably going to happen, please listen to the Services input, and I believe the organization and people are strong enough to go along and get along, whatever the ultimate decision is.

    If it’s repealed, are we going to have careers destroyed? Certainly. Just as we did and do now. Sex is a career-killer these days, too, heterosexual or homosexual.

    Instead of DADT, I have a greater sense of BTDT.

  7. ponsdorf says:

    I simply don’t have a dog in this hunt.

    If I’d been asked I would NOT have signed on to the idea.

    I’ll elaborate elsewhere, but the essence will be DADT is silly, and allowing homosexuals to serve openly is patently ridiculous. It’s a PC position that offers no/zero/nil enhancement to war fighting.

  8. J says:

    that’s right Pons, if the military wanted people to have relationships they’d issue them! that’s why the military doesn’t let anyone have relationships and why there are no family support groups.

    obviously we should make decisions based on what doesn’t hurt war fighting rather than what hurts war fighting.

  9. TSO says:

    And Allahpundit is using your post and asserting it to me, which DOUBLY pisses me off. Now I will have both sides on my ass.

  10. TSO says:

    Allah doesn’t read my email, and I m busy watching wounded vets compete, so can someone who has a login over there correct him for me please?

  11. ponsdorf says:

    Er, uh… J:

    There’s a word that addresses your perspective: Nonsense.

    words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas

    We might simply yank every M-16 (or variant) and assume our war fighters will adapt and overcome?

  12. DangerGirl says:

    Gay’s have been serving openly in the Canadian Military for over 17 years…

    ( So I guess that makes the Canadian Military ‘Patently absurd”, right??)

    As elsewhere, there had been dire warnings that esprit d’corps, morale, and operational effectiveness would be compromised by a change in policy; but, as elsewhere, NONE of that happened in Canada.

    At first the Canadian Forces did not recognize homosexual marriages or extend partner benefits to homosexual couples. but now Full partner benefits are available to all of Canada’s service members, including compassionate leave and partner entitlement to dental care and health care plans as dependents, among other standard benefits.

    Recently a Gay Military Wedding, with both partners in full Military Uniform took place on a Canadian Military Base.

    Patriotic gay and straight Canadians are serving and sacrificing in Afghanistan, alongside American troops, getting the job done. Gay service is no longer an issue in Canada — the standard of conduct for homosexuals serving in the Military is EXACTLY same as for heterosexuals.

    Transexuals also serve openly in the Canadian Military…again the standard of conduct for transexuals is the same as for homosexuals which is the same as for heterosexuals.

    The most comprehensive academic study of homosexuality in a foreign military ever compiled is titled “Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces; Appraising the Evidence”. and it reflects an exhaustive inventory of relevant data and research.

    Key findings:

    * Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has NOT led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.

    * Self-identified gay, lesbian, and transsexual members of the Canadian Forces contacted for the study describe good working relationships with peers.

    * The percent of military women who experienced sexual harassment DROPPED 46% AFTER the ban was lifted. While there were several reasons why harassment declined, one factor was that after the ban was lifted women were free to report assaults without fear that they would be accused of being a lesbian simply for NOT enjoying and then complaining about the lewd sexual advances foisted on them by… HETERO MALES!

    * Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. AFTER the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found NO increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems.

    * NONE of the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces from November, 1992 (when the ban was lifted) until August, 1995 involved gay bashing or could be attributed to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.

    There is NO reason – other than pure unbridled bigotry -for the US Military to continue to ban/discriminate against Gays serving OPENLY.

    As for DOMA— well the Australian Defence Force (ADF) offers full same sex partner benefits; and Israel has provided combat death benefits to same sex partners for years; despite the fact that NEITHER country allows same sex marriages to be performed.

    The study I mentioned can be found here
    http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/study_finds_gays_do_not_undermine_canadian_military_performance

    The United Kingdom, Canada, and Israel transitioned to unrestricted open service policies quickly and WITHOUT problems.

    Regarding retention & recruitment—Neither the UK Military nor the Canadian Military where service is voluntary, have EVER suffered ” any difficulties related to recruitment or training completion rates; recruitment levels are characterized as ‘quite buoyant.’”

