Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Wednesday, March 17. 2010Suspect Poll Doesn’t Ask/Doesn’t Tell (P.S.: Actual Service & Demographics)FWIW, the man I respected most of any I've met in my life and to whom I was closest to came out as gay. He was a Navy veteran, who'd served at Pelelieu and elsewhere in the Pacific during WWII. I sat with him through his last year before he succumbed to AIDS. He was an accountant when I knew him and learned from him, who insisted on honest and informative numbers. The VetVoice Foundation’s poll of
That may or may not be so. The poll itself, however, has some problems. 1. Its service composition is off. The poll has the following service who say they served in 2. The poll does not distinguish those in combat units (although many in non-combat units often were subject to hostile fire). One of the key considerations regarding Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell is how it may affect combat effectiveness. 3. The methodology of the poll is clouded. Proper polling standards require full disclosure of the methodology. This poll doesn’t. This is all it says:
The respondents’ answer to whether they served and to where is self-reporting and unverified. How the sample was chosen is not detailed nor its representative validity presented. And, as seen in point 1 above, the service composition is off, and from point 2 above a critical question not asked. 4. The sponsoring organization is partisan. Although claiming the pollsters themselves “designed and administered” it, it is frequent that sponsoring organizations influence the design. VetsVoice Chairman is John Soltz, and only one vet Board Member is listed, J. Ashwin Madia. On John Soltz (who supported disgraced Democrat congressman Eric Massa):
On J. Ashwin Madia (who served as a Marine JAG in
Although influenced by Obama, I prefer to wait for the Department of Defense to complete and issue its study of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, in progress. P.S.: I just received an Excel worksheet from the Defense Department's Press Operations Center breaking down by service and various demographics all those deployed from September 2001-January 2010. I'd be happy to email a copy to the pollsters or journalists.
Posted by Bruce Kesler
in Our Essays, The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation
at
14:35
| Comments (13)
| Trackbacks (0)
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I agree that the attitudes of servicemembers are important in how to openly accept servicemembers who are gay. I don't agree that moral principle should be driven by polls and I believe that open acceptance of servicemembers who are gay is a moral principle.
I've never run a scientific survey on servicemembers and my experience in the Air Force would be different from aboard ship or routinely living in the field. My perception was that most (but certainly not all) servicemembers cared very little about who was gay and who was straight. Integrating units by race was a moral principle. Accepting women as servicemembers, to fill any role of which an individual was capable except combat engagement, that was a moral principle. Accepting Jew, Muslim, Christian and agnostic alike -- that was a moral principle. The rightness of accepting servicemembers without regard to their sexuality (I exclude predatory people here) is a moral principle. It's easier for me to say this because I've never been bothered by the idea of gay sex, once I understood it. I'm sure that I served with members who were gay - I couldn't tell you who, but certainly I must have. Then again, it's not something that I'm "aware" of in the sense that I generally associate with folks who share a strangth of character rather than the what of their ethnicity, race, gender or lifestyle.
The problem, as I see it, with gay or lesbian members of the military isn't so much their ability to serve our country in the military. I'm sure they would be as capable as any other sailor, soldier or airman and serve honorably. What I see as an issue is discipline - the temptation to cry foul due to lifestyle choice in any disciplinary hearing would be tremendous. That's where I see a big problem. We're in a period where we rely on a volunteer military. Our society is also changing as there are many religious beliefs and/or lifestyles. To disqualify any individual from the priviledge of serving our country based on being "something" other than a heterosexual male or female seems to me to be self limiting. So I guess I'm on the side of saying let's just get it over with. Any problems with predation, the UCMJ can handle perfectly fine. On the other hand, a Wiccan Transvestite Marine kinda gives me the willies. I could understand it if we're talking about the Navy, but.... :>) ~~Note: That was a joke people - traditional service rivalry.~~ Bruce:
FWIW, the man I respected most of any I've met in my life and to whom I was closest to came out as gay. - - - - - - - - - - - - - What IS it worth? Can we just discuss the issue? Some of my most respected teachers and mentors abused alcohol, other substances - and in one case, his wife. So? The normalization of homosexuality has been promoted by just this kind of spurious argument by emotion and anecdote. Combined with heavy-handed, dissent-stifling PC rhetoric - which is probably why you feel the need to lead your poset with a qualifier. Is it a maladaptive response - a dysfunction - or not? That's all I care to know. And everything I've seen from reliable sources - including my own experience in NY and other cities with sizable gay populations - everything indicates that it is in fact dysfunctional. Most out-n-proud folks are living lives ruled - and ruined - by unrealistic perceptions and compulsive drives. Coming out does not quiet the demons: the gay "community" suffers levels of depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, and suicide that are 4-5 times the norm in the general population. The classic PC victimology doubletalk pins these numbers on homophobia. But that is no longer plausible in the urban centers which originate these statistics - or anywhere now that gays have elbowed themselves to the forefront of popular culture. Half the straight marriages and relationships in the United States are dysfunctional - so what? Ever been to a professional "social" event where hardware geeks are seperate from the software geeks who stand seperate from the engineering geeks who are different than the marketing geeks, quality control geeks....talk about dysfunctional.
