You asked, I’m telling
April 13, 2009
My Sun Tzu radio mentor has suggested that I try and do some “big girl writing again” (not just my usual silly blog posts – which you will more than likely still be subjected to – LOL), with a weekly column. Since you know how much I want to make it in the media business, here we go…my first official weekly column.
This past Saturday on my radio show, I tackled the very complex and controversial topic of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).” Rep Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act in March that would repeal DADT and ultimately change military rules to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. Rep Patrick Murphy (D-PA) has since replaced Ellen Tauscher and his background as the first Iraq War Veteran to serve in Congress has given more credibility to the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. The Obama administration has been extremely radical in its’ first few months in office, and I’m actually a little relieved that the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has announced that this piece of legislation will be placed on the backburner for the time being to allow for more discussion on the subject and to put higher priority items in the front of the queue. The new Dover Policy which allows media to attend homecomings of fallen heroes, has already been implemented (I am very opposed to this);proposed defense budget cuts have been introduced; and privatizing Veteran’s health care has already come on and thankfully off the table.
I research an average of three hours for my one hour of radio. Part of my research is to place my upcoming subject matter on Facebook, Twitter and my blogs to get other opinions on the subject matter. Opinions on DADT were all over the place and I was pleasantly relieved to read only constructive arguments about homosexuals being able to serve openly in the military. Personally, I had not formed an opinion on this policy because I never felt it my place to tell the men and women in uniform who they should serve with. I figured that our military is the best in the world and others strive to be like us. Who am I as Jane Shmo citizen to say what should or should not be policy? Since Clinton’s failed attempt to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military 1993, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” or HR 1283 was put in place. This did not change the military rules that ban homosexuality, but allowed those who wished to “stay in the closet” while serving or upon signing up, to do so. Some considered “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” as a step in the right direction while others were against it. Since DADT was implemented, about 13,000 have still been discharged from the military for homosexuality.
My guest on my show Paul McNeal, a former sailor who left the military as he was tired of having to hide his personal life, said that he could not open a letter from his love interest for fear of retaliation while being deployed. I personally can’t imagine serving my Country as a gay American and having to keep my private life so separate that I could not even tell anyone who I was dating that night. I can’t imagine having to suppress part of my identity, it would be like serving as less than yourself. The whole “drop the soap” in the shower argument from heterosexual males who are against homosexual males serving, seems so old fashioned. As Paul explained, this is not what the Military Readiness Enhancement Act is about, it is about being a professional in the military and not having to hide one’s identity. As for women, well my first profession was in the field of athletics and working around gay women never bothered me one bit. Whatever the reason, I don’t think allowing women to openly serve as gay would phase many people at all. Personally, I think that the younger generation would be less likely to be opposed to openly gay men and women in the military than the older generations. I think times have changed and homosexuality is more mainstream than it was when I was a kid. Maybe 2009 is not the right time to overturn this policy, while some of our men and women in uniform are on their third and fourth tour. Why throw another iron into the fire? Why complicate things even more in the middle of the war?
I hope the Military Readiness Enhancement Act can wait a little longer to be pushed through Congress. If it were implemented tomorrow, men and women who are deployed would be unlikely to immediately tell their comrades that they are gay. It is inevitable that the policy of allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military will happen, most likely under a socially liberal administration and with the climate of cultural changes and tolerance in America. It seems like Secretary Gates is fine with not rushing into this and that is just fine with me for now too.
c/p at Kiss My Gumbo and Louisiana Conservative
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8b4a8bd6-aa58-4e27-a64b-b47e0c86533d)
Posted in Greta, Louisiana, Military, New Orleans, Politics
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
content rss
April 13th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Resentment to gays in the military stems from the fact that they practice anal sex which is much more likely to spread AIDS, which can stay hidden for a long time, and just be in the blood, and in a wartime situation it may be necessary to take blood donations from other soldiers and not have time for a lot of testing other than for blood type, and you could spread AIDS through blood transfusions.
The drop the soap†in the shower argument can easily be addressed by the same rules that prevent male soldiers from raping female soldiers.
But I still think the fear of a blood transfusion will cause resentment to known gays serving.