    The Canadian Forces have suffered “no resignations (despite previous threats to quit), and no problems with recruitment”.

    Any argument against repealing DADT is without merit and based purely on homophobia, bigotry, and alot of ignorance about gays judging from some of the comments posted here and elsewhere…. and those same bogus arguments against repealing DADT are identical in every manner to those that were voiced when the Military decided to racially integrate– and the argument about “sexual choice” vs skin color/gender doesn’t hold a drop of water —the bigotry that existed about skin color and gender is NO different that the bigotry that exists today about Homosexuality.

  13. Kenny says:

    No sense in getting pissed off now. You know that some of the milbloggers that signed the statement have been advocates for repeal of DADT and allowing gays to openly serve in the military. Do you really think the study is going to recommend anything else but repeal. The study will reflect what POTUS wants period.

    By signing on you guys opened the door and walked right on in…..

  14. Ben says:

    Yeah, okay DangerGirl. And women in the military have been a great success too.

    I am so tired of this argument that homosexuals are serving openly in other militaries and it isn’t a problem. How do we know it isn’t a problem? Because the authorities say so.

    By the way, Candadians and Brits are not Americans. When ten percent of currently serving military members say that they will definitely noy reenlist as a direct result of a policy change, I believe them. If you want to know what will happen to the American armed forces, it’s best toi study the American armed forces.

    And yes, it is a choice. Acts of sodomy are not skin color.

  15. Debra says:

    Ben,

    Are you the one who left a comment on my blog a while back, calling me a poseur? That was real nice.

  16. TSO says:

    So ben, if this goes through and 10% do not immediately quit, we can expect you to come back to this post, right?

    Because I remember when everyone said that if a Dem was elected they were out. And Voila! Not so much.

  17. BohicaTwentyTwo says:

    Yeah if we can expect our combat arms units to experience the same success with hats that support units had with women, we might as well pack up from Afghanistan and head home.

    The only saving grace I see from lifting DADT is that I expect there to be no influx of gay recruits and you will only find an insignificant number of actual gays in line units. When you have a co ed unit that is 50/50 male to female, you have a soap opera. When you have a combat unit that is 98/2 hetero to homo, not so much.

    And the Palm Center is to DADT as the SPLC is to race relations. They have an agenda and their studies are not without bias.

  18. Ben says:

    Yes, Debra. That was me.

    I don’t remember anyone saying that people would leave the military in droves because of a Democrat being elected. Even if someone did say that (I never saw any statistics to that fact), BHO has only been in office a year and a half. It’s still too early for a mass exodus to manifest itself.

    By the way, you can’t “immediately quit” the military. But there will be a high rate of attrition for the first four years or so.

    There is a great denial about the fundamental fact that soldiers don’t want this and will vote with their feet. They’ve said so. Ten percent MINIMUM, maybe more. “Oh, they’re just saying that. They won’t actually do it.” You wanna bet?

    Yeah, and if they do leave, TSO will be back with an apology. Right?

    I was in during the era of DADT. There was nothing wrong with the policy. There was no massive outflow of “perfectly good” homosexual soldiers who “just wanted to serve their country.” They may have been homosexuals here or there, but I didn’t ask and they didn’t tell. No one was chaptered.

  19. Debra says:

    All right, then. Just checking.

  20. BohicaTwentyTwo says:

    Stupid blackberry pearl half keyboard autotyping function. Despite my misgiving about Shinseki’s beret fiasco, I was trying to comment about gays in the military, not hats in the military.

  21. Claymore says:

    Pffft. Gay.

  22. NHSparky says:

    I look at it this way–there were gays and lesbians in the military, both during our current DADT policy, and previous to that when they could ask and boot out any gays/lesbians. How do I know this? I served with them. No big whoop, really. Do I think that if gays can serve openly that there will be some huge influx of gays, etc., and that we’ll all be forced to smoke the baloney pony in the name of “diversity?” Hell no–abberant behavior, sexual harassment, and other conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline will still be dealt with, regardless of who’s responsible for said conduct.

    Bottom line (no pun intended)–it might be a shock at first, and yes, some people will vote with their feet, but the grab-ass won’t be tolerated amongst the gay/lesbians any more than it is amongst the straight community, and possibly even less.