You can make a dysfunctional argument for just about any social strata, group or function. I'd say right now we're watching a demonstration of the most singular dysfunctional Congress I've ever seen in my life time and I live in Connecticut - next to Massachuetts. :>) Most out-n-proud folks are living lives ruled - and ruined - by unrealistic perceptions and compulsive drives. Which is different from the housing bubble, tulip bubble, oil bubble you-name-it bubble exactly how? Compulsion and/or destructive behavior isn't rational, but it exists in everybody. I guess I'm having trouble undestanding your argument. First off, in the hyper-charged atmosphere surrounding the issue of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, and in the atmosphere where so many on the end it side accuse anyone who isn't on their side as anti-gay, it is important to head them off. -- Indeed, my closeness to my friend, a decorated Navy combat vet, may more be seen by those on the fon't end it side as making my views suspect.
Second, the issue of the post is a partisan and suspect poll from the end it side, indeed from an organization whose Chairman is the epitome of leftist hack. Third, I stated clearly in the post that I'm waiting to see the DOD study on the issue. So, cool it, please. Over the course of a decade, a war and a couple hazard pay zones, I served with a several guys who were gay. My basic rule was don't try to bleep me in the bleep, and I won't bug you about who you like to bleep in the bleep. Not everybody in the units I served with shared that attitude, but I didn't see any bias crimes and the worse you'd hear was a couple muttered comments from a few guys, which was easier treatment than the guy who impregnated and infected the Sergeant Major's daughter got. The social dynamic wasn't a big problem after we'd been to war together - the guys who did their bit were respected, guys who found an out or didn't perform up to standards were persona non-grata.
Off duty situations weren't a big deal either. I didn't really care what anybody thought of the people I was friends with; my friends included college professors, cops, construction workers and strippers, so gay guys didn't flip me out. (Crazy drunk Korean hookers, different story...) I only served directly (I think) with one gay guy. I was his squad leader for a couple years. He was a mediocre soldier but very good at his job, and I got to be pretty good friends with him, mainly because we were the two smart guys in the platoon (and enlisted college boys who could talk books or other uppity horsecrap stuck together then). We also maybe we helped each other out. Because he was a nice guy and really good at his job and a nice guy, so nobody in the company ever messed with him, and we looked out for him so if some jerks from another unit ever gave him crap, just like any other soldier in the company we'd be throwing fingers pretty quick. A lot of us also liked hanging out with him because this guy had a slew of hot women friends who would come party with us, thinking at first we were probably "safe" like him. Whoops! The kid was the ultimate wingman - he'd help acquire the targets and once I got missile lock, he'd gladly pull out of the target zone; he was not interested in making ace. But I coulda gone to Top Gun school, thanks to his efforts. I knew some crummy gay soldiers too. They were jerks and not great at their jobs, and weren't well liked. With them, "fag" was just one of the epithets thrown at them. They weren't disliked because of who they slept with, but once they established themselves as non-hackers, it was one more weapon the herd could use to drive them out. So it's anecdotal but I think among guys it comes down mostly to the quality of the soldiers in question and having a standard of conduct that says you don't try to bleep your fellow troops in the bleep. Keep it out of the barracks, discretion being the better part of valor, right? Homosexual women? I'm of two minds. I knew plenty who served with distinction, and as far as I know had spotless records. I also had to assist in a couple investigations where some groups of female soldiers were, to put it mildly, coercing sex out of unwilling women. So my experiences there are different because I'm aware of plain old criminal activity tied to the homosexuality. I suppose it comes down to the same standard I'd apply to the men - they need to be good soldiers and not inflict their sexuality on other troops, and there probably isn't a problem. I guess that's a long way of saying I don't really know how it will pan out but think the basic decency and professionalism of the troops - straight and gay - is likely to keep it from being a problem as long as they get command support (top to bottom) to impose a solid code of conduct keeping it out of the barracks, and focus discipline on breaches of professionalism and common sense (see e.g. infecting Sergeant Major's daughter). Nicely put Jim - I see it the same way. When the fecal matter hits the Mark IV rotating cooling device its all about who has your back and vice versa - lifestyle preference isn't a really big issue. :>)
Can't add much more to that. Half the straight marriages and relationships in the United States are dysfunctional - so what? Ever been to a professional "social" event where hardware geeks are seperate from the software geeks who stand seperate from the engineering geeks who are different than the marketing geeks, quality control geeks....talk about dysfunctional.
