tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post8325370021553558634..comments2024-03-19T08:26:47.352-05:00Comments on Althouse: A "measured" response on Don't Ask Don't Tell.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger164125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9106848192124012902009-07-08T08:23:45.050-05:002009-07-08T08:23:45.050-05:00Well, Doug, that is not exactly what I said. DADT ...Well, Doug, that is not exactly what I said. DADT prevents the military from initiating a criminal investigation for the sole purpose of determining sexual orientation. Open homosexuality will be punished under UCMJ with either an Honorable, General, or Under Other Than Honorable discharge depending on the openness of the behavior. <br /><br />Kentuckyliz opened the door to an additional conversation. The military doesn't like sex or relationships among soldiers, gay or straight. IN uniform, soldiers cannot hold hands, kiss, stuff like that. The difference is that openly public displays of affection among straights generally receive an "hey! Knock it off!" rather than a discharge....unless it is between adulterous married people. <br /><br />Adultery is also criminal under UCMJ as is sodomy among straight people. (There was a soldier serving time in Ft Leavenworth for adultery and sodomy during the Lewinski scandal. I bet he was pissed!) <br /><br />So the military's sexual hangups are legion but they strive to maintain a certain level of decorum and morality. <br /><br />A gossip provision or jilted lover provision would also protect adulterous soldiers. And for adultery to be proven, one of them has to admit it and that is usually the jilted lover. <br /><br />Whether you agree or not, adultery is a particularly serious offense in the military as it can limit the level of your security clearance. The military feels that a Soldier that will betray the one he loves most, what other loyalties might he betray? <br /><br />So, long post but if DADT is changed and gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, there are a host of regulations that will need to change for the straight community as well and the military will become much less strict on topics dealing directly relating to morality, conduct, and loyalty. <br /><br />I don't think it is worth opening that can of worms. The events at Abu Ghraib are not predictive of military behavior but serve as an example of what happens when small rules are allowed to be broken. Those knuckleheads' first UCMJ offense was not prisoner abuse;they had General Order #1 and #2 violations relating to sex among Soldiers. The break down in discipline precipitated the abuse in the photos. <br /><br />Additionally, in this case, the Company Commander and First Sergeant, the ones in charge of discipline, lived in much friendlier environs on Camp Victory; a dangerous half hour convoy away. Had they lived on Abu Ghraib, as they should have, those initial not-international-scandal violations would have been disciplined and changed the entire dynamic of the situation. <br /><br />If the military decriminalizes those basic offenses, the first actionable offenses would have been the abuse. <br /><br />Repealing DADT, in my opinion, will erode overall discipline in the military.<br /><br />All that should be done, again my opinion, is to add the language "at the Commander's discretion" to the regulation. Many offenses include this language and it allows the CO to make the best decision for his unit to maintain Good Order and Discipline. He can order the tattle-tell to shut up and the homosexual to be more discreet. Subsequent offenses in that command may then lead to separation but the homosexual will have a relatively clean slate when he changes units.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347520275600115794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36081729391701262462009-07-08T04:01:37.570-05:002009-07-08T04:01:37.570-05:00kentuckyliz: You need to take account of the right...kentuckyliz: You need to take account of the right to free speech. How could the government require people not to talk?Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-65288662507350608692009-07-08T01:27:24.125-05:002009-07-08T01:27:24.125-05:00Redefine DADT and turn it around: it is an offense...Redefine DADT and turn it around: it is an offense to ask or tell anything about a person's romantic or sexual life or orientation, whatever it is. That way you do not punish a person for being or dating or sexing or loving, but you punish the nosy gossip who is asking or telling.<br /><br />don't ASK<br />don't TELL<br /><br />Just STFU.kentuckylizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08110491371985845560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52906588758747430642009-07-07T17:09:15.180-05:002009-07-07T17:09:15.180-05:00As Steve said above, the "Don't Ask, Don&...As Steve said above, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law <i><b>allows</b></i> gays to serve in the military. <br /><br />I do hope that those that are asking for it to be repealed are saying that it is okay for the military to kick out any service-member on grounds of homosexuality. <br /><br />The law <i><b>prevents</b></i> the military from discharging a service-member based on sexual orientation unless that service-member requests it.<br /><br />I personally find it odd that members of the GLBT community want that law repealed.Doug Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321591462356632057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9104715074817617352009-07-07T14:14:56.179-05:002009-07-07T14:14:56.179-05:00No, basically I'm saying I'm rapidly losin...<b>No, basically I'm saying I'm rapidly losing reasons to support Obama, and that there's no reason to support Republicans either.