At one time there was a resentment to blacks in the military, but it was based on a mistaken feeling that blacks were inferior. No one worried that if they got a blood transfusion from blood taken from a black would turn them black.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Last time I checked Don, we do NOT give transfusions straight on the battlefield. This argument can’t hold any water in 2009.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:56 am
We certainly did in WWII, and I believe we did in Vietnam. As long as we are just fighting small wars like Iraq, evacuating the wounded to the rear is feasible, but if we ever have a war like WWII, with long supply lines that can be cut, it is something to consider
April 13th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Our wounded are immediately evacuated from downrange and our medical advancements keep adequate blood supply on hand. I think we all know that AIDS is not a completely homosexual problem and there are plenty of other things like Hepatitis in the blood.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:11 am
But would it work in a WWII type war? And WWIII is going to make evacuations even harder.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Don, your argument about AIDS and blood transfusions in a possible world crisis really don’t work for me – sorry.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:38 am
This is somewhat off topic, but my understanding is that Obama’s defense budget is actually still an increase from last year. Also, I don’t think private insurance for veterans’ care was ever officially on the table.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Then maybe it is ok.
That is the only argument, of the many I have heard, that I would find acceptable.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:53 am
The only reason his defense budget is an increase over last years is that he included Iraq in the budget, and he did that so that when he cut that expense next year after most of the troops are out, it would still be a part of the base line and he could claim he was saving money he never intended to spend
April 13th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Great post, Greta! Love the title. I look forward to reading more of your “big girl writing.â€
Regarding your research on DADT, did you find any evidence that allowing gay soldiers to serve openly will significantly affect morale or future recruitment?
Don, if the resentment to gay soldiers stems primarily from the fear of a very unlikely event they will be transfused with tainted blood (Greta’s right, it’s just not a reality in today’s Army), wouldn’t knowing who is gay be better than not knowing? Your argument seems to support repealing DADT.
April 13th, 2009 at 9:22 am
http://sldn.org/ has some information you may appreciate Silke. I have not come across any research on retention and morale or recruitment. Everything seems to be anecdotal.
April 13th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Slike I did not say I was in favor of, or opposed, DNDT. I am not in, or likely ever to be (considering my age and physical condition). So “I don’t have a dog in that battle”
I am talking from the perspective of the arguments I have heard against it.
The dropping soap in the shower argument, with hetrosexuals fearing being raped in the shower by a homosexual that can’t control himself can be addressed by the same rules that protect a few women sailors on a huge ship with a lot of men.
The aruguement that they can’t fight hits the same buttons as those that opposed blacks in the military, and then women in the military.
The blood transfusion argument is the only one that I have heard that I can’t say is just based on hatred of the unknown, but is based on a possible problem.
April 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Don, the blood transfusion argument would still seem to argue in favor of repealing DADT because then you would have a better idea of who may have the tainted blood.
Again, there are a lot of problems with this argument and I do not agree with it but just from a logical perspective knowing who is gay and who is not would seem to eliminate this “possible problem.”
April 13th, 2009 at 10:55 am
If you knew a person was gay, would that mean you would exclude them from donating blood?
If not the same fear of contaminated blood exists.
Again I am not saying I approve of or oppose repealing DADT.
If it was possible, I would like to see those in the military make the decision, but we all know the decision will be made for them, after pretending to listen to their opinion.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:58 am
You’ve got it backwards, Don. Bush didn’t include it in the budget, as if he couldn’t pretend it wasn’t there. Obama is putting an end to that charade. The wars are real. The lives we’ve lost in them are real. And the money we have spent on them is real. There is no need to hide it as if it weren’t happening. Besides, ending the war saves us the same amount of money, whether it’s included in the budget or not.
That a person is gay does not necessarily mean that they are HIV positive. Surely there is a more civilized (and accurate) way of determining who can give blood.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Bush didn’t include it in the budget, as if he couldn’t pretend it wasn’t there.
Bush did not include it in his budget for the same reason recovery from 9/11, Katrina, and many other man-made or natural disasters are done off the books, and that is because the baseline budgeting Congress does is inappropriate for short term expenses. When the short term (whether one year or several) is over, it just becomes “found money” for Congress to invent ways to spend.
Obama is putting an end to that charade.
No, Obama is taking advantage of including it in the 10 year baseline, when he knows good and well he is pulling the troops out after another year.
The wars are real. The lives we’ve lost in them are real. And the money we have spent on them is real.
True, and if the budgeting process had a way of saying this is just for X years, including it in the budget would make sense. But by including it in the Budget Obama is saying we will spend this money for the next 10 years, when he knows good and well he will not.
That a person is gay does not necessarily mean that they are HIV positive.