You can make a dysfunctional argument for just about any social strata, group or function. I'd say right now we're watching a demonstration of the most singular dysfunctional Congress I've ever seen in my life time and I live in Connecticut - next to Massachuetts. :>) Most out-n-proud folks are living lives ruled - and ruined - by unrealistic perceptions and compulsive drives. Which is different from the housing bubble, tulip bubble, oil bubble you-name-it bubble exactly how? Compulsion and/or destructive behavior isn't rational, but it exists in everybody. I guess I'm having trouble undestanding your argument. Oops - sorry - must have hit the wrong comment reply thingy doer.
My bad. IT IS ABOUT THE LIE! The moment that Hollywood developed the rhetoric of "genetics" and all of the false documentation; strange little poor university studies, etc. The homosexual community was involved in a large hoax. A deliberate lie about which they have no regrets. I don't like liars.
Having worked and lived in the Hollywood area for several years, and in hotels, and with airlines, I have first hand experience as to the growth of the homosexual community--it is now in many places a job requirement! There is a well documented pattern of behavior with regard to abuse. Abuse begins when evil people prey on the naive,the innocent, and the not so strong willed among us: 1. separate them from their friends, families, and communities of support 2. Coerce the victim into doing something that the above mentioned close ones would not approve of. 3. You now have a victim who feels guilty and dirty and you the abuser are the only remaining support the victim has. 4. BINGO--you have a new member of the homosexual community! The younger the better! As for me I have watched as the middle class in this country has lost way too much during these past 30 years. We lost our right to free speech. We lost good schools. We lost. . . . We can maintain the strength of our military by keeping the homosexual community out! March today folks, before our military becomes one more victim of the non-thinking, out-of-control left crowd. Just organize a march on your state capital and carry signs that say: "NOT IN MY MILITARY!", or "NOT IN MY NAVY", or "NOT IN MY MARINE CORPS." You get the picture. March now and begin to restate your voice and your presence. Homosexuality is a predatory practice. I'm a retired Canadian Forces officer (army). Our military dispensed with any bans on homosexuals some time ago.
I've served with gay men and women and I have to tell you, I cannot for the life of me recall that their homosexuality made one dint of difference in their professional abilities as soldiers. Now I say this as a practising Roman Catholic who has considerable concerns about homosexuality and such things as same-sex marriage. But those concerns tend to be balanced by my sense of civic tolerance: that individuals should be free to lead their lives as they see fit (but see note below). All that to say: whatever the pros and cons about gays, I simply can't see why their sexuality should be an issue in terms of military service. The US military needs to abandon this futile policy and move on. We all have more important work to do against our biggest mutual security threat: those jabbering, murderous jihadists. And gays, perhaps more than most, have a vested interest in keeping these madmen at bay. (I am always amused that it is perfectly permissible to pillory Catholicism at every turn. But express the merest misgiving about homosexuality and you're "homophobic".) It's a wonder that our military personnel made it through high school, taking gym, showering with members of their gender, and the like, not knowing who might be gay. Oh, the horror! Thank God so many made it through, and today are entrusted with the protection of our freedoms (such as they are). I'm going to wildly guess that they can handle the intermingling, particularly if the sexuality of their warrior partners is treated as it should be, as irrelevant.
There are 2 issues here:
- Is homosexuality normal, or dysfunctional? - Should gays serve in the army? Many of our best soldiers and generals were/are alcoholics or plagued with other dysfunction. So the 2 are not necessarily connected. Regarding the military - there are important points: 1) The change in military law will be used to force the normalization of homosexuality in civil law. The two are related. Precedent established in one applies to the other. This is the gay lobby's "back door" approach to imposing its agenda. As usual, it's cloaking in the language of "caring". 2) The inevitable bad apple - the gay soldier/officer who behaves unprofessionally - will NEVER be held responsible for their actions, or disciplined. Military people should be clear about this: in the current cultural climate, the heteros involved will be sacrificed, the gay offender canonized and coddled. The scenario of PC victimhood will trump reason, justice, or regulation in any such situation. |
Tracked: Mar 18, 06:01