</b><br /><br />Well, that is a fair assessment, then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-42848810971270673702009-07-07T12:42:03.620-05:002009-07-07T12:42:03.620-05:00Basically, you're supporting a man whose polic...<i>Basically, you're supporting a man whose policy in regards to DADT is identical to Bush's, who you feel was bigoted against gays?<br /></i><br /><br />No, basically I'm saying I'm rapidly losing reasons to support Obama, and that there's no reason to support Republicans either.Bethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774002797359859550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90020636550707939762009-07-07T09:04:43.218-05:002009-07-07T09:04:43.218-05:00About the "CPL Klinger" scenario...Homos...About the "CPL Klinger" scenario...Homosexual conduct can be punishable under the UCMJ by an Other than Honorable Discharge. No big deal, right? Many Reservists have avoided going to Iraq by simply becoming a non-participant and earning an OTHD. And mostly, the ones I have done this to, seem cool with that...until they want to buy a house or get a better job. So while some might not mind having their futures affected indefinitely, most do. I suspect that many straight people would prefer not to have their futures ruined for a fiction. Plus, the code is written to prevent just this scenario so that soldiers attempting this will simply be punished under UCMJ and retained. <br /><br />Next, all DADT did was stop gay "witch-hunting." A Criminal investigation cannot be initiated just to determine sexual orientation. Did I say "criminal?" Yes. Homosexual behavior is still considered criminal under UCMJ, that is what should really be focused on. Now Gates, seems like a good man, needs to think about the stupid shit he is saying here about "maliciously outed." <br /><br />So what happens next for the soldiers in question? Are they given a lifetime exemption from homosexual conduct? They are given at least one exemption but some paperwork must be done to document the "criminal" behavior and exemption. Yet another person, not outed maliciously, can be given the OTHD straight away. The key to maintaining good order and discipline, the thing that truly makes for effective Armed Forces, is consistent enforcement for similar offenses. If an Officer is maliciously outed and retained while a subordinate is just caught and given an OTHD, it will have an adverse effect on good order and discipline. <br /><br />Further, the code recommends an under other than honorable discharge if the behavior is openly in public view. So how exactly would a malicious reporter gain knowledge of someone's homosexual conduct if it is not? <br /><br />These are just the obvious problems with the current discussion. The less obvious ones are General Order #2 in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military doesn't like sex between soldiers period as it adversely affects good order and discipline. GO2 restricts males from being in female quarters with the door closed and co-habitation of unmarried couples. How to restrict same sex couples? You can't. <br /><br />So, it is not just one law you would be changing, it is multiple. It is a very complex subject especially since any course must be evaluated on how it will affect Good Order and Discipline.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347520275600115794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-11066245207054873912009-07-07T08:19:12.999-05:002009-07-07T08:19:12.999-05:00I don't even have to imagine a Bush getting th...<b>I don't even have to imagine a Bush getting the run around on DADT, but neither Bush even tried to get rid of that policy. W could have made the case; he didn't want to. There's no reason for me to elect Republicans, either.</b><br /><br />Basically, you're supporting a man whose policy in regards to DADT is identical to Bush's, who you feel was bigoted against gays?<br /><br />That's consistency.<br /><br />Hint: The black community opposes it. The Hispanic community has, at best, quite mixed feelings. Guess who has more votes, those two or the gay community?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2326725625279325672009-07-07T06:58:57.744-05:002009-07-07T06:58:57.744-05:00MM said...if commanding officers are unable to tel...<i>MM said...if commanding officers are unable to tell those beneath them to STFU, Stop dancing, and do the job they are paid for, then the Armed Forces are in a world of trouble completely unrelated to homosexuality.</i><br /><br />The problem is that the militay views leadership as, "obtaining the willing cooperation of the unit to accomplish a common goal"<br /><br />You fail to understand the binary mode to military life. Skyler tried to explain. Today you have DADT. Reverse the policy and you'd be adding classes on gay non-discrimination to the training schedule. And destroying peoples careers (which is what was implied by your statement) if they aren't fully on board with the Commnder in Chief's new policy on gays.<br /><br />Te Military is all volunteer. Skyler and I think you'd get more departures on non-enlistments than you would solid gay troopers.<br /><br />In the middle of a war, with lots of optempo stress, you'd be creating another distraction. <br /><br />bad for morale?, you betcha...<br /><br /> Maybe I'm wrong and it's likely ultimately going to happen, but I urge caution and point out my concerns.The Drill SGThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16394309533144027391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13453197728022827042009-07-07T06:58:15.660-05:002009-07-07T06:58:15.660-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.The Drill SGThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16394309533144027391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-51815926194791697832009-07-07T06:45:02.180-05:002009-07-07T06:45:02.180-05:00After the end of DADT we will see endless photos o...After the end of DADT we will see endless photos of same sex couples at the brigade balls. Clad in their dress blues cheek-to-cheek swirling across the floor to the tunes of J. P. Sousa. Then base housing issues and admittance to the various wives clubs...........Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72490814504574936442009-07-07T03:57:18.563-05:002009-07-07T03:57:18.563-05:00it's easy to look up: yes, the israeli army &#...it's easy to look up: yes, the israeli army 'allows' gay people to serve openly, as do most armies who simply make no issue whatsoever of sexual orientation.<br />contrary to the wild psycho-sexual fantasies of some here, there are no reports of wild buggery, torrid make-out sessions, rape, or, as one charming fellow puts it, "shit play" in foxholes, bunks, or showers from any of these armies. the oft-cited canard about 'social experimenting' is meaningless since the 'experiment' goes on every day already. there are tens of thousands of gay military personnel actively serving right this very moment.<br />the discrimination lies in that, unlike their hetero brothers and sisters, they are required to be dishonest about who they are in order to exercise their patriotic duties and keep their careers. <br />as for the arab linguists: it just so happened that, of the thousands discharged in recent years for the 'crime' of being gay , several hundred were translators who, one would think, would be valuable to the military and, therefore, became a glaring example of why the anti-gay policy has a damaging effect.<br />finally, this schoolgirl notion of being 'humane' by worrying about jilted lovers outing each other is an insult to all service members. it's time to grow up, leave the juvenile soap opera fantasies behind, and accept all honorable men and women who choose to serve as equal citizens deserving of the same respect. period.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76668428720169130512009-07-07T02:55:32.343-05:002009-07-07T02:55:32.343-05:00jr565 -
"Ill fight people to the death to up...jr565 -<br /><br />"Ill fight people to the death to uphold marriage the way it is but I'd also support a civil union that gives gay people almost identical rights as if they were in a marriage. "<br /><br />There's actually a majority support for civil unions (somewhere around 60+% if memory serves) versus a majority of disapproval for gay marriage (something like 58% or so).<br /><br />Based on the poll numbers alone, the gay community would be able to achieve civil unions with relative ease provided it was willing to work across the aisle to make it happen. (An absolute necessity since the Democratic Party constitutes nowhere near the over 60% who are for it.)<br /><br />The only questions that remain are:<br /><br />1) Do the leaders of the organizations which purport to speak for gays and the Democratic Party really want civil unions or would they rather keep it as a social "wedge issue" for upcoming elections? If they want it, the poll numbers show that it's there for the taking with a wide margin of public support, so the claim that there would be some kind of "price to pay" for Democrats is ludicrous. So by their actions it will be easy enough to see where they <i>really</i> stand on the issue.<br /><br />2) Is the gay community as a whole willing to disentangle itself sufficiently from the apparatus of the Democratic Party to reach out to the other half of those who support civil unions but aren't part of the Democratic Party machinery, or are "other policies" more important? Again, the support is there for civil unions if only they will reach out to get it. By their actions, we'll know their true priorities.<br /><br />Actions speak louder than words, but only if you're actually listening.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17143782473850677784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-48201858268762201402009-07-07T02:37:34.197-05:002009-07-07T02:37:34.197-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/07630491937904835553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9236295017437328362009-07-07T02:34:19.281-05:002009-07-07T02:34:19.281-05:00The problem for gays in dealing with both gay marr...The problem for gays in dealing with both gay marriage and gays in the military is that gays are a small special interest group and thus are the easiest to screw over. Because where else are they going to go? Dems just need their votes. Don't expect many to deliver on promises.<br /><br />I think Jim is making a lot of great points here and would suggest that a lot of the animosity gays are receiving towards gay marriage at least is how they're framing the debate. Back in the 80's (and before) when gay marriage wasn't an issue, there was no one screaming about how we needed to create an institution to discriminate against gays. So there was no animus. It was simply the best way for society to construct a mechanism and interaction that would best move society forward and help familiies r raise children. Once gays started demanding gay marriage equality it suddenly became a hate the gays issue for gays. This assault on the norm puts a lot of people off because they view it as a personal attack and don't want to be forced to change a longstanding tradition because they are characterized as bigots when they view marriage as having actual benefits to society the way it is. <br /><br />Frame it a different way. If you ask instead do youthink society should deprive people in relationships similar rights and most people who want to preserve marriage would not at the same time want to deprive people of rights. Stress civil unions that are in most respects identical to marriages. Gays shouldn't worry about gaining acceptance of the preacher who is hard wired to view marriage religiously, nor should gays try to shame or force that person to sanctify their marriage. Rather, they should concentrate on working towards construting something separate, but ultimately equal to marriage. yes that reeks of segregation language. But the point is, it is separate. The fact that is has the word "gay" in front of it means its different. In gay marriages there are two grooms or two brides. it's different.<br />Ill fight people to the death to uphold marriage the way it is but I'd also support a civil union that gives gay people almost identical rights as if they were in a marriage. Certianly there are others who want to stick it to the gays, but I think they are a small bunch. If gays weren't so militant about forcing their morality on us straights, I thnk all sides coudl get what they want. Gays could have civil unions straights could have their marriages, those who feel marrieages are a compact with god wouldnt' be forced to sanctify that which they find unholy but gays could get the rights they need to care for their loved ones. Win win.<br /><br />As to why politicians don't give people gay marriage or repeal DADT it's because again gays just don't rate as a big enough interest group. If a politician were to legalize gay marriage he would risk alienating more voters for himself and his party then he would gain by passing such laws. So as Jim says he's not going to stick his neck out if in doing so he gets it chopped off. Same thing with DADT. What's the benefit of DADT? How many gays are trying to join the military? Politiicans would also have to weigh how many people will the military lose if gays are allowed inMost likely the latter will be more. How many voters will he lose in unpending our longstanding military traditions for a scientific experiment. If the net result is a military that loses its cohesion and cause moral issues or cause the military to miss it's recruiting goals, then maybe that trumps the need to allow gays to serve openly.<br /><br />You'd think Obama, with his rhetoric of hope and change would be the guy to deliver repeal of DADT, but if he did, I think he'd guarantee himself one term not to mention give congress back to the repubs. And he just doens't care that much about gays to risk his own neck. You see, that whole "Hope and Change" stuff was just bullshit. Do you feel stupid yet gays? You should. He's just not that into you and you were fools to believe such empty rhetoric in the first place. Enjoy having your hopes dashed.jr565https://www.blogger.com/profile/07630491937904835553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54336975641824761892009-07-07T02:33:18.414-05:002009-07-07T02:33:18.414-05:00chicken, that's pretty much exactly what I'...chicken, that's pretty much exactly what I'd say to Obama right now. And how he'd answer.Bethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774002797359859550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54413386106250225692009-07-07T02:31:22.052-05:002009-07-07T02:31:22.052-05:00Thank you, Jim, for enumerating your own positions...Thank you, Jim, for enumerating your own positions. We are in accord across the board, it appears to me - on the issues I asked about.<br /><br />I am not well-versed on the consequences of VAT versus other taxes. I'd like to know how the numbers add up - i.e., what would have to be cut, who would be affected and how. Someday, I'll take a little time and find out more about that.Bethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774002797359859550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66696032564841652742009-07-07T02:21:44.504-05:002009-07-07T02:21:44.504-05:00Kirk -
Perhaps then I wasn't clear enough in...Kirk - <br /><br />Perhaps then I wasn't clear enough in my statement. As an example, I would vote for Joe Lieberman were I a resident of his state because of his strong stand on national defense regardless of the fact that he and I disagree on a great number of other issues. However, if there were another candidate who was equally strong on defense, but <b>also</b> offered other policy prescriptions which coincided with mine, then I would vote for that candidate instead.<br /><br />National defense is my number one issue. Period. Any other policy disagreements we can talk about another time and I'll continue to try to dissuade you from your point of view on those issues, but if I have to make the choice between that and anything else, I'll take national defense every time.<br /><br />Is that more clear?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17143782473850677784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13506176523478503332009-07-07T02:07:31.090-05:002009-07-07T02:07:31.090-05:00Jim,
"My single issue is national security. ...Jim,<br /><br />"<i>My single issue is national security. That's the most important issue to me. If everything else is equal, then the stronger position on national defense is what pulls the candidate over the finish line for me.</i>"<br /><br />'Single Issue' and 'Most Important' are <i>not</i> the same thing. 'Single Issue' would be if you voted for candidates based on their stance on national defense <i>regardless of everything else</i>. If defense is only a tie-breaker, then you <i>are</i> paying attention to more than just that single issue.Kirk Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05921711310191924997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2011156473883556592009-07-07T01:21:53.391-05:002009-07-07T01:21:53.391-05:00Beth -
"What is your position on same-sex ma...Beth -<br /><br />"What is your position on same-sex marriage, or civil unions? On DADT? On ENDA?"<br /><br />On DADT: see my posts above.<br /><br />On ENDA: I'll go you one better. I support a constitutional amendment which prohibits both discrimination and preferences on the basis of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. (Or any other thing I might have inadvertantly forgotten to mention.) I think that all decisions in all instances should be based solely on the merit of the individual. Period.<br /><br />On gay marriage: So long as the clergy is given the right to make a decision as to whether to perform a marriage, then I'm for gay marriage. Given the constitutional guarantees on freedom of religion, any law which doesn't include such an exemption would be unconstitutional in any case. However, I think that even if it weren't per se unconstitutional, I believe that people have the right to their own moral beliefs which the government has no right to interfere with (barring physical harm to another person, of course).<br /><br />Those are my personal beliefs - all of which I have previously stated on this blog.<br /><br />I also support the abolishment of the income, corporate and estate taxes in favor of a national VAT which would exempt food and clothing items under $100. This would ensure equality and fairness to all regardless of their socio-economic status while introducing a great deal of efficiency into the economy and reducing the size and reach of the government.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17143782473850677784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44794329952341796092009-07-07T01:19:36.900-05:002009-07-07T01:19:36.900-05:00Sorry Beth, I'm actually sympathetic! :)Sorry Beth, I'm actually sympathetic! :)chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-78643603593998922112009-07-07T01:17:29.656-05:002009-07-07T01:17:29.656-05:00Script from an imaginary conversation between the ...Script from an imaginary conversation between the President and a constituent:<br /><br />Mr President: Vote for me!<br /><br />Beth: Mr. President, I don't believe you care anything one way or another about gay rights because you haven't said a single word to indicate that you do. What is your position on same-sex marriage, or civil unions? On DADT? On ENDA? <br />Speak about your own ideas, Mr. President; otherwise, I must assume your chief enjoyment is in sophistry and meaningless hectoring. I'm not going to join any more tedious and boring exchanges with you. Chalk that up to the gay community's bad strategizing if you like.<br /><br />Mr. President: I will!chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37769781704094990832009-07-07T00:57:22.883-05:002009-07-07T00:57:22.883-05:00Jim, I don't believe you care anything one way...Jim, I don't believe you care anything one way or another about gay rights because you haven't said a single word to indicate that you do. What is your position on same-sex marriage, or civil unions? On DADT? On ENDA? <br /><br />Speak about your own ideas, Jim; otherwise, I must assume your chief enjoyment is in sophistry and meaningless hectoring. I'm not going to join any more tedious and boring exchanges with you. Chalk that up to the gay community's bad strategizing if you like.Bethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774002797359859550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40352051433217206902009-07-07T00:53:22.786-05:002009-07-07T00:53:22.786-05:00Beth -
"you haven't actually offered a ...Beth - <br /><br />"you haven't actually offered a scintilla of "helpful advice" about the topic."<br /><br />If you really believe that, then you haven't read a word I've written. You're seeing what you want to see and nothing more.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17143782473850677784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72148340361801181092009-07-07T00:49:52.043-05:002009-07-07T00:49:52.043-05:00Beth -
"I don't believe you give a mome...Beth - <br /><br />"I don't believe you give a moment's concern about gay rights, and you haven't actually offered a scintilla of "helpful advice" about the topic."<br /><br />This is exactly what I'm talking about. Because, for the most part, I sit on the opposite side of aisle from you then I obviously must not care about gay rights. That's prejudice, pure and simple.<br /><br />If you wonder why gays aren't given the benefit of the doubt and arms aren't outstretched to support gay rights, look in the mirror.<br /><br />As I've said before, I have my principles so I will keep them regardless of the prejudices of others or the vitriol and bile which has been directed at me (bigot, homophobe, etc.).<br /><br />There's a reason that support for gay marriage is going down rather than up, and I would posit that it's attitudes like yours which posit that if I'm not a Leftist then I can't possibly be sincere about gay rights. Believe it or not, you are extremely insulting to even make such an accusation. <br /><br />Can I blame people who decide that people who are prejudiced against them don't deserve to have those prejudices punished at the ballot box? Not really, and neither can you. I understand completely when a person doesn't have a strongly-held belief one way or the other is turned off by such blatant abuse. But your answer to that is that it is then somehow their fault that they're not falling in line behind you. To put it bluntly: you've got it all ass-backwards.<br /><br />Feel free to vote your conscience. I would never tell you to do otherwise. But if your conscience leads you in a different direction, it's hypocritical and wrong for you to criticize others when theirs does the same.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17143782473850677784noreply@blogger.com