Nothing focuses the mind of an elected representative like the prospect of their vacations being cut short, and Congress has been busy in the days leading up to the Christmas holiday. The big news today:
- “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is being repealed. DADT was the ugly political compromise that allowed gay and lesbian soldiers to serve in the military, as long as they stayed in the closet. It was opposed by the military, most Americans, and even most members of Congress. Repeal was only difficult because of the bizarre filibuster rule that allows 40% of the U.S. Senate to gang together to block legislation they oppose on the basis of fundamental principles, such as the principle that homosexuals should be discriminated against. Oh, and the energetic opposition of Crazy John McCain, who was a longtime opponent of DADT until he decided it was politically expedient to switch sides. (“There will be high-fives all over the liberal bastions of America,” he said, taking the nonpartisan high road.) The legislative strategy for repeal is a hard-won victory for Obama, who could have overturned the policy by executive order, but argued that passing a law would yield a much more solid and lasting result.
- The DREAM Act has failed. Again, not because it couldn’t get a majority, but because it couldn’t muster the votes to overcome a filibuster. (A handful of Democrats joined with the Republicans on this one.) In this case, the principled objection was to a bill that allowed non-citizens who were brought to this country illegally as children (when they were younger than 16) to attain citizenship if they graduated from high school and either completely two years of college or joined the military. Obviously we wouldn’t want people like that in our country.
Sorry to be snarky, truly. I much prefer having polite discussions about honest disagreements. But these aren’t examples of that; opposition to these measures arises from combinations of craven political posturing and straightforward bigotry. Nothing principled about it; just politicians preying on people’s fears. And I honestly believe that we have a more healthy political dialogue by admitting that outright, rather than pretending that opposition to bills like this is in any way honorable.
DADT repeal is a big deal. Congratulations to all the servicemen and -women who no longer have to live a lie (at least not because of official government policy; informal discrimination is harder to eradicate). High fives all over!
So gays can now openly serve in the military. Hooray, we’ve caught up to the ancient Greeks!
Human decency supporters rejoice, for now our military stands as a shining beacon of promoting human decency and human rights. Wait, what?
Pingback: Tweets that mention A Mixed Day for Basic Human Decency | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine -- Topsy.com
Here’s a funny thing; many homosexuals don’t act homosexual, but a number of straights do. So much for knowing them by how they act.
Yay. Now homosexuals can murder people in far off countries without having to lie about their sexuality. I know I should be glad. I just can’t.
This is incorrect. The restriction on gays serving in the military was enacted into law as 10 U.S.C. § 654. Clinton’s DADT executive order that has been in place since 1993 was simply an instruction to the military regarding how it should pursue enforcement of § 654.
No president has the authority to overturn a statutory provision through executive order; the most Obama could have done himself would have been to issue a new executive order that would have made enforcement of § 654 more difficult. But there are clear rule of law and constitutional issues inherent in any executive order instructing a policy of nonenforcement of a valid law (even though it’s likely that no one would have standing to sue for enforcement).
And FoxNews will spin the story in their usual ways. They didn’t like the study that came out of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, so the senior VP of the network attacked the university as a whole:
Thus, i am sure that while the rest of us breathe a sigh of temporary relief from too many years of DADT, the ignorantly informed FoxNews minions will be up in arms about some socialist, communist, fascist, conspiracy to destroy America. For the record, the University of Maryland is in the top ten of Northeastern Universities, as ranked by the Princeton Review. oops.
A country’s quality of life varies directly with the contribution of its population.
Economist Milton Friedman famously said, “You can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” He was correct. You can’t flood our American cities with illegal marginal workers — and, for example, provide good health care for everyone.
Studies have shown lower class US citizens receive more from government than they contribute, so why enlarge the U.S. lower class? In our free-market system, it is the large, literate and productive American middle and upper classes who contribute more than they receive. And it is their productivity that raises the living standards of our lower class. The vast majority of illegals compete directly with our most vulnerable white, Hispanic, and African American citizens, suppressing their wages and increasing their hardship.
Different ethnicities have, on average, vastly different innate mental abilities.
Can your snarky attitude be dispelled by cold facts?
A Comparison of U.S. Caucasian and Hispanic NAEP Scores
Caucasian NAEP 8th Grade Science Percentage Scores
=======================================================
Below Basic | Basic | Proficient | Advanced
28 | 35 | 34 | 4
Scores: 28% Below Basic, 35% Basic, 34% Proficient and 4% Advanced.