No, but they are engaged in something which creates a greater risk their blood may be infected, and not show up on the tests
Surely there is a more civilized (and accurate) way of determining who can give blood.
Not at the current time. Should we keep DADT in place until a better test is developed.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Reasic said: Surely there is a more civilized (and accurate) way of determining who can give blood.
Then Don said: Not at the current time.
Don is mistaken. Blood tests are much more reliable than just knowing if someone is gay.
Should we keep DADT in place until a better test is developed?
Besides the fact that the premise for this argument is deeply flawed it actually argues for allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. I really don’t understand where you are coming from with this, Don.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Blood tests are much more reliable than just knowing if someone is gay.
They have made significant improvements in the tests, but because if the long gestation period for the virus, I would be reluctant to get a transfusion from a non celibate gay, and just because of AIDS, and if I would not want it for myself, I would not want it for the military
My preference would be to poll the military themselves and see what their desires are.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
You guys all took the bait. What Don advanced was this: “Resentment to gays in the military stems from the fact that they practice anal sex which is much more likely to spread AIDS.” He advanced two flawed premises which draw on one another. Rather than argue where the resentment stemmed from, which was the real case he put forward, you argued the hypothetical other side. FYI, the resentment towards gays in the military has nothing to due with AIDS. Resentment as a factor of policy entails widespread beliefs on the part of those who have influence. Most of those who have influence have no idea about transmission differentials in modes of sex. No, the real source of “resentment” over gays in the military comes from the fact that Senators and Generals about in their 50s and 60s, and back then the proverbial line was still “God hates fags.” The soldiers themselves really don’t have as much of an issue with it, nor does the public at large:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802561.html
The notion that people with no background or interest in epidemiology take visceral stands on divisive social issues based on disease transmission is laughable at best. As to any soldiers who are actually stupid enough to base their opinions on the concerns Don has raised, you’re more likely to get Herpes or Syphillis from a battlefield transfusion from a straight soldier than you are AIDS from a gay one.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
you’re more likely to get Herpes or Syphillis from a battlefield transfusion from a straight soldier than you are AIDS from a gay one.
True, but both are more treatable, with fewer side effects to the treatment, and the mortality numbers are not as bad
April 13th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Herpes, while treatable, is incurable. You’ve got it for life. Syphillis can be fatal, and more importantly be asymptomatic for years. In those cases it will generally turn up after it has caused significant brain damage. If still undetected, you die.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Aside from which, as I said before, this whole argument is based on the flawed underpinning that AIDS is the source of opposition and resentment. The prohibition against gays in the military long pre-dates the AIDS epidemic. There are documents of George Washington discharging soldiers from the Continental Army for reasons of “sodomy.” The text of choice for justifying the opposition isn’t the New England Journal of Medicine, it’s the Book of Leviticus. I frankly doubt that two PFCs are sitting around reading medical journals saying “Hey Johnson, look at this. They’ve discovered a 7% differential in transmission rates of the HIV virus for anal intercourse as opposed to vaginal intercourse.”
“7%! That’s more than two units outside standard deviation! That does it, if they let gays in I quit!”
April 13th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Herpes, while treatable, is incurable.
True, but the treatment does not have nearly as many side effect as the treatment for HIV, and Herpes is not fatal
Syphillis can be fatal
Can be, not is
more importantly be asymptomatic for years.
But you can still test for it, and treatment is simple, compared to HIV
April 13th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I tried following this up earlier, but it didn’t make it through the auto-permit. Essentially, I’m reiterating my initial point. Hard science is not what is driving perception or opposition to gays in the military, nor is anyone stopping to consider the points you have brought up about disease transmission. I’m not going to step into the landmine of debating the merits of AIDS vs other diseases when the whole damn thing in the first place is based on false assumptions. Nobody is basing their opposition to gays in the military on this, just you.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Don, you just proved Silke’s point. With DADT, you’re not supposed to know who’s gay and who’s straight. So, how are you going to decide who to get a blood transfusion from? Good luck!
April 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Reasic, I am not arguing in favor of or against DADT. I presented the only argument I think even might hold water regarding Gays serving in the military. You guys seem so desperate to shoot it down that you are ignoring what I just said.
I personally do not think whether you, or I, or Silke, or Lord Bitememan thinks Gays should serve or not really matters. It should be up to the military. They may know of reasons other than what I listed, and we should not dictate to them who they should accept and who not to accept