  23. OldTrooper says:

    I have made my thoughts known on this subject, as many have, before. I do not wish to go over the same turf twice. Unfortunately, there are those that seem destined to bring out the same arguments as before in defense of repealing DADT. Repeal it, already. Many of the experts here say that it’s not a problem and won’t be a problem. Fine, repeal it now; don’t wait for any “study” to be done, because Dangergirl has already posted a link to a study, plus we have her word that it won’t be a problem. Let’s quit dancing around it as though we’re trying out for DWTS and get on with it. Besides; why should I give a shit? I’m out and don’t have to take a shower with an openly gay soldier. In fact, since Dangergirl says it’s not a problem, and has the “study” to prove it; I say they get rid of that whole gender segregation thingy, too. I would re-up tomorrow if they went to co-ed showers. If it’s not a problem having openly gay soldiers showering with same sex peeps; then it shouldn’t be a problem having heteros showering with the opposite sex; right? Or are openly gay soldiers that much more disciplined in holding back their urges than hetero soldiers?

    Stop flapping on endlessly about it and pull the trigger, so to speak.

  24. Y’all are going to kick me around for this like you usually do, but here goes anyway. From a PR standpoint, that letter was poorly written. It was obvious that the signers wanted to be seen as patriotic, but it sounded a lot like an endorsement of the plan to repeal DADT. Thus, that will be the story. It sucks, but few reporters are going to read every word and then try to figure out what you really menat. Part of it may be bias, but the biggest part is that they have short turn around times to write a story based on your release. The importnat stuff needs to be in the first graph and clear enough that even the morons at the WSJ or the Washington Times can understand it. (Okay, I had to get a liberal jab in somewhere.) In all seriousness, publications are ultimately the same. If you want the story right,l you have to spoon feed them.

  25. J says:

    Ben, how exactly do you know who was gay and left because they were gay when they can’t tell? you should see’s pons post regarding nonsense. apply that to your comment about how it has work out for women. why don’t you try getting the assholes who can’t act right in line instead of blaming good soldiers who are women or LGBT.

    the nonsense comment by the way was following up a comment on the idiocy of claimiming lifting DADT won’t help the military. if you can’t prove it won’t hurt, I guess the next step is claiming it won’t help? the M16 analogy serves my point; getting rid of/not providing weapons will hurt the military. it is not a decision based on what doesn’t help the military if it based on not hurting the military.

  26. J says:

    and what is up with the shower comment? lifting DADT isn’t like making coed showers. gay peole are already in the shower. in the military, in school and at the gym. we separate showers based on gender. lifting DADT doesn’t change anything in there.

    and if open sexuality is the reason for assualt(or not being able to control yourself) will making men hide their sexuality cause sexual assault to decline? they are about 95% of the perps. I don’t think all men would appreciate being forced to hide their sexuality based on generalizations or the assholes who don’t know how to act right.

  27. OldTrooper says:

    J; yeah, they are, however, if a person doesn’t know it, then they have to readily assume that they are not in the presence of gayness; correct? As for segregating based on gender; yep, we do, but you want to throw a new twist into it by introducing something openly that removes the entire argument about sexual orientation and moves it into sexual preference. Is it fair to force women to shower with guys that prefer women? With that; is it fair to force guys to shower with guys that prefer guys?

    I have been fascinated by the rambling arguments by those that want the sexual preference barrier removed, but the second someone brings up the co-ed showers, they revert to gender instead of what the issue is; which is preference, not orientation. Funny thing is, it’s not just showers, but bathrooms, laundry facilities, etc.

    When you can resolve that, then you might get more support, for your argument, from me, but unless you’re ready to make it all co-ed, that ain’t gonna happen, no matter what type of spin you want to put on it.

  28. J says:

    old trooper, your base assumption is wrong. you have to readily assume there are both gay and straight in the shower.
    not knowing if someone in the shower is gay doesn’t wisk away the gays. you are basing this on your perceptions rather than the reality that gays are already in the shower.

    you ask “is it fair to force guys to shower with guys that prefer guys?” but you ignore that we already do, in the military. and I would say people are uncomfortable with coed showering based on a long culture of single gender showering or the fear of sexual assault and harassment.

    how does you knowing a person in the shower with you is gay change anything from showering with a gay person who you do not know is gay?
    gay people wouldn’t need to “tell” you they are gay if you wouldn’t assume they are straight.