Hispanic NAEP 8th Grade Science Percentage Scores
========================================================
Below Basic | Basic | Proficient | Advanced
67 | 24 | 9 | < 1
Scores: 67% Below Basic, 24% Basic, 9% Proficient and < 1% Advanced
The facts for United States NAEP Report for Science:
http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2005/s0106.asp?subtab_id=Tab_6&tab_id=tab2#chart
The Program in International Student Achievement (PISA) reading and mathematics test scores for Mexicans taught reading and mathematics in Spanish are just as bad, if not worse, than those who have fled to the U.S. PISA officials estimate over 50% of Mexican 15-year old youth today are functionally illiterate and thus unable to compete in Mexico's economy.
http://www.worldfund.org
*High five*
RE “DADT”: Now the GI’s won’t be able to trust the blood supply on the battlefield as they won’t know if they might get infected with HIV.
Smart move.
RE “Dream Act”: Granted, the youngsters who were brought here ILLEGALLY when under age aren’t culpable for this crime, but their parents are and should be treated accordingly.
Otherwise, what are we teaching our children but that it is acceptable to break the law as somebody will change the rules later for them.
Is that what we WANT to teach our children?
I hope not!
I think you’re framing the issue in a bit of a biased way. It’s quite possible to agree with a proposed measure in principle, while still having serious doubts about the implementation of the principle. For instance, the PATRIOT act sounded great on the surface. Who doesn’t want to be a patriot? Protecting people from terrorists, that’s a great thing, right? 😛
I have my own misgivings that I sincerely doubt are due to bigotry. For example, the DADT repeal – I’m extremely pro-gay rights, and I’m adamantly in favor of fully legalized same-sex marriage (no “civil union” compromises, I want the whole shebang). I support an organization that counsels at-risk GBLT youth. However, I’m not convinced that we’re ready for a repeal of DADT. For one thing, we’ve seen the problems that some women have had in the military with sexist abuse, intimidation, coercion from superiors, etc, and we haven’t even fully dealt with that yet. I have a suspicion that many gay and lesbian servicemembers will continue to “not tell,” regardless of this new law.
And there are also living spaces to think about. Obviously, men and women in the military have separate showers and barracks, but I would think that gblt/straight servicemembers would be uncomfortable sharing the same facilities for the same reason that men and women would. Would we need separate facilities for GBLT people? And would such facilities constitute segregation/discrimination?
Perhaps I’m overstating these problems, and there’s really nothing to worry about. If so, great. I guess we’ll see fairly soon.
As for the Dream Act, I don’t know much about it, but the fact is that any sweeping immigration bill can have unintended consequences. To assume that anyone who has misgivings is a bigot, especially over a potentially costly bill in this fiscal climate, is going a bit too far, IMHO.
Odd, my comments aren’t showing up.
Edit: NOW it works. Dubya Tee Eff?
@spyder:
the way that the military implemented DADT was in direct contradiction to how they said that they would implement it when it was discussed back in the ’90s. In particular, they promised that they would not investigate anyone’s homosexuality for purposes of discharging them under DADT, which turned out to be an overt lie. An executive order could certainly prevent that behaviour, which would have prevented a large percentage of DADT discharges.
@JTHunter RE:DADT
WTF? Sure, heterosexual soldiers are never HIV positive and can’t spread the virus even if they are, right? *rolls eyes*
Anyway, kudos USofA for joining the militaries of the rest of the developed world in the 21st century.
I have no problem with your thinking that DADT repeal is good or even that you may think that the Dream Act would be good, even though I disagree with you. However you thinking that disagreeing with them by those elected is because of as you stated, “opposition to these measures arises from combinations of craven political posturing and straightforward bigotry.”, is saying that having an ideas or beliefs different from yours must be wrong, how egocentric you sound. I spent many years in the military and I could care less about any ones sex life in the service or out and do not care to hear about it, nor do I believe in rewarding illegal behavior but it sounds like you are in favor of both and that is your right just as I and others have ours. But you seem to need to name call to make yourself look or sound good, well it did not work for you.
Good news in one quarter but I would gently disagree with you Sean, when you call DADT ‘an ugly political compromise’. I would rather call it a clever interim step that allowed American society time to make some difficult adjustments in attitudes and values. And, given the outcome, it has worked.
@14, the behaviour of many opponents of gay rights certainly seem to pass the test for bigotry so I am with Sean on that one. As for his remark ‘craven political posturing’, that seems to describe a great number of politicians on many issues. Perhaps ‘craven political posturing’ is the politician’s adaptive response to a bigoted constituency?
“Sorry to be snarky, truly.”
Guffaw!
@5 Davis You are exactly right about DADT. It’s amazing how many otherwise well informed people like Sean are completely wrong on the simple facts of this.
I agree with psmith that DADT was actually a spectacular success that led directly to the result that Sean so applauds. For at least the last decade, the great majority (80% or more) of dismissals from military service under DADT have been “voluntary’ with people outing themselves to get OUT, almost always within the first 5 months of service. These are all honorable discharges also. The number of people actually brought to courtsmartial for being gay in the services under DADT can be counted without removing your shoes. Yes, it’s better to be rid of DADT, but it served its purpose and was, pretty obviously, the best that americans were able to get until now.
It’s time to attack Sean from the other side. First, if you are “sorry to be snarky”, the time to make amends is before you hit ‘publish’. Apologies are for after you make a mistake, not for a mistake you are about to make on purpose. There is nothing principled or useful about impugning the motives of those with whom you disagree.
I say this as someone who agrees with both the repeal of DADT and the DREAM act.
@Engineer Dad: So you have some facts. Great. Unfortunately, they don’t prove anything. I spent years teaching in public schools and while that system is broken, turning high school graduates into criminals due to no action on their part is making this country neither healthier nor safer. They are here, have no where else to go and most of them know no other country. The choice is allowing them to become productive citizens once they prove themselves (college or military service) or turning them all into criminals. Are you saying you are in favor of more criminals? Do you know any of these kids? I do and many of them would make great, productive citizens instead of being forced to hide in the shadows of society.
I wouldn’t even dignify DADT with the term “compromise”. Clinton the triangulator made a big deal out of his progressive bona fides as a candidate, and tossed those ideals like a hot brick when they became inconvenient. DADT amounted to little more than a legal formalization of the extant military social contract, in which bigotry was countered with subterfuge as a matter of course. Perhaps the only good it did was make the fact that gays had been in the military the whole time more obvious to those too stupid to have figured it out already.
“Perhaps I’m overstating these problems and there’s really nothing to worry about. If so, great. I guess we’ll see fairly soon.”
Yeah, you’re overstating them. Unless you think that there’s some reason that the U.S.’s military will have special problems not encountered by the British Armed Forces, much of Europe, the Israeli Defense Force, the Australian Defence Force, etc.
Now, it’s always possible that the U.S. will prove to be fundamentally different, but why are people acting like we’re going into this with no data and like we’ll have to wait and “see fairly soon” as if we didn’t already have a pretty good idea what to expect?
It’s a bad day for the survivors of 9/11, too. The politicians are obviously beyond shame.
@JTHunter RE: DADT:
Oh my god, you’re right! Everyone knows that gay is just another word for “HIV positive”! And of course, the military’s medical services are famously primitive and careless – they don’t have a carefully regulated blood supply, or anything. No, they just suck blood out of whoever happens to be nearby if they need it!
@#20 Escuerd: Excellent points. I do think that acceptance of gays in the military by other servicemembers could conceivably vary widely depending on the national/local culture. Of course the patriot in me is optimistic that our guys are at least as openminded/mature as folks in other countries 😉 So yeah, hopefully you’re right.
I think the cause of gays serving in the military is moving through these stages:
1. Don’t ask, go to h***
2. Don’t ask, don’t tell
3. Don’t ask, all is well.
@#21 Ray: Very true, sadly. Though one thing I’m seeing get lost in the noise and blaming is the question of why this is an issue NOW. What the hell was Congress doing for the last 8 years!? We’ve had both Republican and Democrat majorities in that time period, so either side dumping the blame on the other party won’t fly. What the fark took them so long to get to this point?
@23 Neil:
Win!
Fable time!
Eighteen years ago, little high school space nerd was figuring out how to be an astronaut. Option A: join the military. Option B: become a civilian scientist.
Little space nerd was in heavy denial about her crush on little poet girl. Little space nerd had no idea that the brand-new “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was aimed squarely at her. Little space girl could have chosen A, and signed up for two decades of fear.
But little space nerd also thought the Hubble Deep Field was pretty. So she didn’t join ROTC, and she never flew a plane. But she didn’t have to spend two decades lying, either.