  29. OldTrooper says:

    J; If a person is openly gay and is in the shower, you know that; correct? As the old saying goes “what you don’t know won’t hurt you”, just as in the shower/bathroom/etc. If you have to ask “how does you knowing a person in the shower with you is gay change anything from showering with a gay person who you do not know is gay?” then you really are either searching for a strawman to prop up, or you are naive. Which is it?

    Why the need to change it now? If it has been all these many years; why change it? If it is to satisfy a very small group of people, then we must look at the reality of answering this question: What benefit will be gained in the mission of the military by doing this?

    I take it you’re not gay; so, would you have a problem with showering with openly gay men? Before you answer, I want you to really think about it and give an honest answer. Not what you would imagine, because if you never had communal showers, other than in school gym class, then you can’t honestly answer it. I spent 4 years in communal showers, from basic all the way through my permanent duty stations, so I know of what I speak. The worst is when non-military folk think it’s a great idea, blah, blah, blah, yet never have and never will have to be exposed to it. I know one person that I used to work with was all over this as a great idea back when Billy-Bob was thinking about this. I asked him if he was at the gym and it was time to take a shower, and there were 4 guys in the shower and they were gay, would he take a shower with them in there, get dressed right in front of them? I told him he didn’t have a choice, though, he had to go in there. Then I asked him if he still thinks it’s a great idea. He shut up and didn’t bring it up ever again.

    Like I said, before, I shouldn’t give a rats ass because my time is done and I don’t have to abide by it, but I still look out for my peeps.

    I don’t have a problem with gays serving, however, if they are going to serve openly, then segregate their quarters as they do for heteros already. That is the solution that you, J, haven’t brought up. I was waiting for you to do so, but you didn’t come through; so I have to wonder why?

  30. Dino S. says:

    @Old Trooper. You ask “Why the need to change it now? If it has been there so many years then why change it?” Why should we have ever changed anything in the US Military? For example, in 1850 congress outlawed floggings in the Navy against the recomendations of the top brass. I’m sure it was working to ensure discipline and order aboard navy ships. So why should they have changed it? Because it just wasn’t right anymore.

    The Joint Chiefs also said that segreation in the US Military was working well in 1948. After all, we had just won World War II with a segreated military. They openly objected to President Harry Truman’s executive order which integreated the Armed Forces in 1948. So why should they have changed it? Because it just wasn’t right anymore.

    Why should congress have opened the regular military and the service academies up to women in the 1970s? After all an all male regular military with women just limited to the WACS and WAVES had been working well. West Point and Annapolis had always been all-male. Why fix what ain’t broke? Because it just wasn’t right anymore (to exclude women). The integreation of women i’ll admit has not been perfect, but we would be sunk in Iraq and Afghanistan without female troops.

    As for your talk of showers, you probably have heard that almost all our NATO Allies and partners in OIF and OEF have lifted any ban to open military service. While it may not be always a valid comparison to use foreign militaries as an example, apparently the soldiers in the military of the UK and Israel get just as naked in the communal showers. Since they don’t have a real problem with showering with known gay soldiers neither should we.

  31. OldTrooper says:

    Dino; are you currently serving in the military? Are you currently forced to take showers with gay men? If the answer is no to either or both of those questions then your rehash of the same old argument is not really going to do the job. I really don’t give a rats ass what other militaries are doing, since I didn’t serve in any of them and we aren’t talking about them. When you come up with fresh points, please feel free to come back and list them, since you obviously like to mix and match things that aren’t really covered by this.

    It’s easy to take the stance of support when you aren’t going to be affected by it.

  32. george says:

    If 70-80% of the U.S. Military has no problem sleeping, showering, bonding with open homosexuals. God help us.

  33. really good publish, i undoubtedly love this internet web site, keep on it

  34. Green Thumb says:

    Ha Ha Ha – He He He

    Homosexuality.

    Give me a break.

    What is next?

    CSM promotions based on trans-gender status?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *