First, I can't believe he said "you look like a student" to a woman who identified herself as a member of a university faculty. That is an irrelevant and, I would say, sexist remark. Not only is it equivalent to saying "gee, you're pretty," but it's revealing that you have a picture of what professors are supposed to look like and you don't mind derailing the conversation to say she doesn't look like one. I know it's supposed to be a compliment, but it's really clueless. Believe me, I've had people say "you don't look like a law professor" or some such thing to me thousands of times over the last quarter century, and I remain superficially polite, but I can tell you it is not appropriate in a professional setting. Unless we are in a social context where it would be welcome for you to say "you look beautiful," then you should not say "you look like a student." Okay?
Now, to the substance: The woman, Bridget Todd, asks the President:
I know that you’ve mentioned that you want the Senate to repeal it before you do it yourself.
My question is — you as the President can sort of have an executive order that ends it once and for all as Harry Truman did for integration of the military in in '48. So I wonder, why don’t you do that if this is a policy that you are committed to ending?Obama responds with a lot of words:
First of all, I haven’t “mentioned” that I’m against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.Oh, lord, he begins by getting all pedantic about words. I'll get pedantic back. She didn't say he mentioned that he was against DADT. She said he mentioned that he wanted the Senate to repeal it instead of doing something that he might be able to do on his own.
I have said very clearly, including in a State of the Union Address, that I am against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and that we’re going to end this policy.Fine, so he's repeating the promise that some people feel very bad that he has not kept.
That’s point number one. Point number two, the difference between my position right now and Harry Truman’s, is that Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy unilaterally. So this is not a situation in which, with the stroke of a pen, I can simply end the policy.
Now having said that, what I have been able to do is for the first time get the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff, Mike Mullen, to say he thinks the policy should end. The Secretary of Defense has said he recognizes that the policy needs to change. And we, I believe, have enough votes in the Senate to remove to go ahead and remove this constraint on me as the House has already done so that I can go ahead and end it.But, as the linked blog post (by Jane Hamsher) indicates, he doesn't have the votes in the Senate and he hasn't put the weight of the presidency behind getting Senators to vote for repeal. He seems like he's using the statute as an excuse, so that he can play both sides on this issue. I understand the political motivation for that, but it amounts to breaking his promise to end DADT.
Now we recently had a Supreme Court — a district court case — that said DADT is unconstitutional. I agree with the basic principle that anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces, and make sacrifices on our behalf, on behalf of our national security, anybody should be able to serve. And they shouldn’t have to lie about who they are in order to serve.So don't appeal the case! Say you think the court got it right! Or say that you think DADT isn't unconstitutional. It's just bad policy, and you object to the judiciary taking over in this area.
And so we are moving in the direction of ending this policy. It has to be done in a way that is orderly because we are involved in a war right now.That's pretty much a cloaked statement that he thinks the court was wrong and that the policy is constitutional. It's not "orderly" for the court to strike it down. The judiciary shouldn't be supervising the military. I'm going to assert with confidence that that is his opinion.
But this is not a question of whether the policy will end. This policy will end, and it will end on my watch.The arc of history is long! Keep waiting, oh captive voters. Who else are you going to vote for?
But I do have an obligation to make sure that I’m following some of the rules.Some of the rules?! Man, if you are only following some of the rules, why not give gay people a break?
I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there. I have to work to make sure they are changed.Pssst. The Constitution is law.
Posts
122 comments:
(The Crypto Jew)
President and MTV used in conjunction is INHERENTLY lame…
Muslims hate teh gheys, so Omengrel loves him some DADT. Otherwise something would have changed in the first two hideous years of his abomination, er, administration.
but I can tell you it is not appropriate in a professional setting. Unless we are in a social context where it would be welcome for you to say "you look beautiful," then you should not say "you look like a student." Okay?
In fairness to the President, Althouse, politics is the definition of blurring the lines between professional and social.
I think you might have to fix some of your indentation at the bottom -- it makes it look like Obama said:
"The arc of history is long! Keep waiting, oh captive voters. Who else are you going to vote for?"
Which he might well have said, followed by "Oh, shit, did I say that out loud?"
By the way -- is this the "town hall meeting" for which they had a casting call, from a talent agency, complete with headshots and auditions...for the audience?
Wow. Just wow.
I would imagine that they had the "questions" prepared ahead of time for the actors, too.
Oh but Professor did you see how she gushed when he said that and flashed those perfect, pearly white teeth? She almost had to fan herself and contain the vapors!
Seriously though, maybe it was more patronizing than sexsit (I'm betting he would have said the same had it been a youthful guy). Many of Obama's biggest supporters were the youth vote so he's just trying to be hip I guess.
On a similar note, didn't he call some reporter babe 'sweetie' or 'honey' and that got him some grief?
What could be "disorderly" about immediately ending a policy that involves investigation of the sexual orientation of military personnel?
Or for that matter, why not impose a "moratorium" on all DADT discharge proceedings pending completion of Congressional review.
Finally, I have read (& would appreciate a knowledgable response on proving or disproving this proposition)that general officers are authorized to retain personnel otherwise up for discharge under DADT. If that is so, cannot the President, as Commander in Chief, do the same (or ordr all general officers to do so in every case)?
(And really finally, I agree that telling a faculty member that she "looks like a student" is probably something President Obama would not have said to a male faculty member, and something he should avoid doing in the future.)
Oops, OK, now the indentation is fixed -- maybe it just appeared that way on my screen. Sorry about that.
Well I never served so I can't and won't speak for those who have who might have a different opinion than I do on the matter. That said, the way I see it, if someone is willing to go into harms way and put thier ass on the line (pun intended) in a combat zone then their sexual preferences shouldn't matter.
The correct reply to You don't look like a professor is an arched eyebrow and an Oh? What does a professor look like?
Obama had the power on Day One to issue an executive STOP LOSS order to serve the retention needs in the military in light of the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Given Republican support for those wars and general public support for ending DADT, was there really any risk in having done so?
No.
At some point, Obama's supporters are going to have to realize that HE'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU.
She said he mentioned that he wanted the Senate to repeal it instead of doing something that he might be able to do on his own.
And what might that be professor? What can, and what should he do? It sounds like a lot of nagging, but never any answers. Maybe this one time you can enlighten your readers and show your constitutional law chops. What can he do on his own?
Oh sweet! Another thread where people can talk about the Constitutional Right to Serve in the Military™.
Wait a sec, looks like the President has already alluded to it:
"I agree with the basic principle that anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces, and make sacrifices on our behalf, on behalf of our national security, anybody should be able to serve. And they shouldn’t have to lie about who they are in order to serve."
Lots of people lie about medical history, criminal history, academic history, and more in order to serve in the military. I guess the President feels recruiters should be given far more leeway to dig up qualified applicants. Because everyone knows the military is hurting from a staffing perspective without being able to pull from the gay pool.
And the Professor adds: "Why not give gay people a break?"
Would it imply that I'm gay if I said "Gimme a break" in response to this line?
Also from the Professor: "Who else are you going to vote for?"
Hmmm, the real reason for her Obama vote?
Oh? What does a professor look like?
I always think of that stuffy Business professor in Back to School. You know, tweed jacket with the leather patches on the elbows. A dork :-)
So what did the Gays expect from a Muslim loving sexist with a smooth way of saying he favors what he actually works to prevent...like jobs, private ownership of property, supporting Israel, and opposing Chavez and his Marxist friends in Central and south America. The man is a con artist that can uses his loving smile to paralyze all rational thought. That is the nuanced way to say "that question does not arise"by pretending to say yes and never doing it.
(SIGH) How many times must the reminder be stated that repeal of DADT will simply return to the status quo ante under the UCMJ wherein it is TOTALLY illegal for homosexuals to serve or be recruited. And GOOD LUCK in getting the UCMJ--the law of the land--changed in an election year. DADT actually PROTECTS serving homosexuals unless they "come out." Without it NOTHING will protect them. Happy "gay" trails to all those advocating repeal of DADT.
It's as simple as showers. You simply cannot seperate the issue of sexuality from openly gay people serving in the military. For you non-vets out there, there is a lot of communal showering/bathing/shitting/pissing/sleeping. This is most often done from a budget and simplicity point of view, but has the added dynamic of espirit de corps, both positive and negative.
If you're going to allow openly gay people to serve under these conditions without any changes in those conditions, you should likewise be willing to comingle male and female dorms, barracks, showers, bathrooms, etc.
I have zero problem with people being gay, whether or not its a choice, genetics, both, I don't care.
I don't know if its changed but back in the day, the French Foreign Legion also had a don't ask don't tell policy. Needless to say it had a lot of folks who weren't necessarily gay but were going out of their way not to be found.
I read an article awhile back in military history magazine about how many a former Waffen SS met thier end in the rice paddies of Vietnam.
Some of the rules?
This is THE major problem in our nation today: the gradual loss of respect for the rule of law.
A nation of laws - The rule of law. It is the only true thing that seperates the United States - and frankly makes us better for all - from every other nation on earth.
It is in the immigration debate.
It is in the mortgage and banking industry.
It is in the social issues debate where judges seek to override the will of the people and the move of history.
Respect for the rule of law is so low in the countries south of us - how's that working out for them? Notice the high price in lives being paid in Mexico because the current Presidente is making at least a modicum of effort to change the corruption so ingrained in the Mexican culture? Low respect for the rule of law.
Lack of immigration enforcement in this country by the federal government? Increasing disrespect for the rule of law.
Thank you Democrats.
I can't believe he said "you look like a student" to a woman who identified herself as a member of a university faculty.
I would classify his remark as an observation, not a compliment. Perhaps he should have kept his observation to himself, but her presentation: head bobbing, inflection, attire, did make her seem like an undergraduate. I was surprised, too.
Republicans hope to use DADT repeal as a wedge issue to mobilize their base and get them out to the polls. Why would I say this? Recall that back in May, all Republican members of the Senate Armed Service Committee (except for Snowe) voted against DADT repeal. Jim Webb joined them, arguing the POV that the military was tasked with developing an orderly phase-in plan, due December 1.
December 1 is six weeks away. The Democrats will still have a majority in the Senate, even if CO'D is sworn in immediately and a Republican replaces Roland Burris. But the wedge issue will have been taken out of the GOP's hands.
To me it's a tad bit suspicious that the Log Cabin Republicans' suit went to trial this summer after simmering six years, four of which under the Bush administration. The Log Cabin Republicans are still Republican -- apparently they can swallow any antipathy emitted by the social conservatives.
I think I'd like to see everybody who wants to see DADT ended agree either to volunteer for the armed forces, or, if too old to serve, agree to send off their son or daughter.
Ending DADT is being pushed by people who have no skin in the game.
...what I have been able to do is for the first time get the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff, Mike Mullen, to say he thinks the policy should end. (I think it is Joint Chiefs, without the apostrophe.)
No matter how I read this it doesn't sound good. Did he twist Admiral Mullen's arm? Did he free the Admiral from an evil spell? Does this mean the Chairman and the Joint Chiefs are no longer free to give their professional advice, even when it goes against Administration policy?
As for the Court ruling, I want any Administration to be the support of the law until the SCOTUS strikes it down or the Congress repeals it. However, I would like every Administration to be creative and "administratively" suspending discharges while this is being sorted out might be one such form of creativity.
The time has come to repeal DADT, but we should keep in mind that Blacks served in combat roles in the US Army up until WWI and then President Wilson's Administration took all of that away and it took the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations (and Eleanor) quite a while to bring it back. There are no guarantees here.
Regards — Cliff
And GOOD LUCK in getting the UCMJ--the law of the land--changed in an election year.
Congress goes back in session November 15. The election will be over.
Stupid comments and questions can often be avoided. I learned, after a few years, to hardly ever tell people what I did for a living[private investigator]. I know docs, plumbers, exterminators[insects and vermin, of course] who have learned the same lesson. And, while I know attorneys get a great deal of stupid questions and comments; I can't think of one who can resist telling people they are an attorney.
You simply cannot seperate the issue of sexuality from openly gay people serving in the military.
What is the issue? Are the gays going to be leering at you in the shower? They're looking at you right now, only you're not sure who they are.
But, think about it: Are you attracted to people who don't share your sexual orientation? Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell: have you been yearning to see them with their kit off?
Hoosier Daddy wrote:
if someone is willing to go into harms way and put thier ass on the line (pun intended) in a combat zone then their sexual preferences shouldn't matter.
But that works both ways. DADT means the military doesn't ask about it, and you don't talk about it either. Repealing it means that in fact the sexual preferences do matter and are paramaount in importance, hence the need to divulge the sexual prefefence.
If you don't see the difference, FLS, I'm not going to explain it to you. I'm sure most women would agree that it's completely different to shower with a man in the bay than with a bunch of other women.
Again...I don't care. If they can somehow figure out a way to solve this problem without sacrificing an iota of combat readiness, more power to them. Spending a ton of money to bend over backwards (no pun) to accommodate a small minority of people within the ranks is not the way to go. Meeting in the middle somehow is.
ndspinelli said...
Stupid comments and questions can often be avoided. I learned, after a few years, to hardly ever tell people what I did for a living[private investigator]. I know docs, plumbers, exterminators[insects and vermin, of course] who have learned the same lesson. And, while I know attorneys get a great deal of stupid questions and comments; I can't think of one who can resist telling people they are an attorney.
How to rebut this without mentioning I'm an attorney? Hmmmm. Ouch. Hurt my brain.
FLS:"Are you attracted to people who don't share your sexual orientation? Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell: have you been yearning to see them with their kit off?"
How about Portia DiRossi?
I think the "complement" was just another case of his verbal oafishness when off the teleprompter. Now, he's all about the XO whenever he can sneak something by us, something without the public exposure. But this thing is all out there in the news, and to push for a position would mean to take responsibility. He's not equipped for that. Lucky for him, he can play to both sides, realizing that nothing will happen either way, and he'll be safe. It's not like he really cares, anyway.
Oh, and, um... you're looking very lovely today.
most women would agree that it's completely different to shower with a man in the bay than with a bunch of other women.
But under DADT, the "man" is already there. The guy who's sexually interested in other guys stays there unless he outs himself. Why don't you feel violated now?
Former law student wrote:
What is the issue? Are the gays going to be leering at you in the shower? They're looking at you right now, only you're not sure who they are.
But, think about it: Are you attracted to people who don't share your sexual orientation? Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell: have you been yearning to see them with their kit off?
Well, you happened to pick extremely unnatractive lesbians, so of course hetero guys wouldn't be attracted to them (well Ellen has a cute thing going, certainly not sexually hot but I could see someone liking that type). But what about guys who want to see two hot women engaging in lesbian sex. in that case guys most certainly would be attracted to people who don't necessariliy share their sexual preference. Are you telling me that gays aren't into Brad Pitt even though he most likely is not gay?
And while there are gays serving now who probably glance at guys in showers, the idea that people should not be bothered by it is ludicrious. Why would the military separate out men and women and not let them shower together? If men were ogling women in showers, wouldnt' that be grounds for a sexual harrasment suit especially if the military allowed for the situation to occur and dind't protect women from unwanted advances. Now if a gay guy or woman looks at a member of the ooposite sex they have to do so very carefully out of fear that they might get caught and then booted out of the service. If they are openly gay they can say yes I'm gay so what? i wasn't looking at them sexually, are you going to simiply punish me for being gay you bigot?
The fact that the military will not want to offfend gays because of their gayness will mean they treat gay instances of potential harrasment with kids gloves.
And it's not only unwanted advances that are the problem, but the wanted advances. Namely, two gay guys are in a shower together and find each other attractive, around non gays and exhibit all the signs of arrousal. Are they going to hook up later in the barracks, do those who are not gay who have to live in the environment want to see men physically attracted to each other? The military doesn't want people fraterinize with each other sexually. They have more imporant business to do, namely serve the military.
FLS - why do you kneejerk defend Obama no matter what?
How about Portia DiRossi?
She was in Sirens, wasn't she?
OK, point MayBee.
"I think I'd like to see everybody who wants to see DADT ended agree either to volunteer for the armed forces, or, if too old to serve, agree to send off their son or daughter."
Amen. Their ardor for the repeal of DADT is in inverse proportion to their time in service.
Sixty, you've been hitting too many 40s before noon.
It's not a muslim thing, it's a black thing. Gay rights is a radioactive subject in the black community (especially among those who are active religiously) and Obama REALLY needs needs the black community to (a) maintain its near-100% support for Obama and (b) actually vote.
why do you kneejerk defend Obama no matter what?
I only defend Obama when I defend Obama. And attacking Obama would be superfluous here, like trying to wet the ooean.
There is already a law that prevents gays from serving. DADT allows them to circumvent the law. The military will merely revert to the established law if DADT is out of the way, which is what the putative POTUS is trying to prevent, and whhat the clueless moonbat activist in the black robe fails to understand.
Yes the USC is the LAW Prof. Althouse. You should be ashamed that you say nothing when a Non Natural Born president has Usurped the office.
You don't say why DADT is unconstitutional.
Aren't professors supposed to not look like students?
I can't help but imagine they'd get more respect from their students by dressing like they're grown-ups and professionals.
Lucien: 10 USC 654 says that the Secretary of Defense can make "regulations" (as he sees fit) such that if someone's separation from the service is deemed "not ... in the best interest of the armed forces", they need not be separated under the statute's requirements.
Presumably either the Secretary hasn't (ever), or the regulations are such that they're not particularly applicable.
Further, if the Secretary decided to never apply separation, that would seem to clearly be ignoring Congress' intent in the statute.
And while I think 10 USC 654 is stupid, I don't think that military policy ignoring what Congress tells them to do is good, on the grounds that the armed forces are supposed to be under civilian control, and specifically subordinate to both the President and Congress.
(The latter specifically doesn't get to give them operational orders, but it certainly does get to regulate laws related to the military and its composition, as well as its budget.)
Again...I don't care. If they can somehow figure out a way to solve this problem without sacrificing an iota of combat readiness, more power to them.
Ok I know how we settle this issue. Scott when we establish our online wargame club we pick the wargame and I'll mod a special combat unit called the 116th San Francisco Swishys. They'll have distinctive and flamboyant uniforms (hell I'll just kit them out as Zouaves) and we'll put them up against your Grenadier Guards and see how it turns out.
I say we also let garage into the group. I'll mod a special ANSWER unit where he can sit off to the side of the battlefield and scream WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!! or HEY HEY HO HO NAPOLEON HAS GOT TO GO!!!
Special victory points will be awarded to the side that eliminates the ANSWER unit but only if its made to look like an accident.
But under DADT, the "man" is already there. The guy who's sexually interested in other guys stays there unless he outs himself. Why don't you feel violated now?
That's the part I'm not going to try to explain to you if you don't already know.
I for one am glad that FLS defends Obama in his comments here, because I don't ever hear that from anyone else anymore. What has happened to Obama's support? The Chiliean miners may need to get up to speed if they last saw news 3 month's ago. But I am sure that FLS will catch up soon.
Hoosier
I think your game/role playing is out of control, and is clouding your outlook on reality. Wait a minute, you aren't one of those retards that dresses up in civil war outfits and thinks he's in a real war are you? ;)
Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell: have you been yearning to see them with their kit off?
Well, Ellen, maybe yes.
But in the comment thread from another post I mentioned an episode from my own experience as an enlisted man during the Vietnam War when I overheard two WACs complaining about being leered at by lesbian WACs in their barracks. Okay, that's second hand hearsay, but this isn't a courtroom and they weren't aware that they were being overheard.
Under DADT an enlisted person can assume that everyone sharing the shower with them is straight, even when intellectually they may know better.
Under DADT if an enlisted person is ordered by a sergeant or commissioned officer to risk their lives to save a wounded soldier under fire, they have the expectation that it's not because the wounded soldier is the lover of the person giving the orders.
I think these are good things.
"First, I can't believe he said "you look like a student" to a woman who identified herself as a member of a university faculty. That is an irrelevant and, I would say, sexist remark. "
I completely agree. I had the same problem all through my tenure years of looking young and have had Deans (women) and students alike comment on my appearance. It makes you wonder if they think I don't look the part (in their stereotypical view) and therefore, they won't hire me or take me seriously or whatever else. It is a highly discriminatory statement.
But, you do look like a student.
Baby.
I know several gay people in the Armed Forces (I'm even dating a vet), and overwhelmingly their attitude is either indifference or strong support for DADT. It's not necessarily support for the policy per se. Instead, they're concerned about the armed forces being insidiously modeled on civilian life, sacrificing order and discipline for equality and tolerance.
That's why, I think, the debate on DADT only surfaces on op-ed pages and in faculty lounges (as one commenter here said, people without skin in the game), and only when an ostensibly liberal congress is having its majorities threatened (the last time this came up was 1993). Gay or straight, most servicemen and vets I've met just don't care either way about gays in the military. They just don't want it to be an issue, and ending DADT makes it an issue.
@Coketown, well said.
I had the same problem all through my tenure years of looking young and have had Deans (women) and students alike comment on my appearance.
There's appearance and then there's appearance. My workplace once hired a 40 year old woman whose mannerisms, inflection, word choice, etc., were that of a 17 year old girl. Extremely creepy to deal with her.
@pm317, you'd think a former U. of Chicago faculty member would be more sensitive, wouldn't you?
@Coketown
Exactly. This was my experience in both the Air Force and the Army (yeah, I'm a mutant).
Scott @ 12:35 hits the point cleanly. Few care if combat readiness is not compromised.
Is it a coincidence that those advocating repeal tend to be those who don't have much respect for the job the military does?
Yes, we can! has morphed into it wouldn't be orderly.
Obama cannot do, he cannot even try.
He's reduced to wielding a Nixonian enemies list, divisive rhetoric and Potemkin townhalls/events to shore up his base.
Only his loyal minority base is buying it and many on the left are beginning to look for the exits. The left coast power brokers are already shifting away from Obama.
Jerry Brown raised more than a sitting Democrat president from the same donor base in Hollywood last week.
If Brown wins next month, and I think he will, the big Mo & the buzz has shifted away from Whitman.
Gov. Jerry Brown will be a force with which Obama has to reckon. Wielding 55 electoral votes, Brown will come calling for a pension/public sector bailout and Obama will emerge as the weak horse.
Is it a coincidence that those advocating repeal tend to be those who don't have much respect for the job the military does?
The biggest proponent of DADT repeal here is our gracious hostess. I sense no disrespect coming from her.
DADT just shoved the gays underground. Suspecting that there's a secret network of gays boosting each other's careers in exchange for sexual favors would be bad for morale in the military, wouldn't it? Would that overcome the fear of being ogled?
Suspecting that there's a secret network of gays boosting each other's careers in exchange for sexual favors would be bad for morale in the military, wouldn't it?
Damned near tin-foil worth, FLS. Snark aside, there's just not that many of them in the service and they don't tend to make it a career. Some do, but not enough for an effective cabal.
All this handwringing concern to normalize the unnormalizable. Futile. But harmful to the normal. And maybe that's the point.
So Obama has to discriminate against these guys before he can end the discrimination.
Isn't that kind of like destroying the village so you can save it?
Sounds like sound military doctrine to me.
I know nothing about the military so I will leave it to youse guys who do. But it doesn't seem to add up ya know?
"you look like a student"
President Professor Pervert
I dunno. I'm not a fan of expecting every politician to speak as if they are some programmed robot who cannot act as if they are human.
Even knowing what was coming, the instant I saw her I thought, "wow, she does look more like a student."
I'm no fan of Obama but for Pete's sake, people should be allowed to speak and react like a normal human being. You'll notice she responded "I get that a lot." Why? Because it's a *natural* reaction, she's DOES look more like a student than a teacher.
It's like when I see the British tabloids picking on an aging actress beginning to look heavier or more time worn (saw them do it to Goldie Hawn today). Jeez Louise, she's 63 years old, give her a fucking break. It's not 1970 and she's no longer an 19 year old go-go dancer.
People should be allowed to speak and age naturally.
I am firmly and resolutely ineffectual!
Was the woman actually a professor or an actress playing a professor?
John Henry
Was the woman actually a professor or an actress playing a professor?
A valid question given the astroturfing of the crowd. Why isn't Tingles all over that aspect? Oh...right...
Just awful. I am no longer going to delve further into these seemingly daily gafffes from the President on down.
Being mistaken for a student, or not receiving respect for the earned position is often a problem for young female faculty members, and I am disappointed that Obama played that line. I understand that it can be a compliment, even professor Althouse likes her fans to post compliments on how young she looks like this one from Traditionalguy: Is that really a picture of your daughter, Professor? You must be teasing us. Love makes us young again." Still if I must parse words and time, Obama has not broken the promise--yet; he has two more years to go before we can make that claim.
Big Mike said...
------------
If he ever was a functioning U. of Chicago faculty member..right? ;)
They elevated him to a professor when he was just a lecturor and now I am beginning to wonder if he was even that.
IANAL or LP nor do I look like a law student, but my impression is that Obama can't Executive Order Don't Ask, Don't Tell out of existence. As Sigvald implies, it is not merely a DOD regulation, it's part of the US Code. Changing it is going to take another act of Congress (literally) and I get the feeling those lame Democrat ducks coming back on November 15th are not going to be in any mood to do favors for a party base that looks likely to abandon them in a couple of weeks.
Re community showering, shitting etc in the Navy, at least.
When I was on ship, i slept in what was essentially a double bed. There was a 3" space between my mattress and my bunkie's.
At sea, with the ship rolling about, we would often wind up in each other's bunks.
Or try showering. It is not like at the gymn. There were 4 stalls in our berthing compartment of about 100 men. It was always crowded.
At sea, we would often be on water hours with the showers turned on for 15 minutes a day. Try taking a shower with 50-60 other guys in 4 stalls. Dropping the soap is not a problem. We were so tightly packed that we could not have bent down to pick it up.
Or shitters. Our ship was modern and we had actual commodes. No partitions and not much separation. Think sitting in a crowded bleacher.
Older ships had a trough with some slats across it.
This was not a submarine. It was a US Navy Cargo ship.
As I've mentioned before and someone else mentioned in this thread, ending DADT will make it worse for gays in the military.
As for whether gays should be allowed to serve, I have mixed feelings. Probably, they should be able to.
Gay relationships on ship should be strictly forbidden.
I'll let some others who have served speak on the Army and Marines and AF.
John Henry
And when will he master the art of the 30 second (or less) answer.
Why the lectures!!
(PS thankfully the questioner didn't quip "Well you don't look like a president")
Again, there is an expiration date on everything The Zero says. So no one should be surprised.
Given that the assumption made in '08, that he didn't like homosexuals, seems to be in the process of vindication, he is between a rock and a hard place as they are a core Demo constituency and is trying to please everyone.
Which, as Ricky Nelson taught us all, can't be done.
Under Jimmy Carter, the Air Force was very lenient with female homosexuality and fraternization. At Clark Air Base in the Philippines, a group of bull-dyke lesbians took over a female dorm, a squadron softball team, and the inspection section of an aircraft maintenance squadron. They bullied and coerced heterosexual women into relationships with them. They rewarded their friends and punished anyone who opposed them with bogus sexism complaints. They used their influence to get attractive women assigned to their section and dorm. They were finally brought down by an IG investigation resulting from complaints by numerous heterosexual females. I was there when this happened.
I served with several guys I was pretty sure were gay. They never caused a problem.
Lesbians cause a problem. They are predatory and think more like men.
What a fucking tool he truly is. Take these statements and project them on his stance towards border security. There are PLENTY of laws on the books that it it his policy NOT to enforce. All of a sudden he's all "letter of the law" on DODT. What a jackass. He will NOT be missed.
She sounds like a black valley girl.
"The biggest proponent of DADT repeal here is our gracious hostess. I sense no disrespect coming from her."
And that's why I said "tend" to be. Having never conversed with her directly, I wouldn't presume to include her with those people who do not view national security as a priority.
However, it's been my personal experience that the real underlying issue for those people is that they couldn't care less about what effect it may have on our military and national security.
I, like several here, have served alongside gays without any problem whatsoever. There were no problems between us, and no one was ever singled out for punishment because of their orientation. I never sensed that they felt this overwhelming desire to make their personal life everyone else's business. DADT prevents those uncomfortable, uninvited personal questions.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that if people start to openly disclose their sexual orientation that there will be a huge amount of pressure on those who don't want to? Is that fair to them? The pressure is different than in civilian life, and specifically related to the unique military lifestyle. In this case I firmly believe that 1st Amendment rights will run head on into 5th Amendment rights, but no one seems to think much of that point.
I am not opposed to repeal either. I just want those people who advocate for it to give some deference to those whom it will affect the most. That is always missing in this discussion.
rhhardin said...
"You don't say why DADT is unconstitutional."
District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips (who was nominated by President Bill Clinton) ruled that DADT fails to significantly further an important governmental interest that can be advanced in no other way.
"rhhardin said...
"You don't say why DADT is unconstitutional."
District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips (who was nominated by President Bill Clinton) ruled that DADT fails to significantly further an important governmental interest that can be advanced in no other way."
Thanks for the clarification, Meade. It's all crystal clear now.
My dad was an Air Force JAG for many years, both before and after DADT. According to him, DADT was the de facto policy for the vast majority of commanders, even before its formal implementation. Believe it or not, most military commanders simply don't care about the sexual preferences of the people serving under them; provided that it doesn't undermine discipline or morale (e.g., flamboyant behavior, fraternization).
I think that the lack-of-privacy arguments are really given short-shrift by the anti-DADT crowd. Military personnel, particularly those in combat, sacrifice a great deal of privacy in the name of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. "Get over yourself--no-one's looking at you," is no better a response to those concerns than it would be if men started walking into the women's bathroom at my law firm. Perhaps the middle ground is to allow gays to serve openly in career tracks where privacy is at less of a premium, while retaining DADT for close-quarters service.
former law student said...
--------------
The appearance was just about the way I looked (not how I behaved) -- as in you walk into a meeting and they would say, 'you look so young'. My unsaid reaction was, so?!
Perhaps the middle ground is to allow gays to serve openly in career tracks where privacy is at less of a premium, while retaining DADT for close-quarters service.
An honest attempt at a compromise, I'll grant, but having served both "in the rear with the gear" and up at the spear point, there's already enough animosity between those two clearly delineated groups of people within our armed forces.
the ignorance on display here about the Clinton DADT Presidential Directive that covers the Congressional Law is simply breathtaking ...
I would hope Anne could explain just what the law is and just what Clinton did to circumvent that law which everyone calls DADT ...
do any of you have openly gay co-workers ? great, now how often do you have to get dressed in front of them, or share communal shower facilities with them ?
What ? you say you just work with them and you don't "live" with them ...
Well, the next time you use your "gays can do the job" strawman (which very few supporters of DADT deny is true) think about living conditions which is the crux of the problem with intergrating open gays in the military ...
I agree with Scott , thats what libertarian s want anyway. they think people will act like in Starship Trooper-
And like i said before among the bravest commander ever were many gays. Leonidas was the captain of 300 bicurious army
DADT reminds me of the Democrats' motto: "If it ain't broke, fix it until it is."
re: sexist remark, shhhheeeessshhh! Much ado about nothing.
She DOES look like a student and she ***giggle***didn't *** head toss** seem to take offense at the comment. And yeah she SHOULD dress more professional but how is her dress less professional than seeing Althouse in bunny slippers?
Belkys, I have no doubt that there are many very brave and patroitic gay people in the military. Both in the past and in the current day.
I hope we can find a way for them to serve with honor in every sense of the word.
I trust the people in the military to figure out how to do that.
The politicians, not so much.
I would say unprofessional, but not demonstrably sexist. I have a friend (name changed to preserve his privacy) who for about the first 6 years of his professional career was referred to as "Young Mr. Phillips". The managers found that amusing, he found it dismaying.
And somehow they have yet to grant him any significant promotion in over a decade. You might almost think that their dismissive judgment led to them pigeon-holing him or something...
"But this is not a question of whether the policy will end. This policy will end, and it will end on my watch."
Really Mr. President? Bye the way, how's that Guantanamo closing thing going?
My opinion is that DADT works for the Military. I have served in the military, and have many relatives who have served.
The military is a volunteer military organization, not a social club.
If you don't understand the reasons why ending DADT will create severe problems for military "cohesiveness" (particularly in units going into combat)then I suggest you enlist and experience what it means to serve.
DADT will probably end; it will not be for the better of the Military.
DADT fails to significantly further an important governmental interest that can be advanced in no other way."
The proper standard for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is much laxer, rational basis. Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas. The Log Cabin Republicans should have had to show that DADT had no rational relationship to any legitimate government interest. The arguments advanced by the anti-repeal commenters here amply describe legitimate government interests.
From USMCJ:
"925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Big Mike wrote:
I think I'd like to see everybody who wants to see DADT ended agree either to volunteer for the armed forces, or, if too old to serve, agree to send off their son or daughter.
Ending DADT is being pushed by people who have no skin in the game.
Five years ago the usual putdown from left-wingers of people who supported our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan was that if they didn't enlist, immediately, they were chickenhawks. Remember?
I am definitely going to use this line in DADT discussions.
Not to get all pedantic myself, but did the President really say "mentioned," as in quote mentioned unquote? Or did he use air quotes?
Ok, now that we've gotten past the other arguments, discuss what should happen to the man who, upon waking to find another man, in a drunken state, crawling into his rack, beats the hell out of the intruder and puts him into the hospital.
Under normal circumstances the victim of the intrusion would be hauled up on at least an article 15. This would be because there would be no sexual component to the considered charges.
BJM wrote:
If Brown wins next month, and I think he will, the big Mo & the buzz has shifted away from Whitman.
Gov. Jerry Brown will be a force with which Obama has to reckon. Wielding 55 electoral votes, Brown will come calling for a pension/public sector bailout and Obama will emerge as the weak horse.
You're thinking three moves ahead! I have never seen any of our oh-so-savvy media pundits raise this point.
If Obama contnues to step on his ... uh, necktie, then the carnage of a Brown/Clinton/Obama race in 2012 might be rather gruesome. I'm gonna stock up on popcorn.
ScottM - "In fairness to the President, Althouse, politics is the definition of blurring the lines between professional and social."
That was very well said. For better or worse, the proles of America expect the friendly and familiar from their politicians. Can't afford to attend a 10,000 a plate dinner and get actual face time, the prole is happy to get at least the illusion the politician likes them and empathizes.
=========================
"Hoosier Daddy said...
Well I never served so I can't and won't speak for those who have who might have a different opinion than I do on the matter. That said, the way I see it, if someone is willing to go into harms way and put thier ass on the line (pun intended) in a combat zone then their sexual preferences shouldn't matter."
If the military has to become a place where equality is the main objective, rather than defending the country, I'd agree. Under the liberal maxim that "anyone who wants to serve and risk their life (TM)should be allowed to join" - that should mean that has to be up to the military under ADA and various cause groups demands - to find a place. If some 300-lb woman wishes to serve, well, she is a hero and should be allowed in! Surely the military can find spots for McDonald's rejects, people with psycholoical conditions like anger management - no fault of their own! The military is a big organization...so why not hire the blind and those in wheelchairs. Why deny gang members who did prison stretches their chance to heroically serve??
And surely, the straight and able-bodied and bright and law-abiding will continue to volunteer so the all-volunteer military remains viable and we don't have to return to a Draft!!
Ann complained, Unless we are in a social context where it would be welcome for you to say "you look beautiful," then you should not say "you look like a student." Okay?
Oh, get over yourself. Saying someone looks young is not the same as saying they look beautiful. Not that there's anything that should be wrong with saying someone is beautiful, either, except that it might imply you want a date.
It might bother you, but that's life. In life you cannot control all the words that others say and when an offense is not intended then it is pretty petty to claim a hurt.
"Don't ask, don't tell" is the Congressional formulation. What a commander in chief can do, without congressional approval, is tell the military they're not to act against anyone they learn is gay. And any officer who does is going to be cashiered in the most public and humiliating manner possible.
He can tell them they're to specify in every morning report whether anyone has been severed from the service since the day before because they were gay.
He can have the command NCOs of the services up the White house for dinner. And while Michelle takes the spouses for a tour, he can sell the command NCOs on percolating the new policy down through the sergeants and petty officers (who are the ones who'll make this work).
So then you'd have sergeants protecting the gay enlisted men, officers under the personal protection of the White House.
He doesn't have to wait for the Supreme Court, or the November elections, or anything. He just needs to get off his boney behind and do it.
My service was back in the 1960s, I took my discharge in 1970. Now back then an openly gay serviceman was really disruptive. On the one hand you had some preying on the 17-19 year old newbies. On the other hand we had a significant minority of straight, or perhaps allegedly straight, servicemen physically attacking gays or alleged gays.
In my six years I met one man who came out as gay, privately among members of the platoon. By te time he came out he was a valued and trusted comrade. We had bet our very lives on him and he his on us. By that time his sexual orientation was as irrelevant and his hair or skin color. Yet back then skin color was a real big deal back in the base camps with the clerks and the jerks.
Oh, and the guy that said that President Wilson ended blacks in combat roles knows little or nothing of history. There were black Regiments in combat in WW1 and WW2. In WW1 they were sent to France and served under French command but they were still American soldiers. In WW2 there were black divisions serving on the Italian front. The only thing Truman did was open the military to desegregated units.
And what might that be professor? What can, and what should he do? It sounds like a lot of nagging, but never any answers. Maybe this one time you can enlighten your readers and show your constitutional law chops. What can he do on his own?
He can issue an immediate executive order barring the Justice Department from appealing the district court's judgment overturning the ban on gays in the military. He can do the same with regards to the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act.
There is nothing in the laws or Constitution of the United States that requires an appeal of those cases. Obama is the President, and in charge of the Justice Department. Obama is choosing, of his own free will, to appeal those cases. He is choosing to oppress gays.
So, don't give me any bullshit about Republicans in Congress. Appealing these decisions is unilateral, voluntary action by the Executive to keep gays out of the military and gay marriages unrecognized.
@murgatroyd
Brown/Clinton or Clinton/Brown?
Brown turned 72 in April so 2012 might be his final age window, while Hillary, soon to turn 63, is good to go for 2016. However I can't see her taking a VP slot after the humiliation of the 2008 primaries.
But desegregating the units was no small thing at that time.
And I think DADT has always been the policy. When I did my service a long long time ago, I am certain there were "gay" (though that term had not been invented yet - we had more colorful ones) soldiers around, but there never was a problem because any overt homosexual act or proposition meant an automatic Section 8 discharge.
A couple of guys in my company did take this way out, but these guys were not "gays," they just wanted out regardless of cost.
(I should mention that my regiment made lowest score on a CMI ever in the history of the US Army. Those with any military experience will know what that means in terms of troop morale.)
Hoosier
I think your game/role playing is out of control, and is clouding your outlook on reality. Wait a minute, you aren't one of those retards that dresses up in civil war outfits and thinks he's in a real war are you? ;)
In the future please address me as Mr. [insert name of your choice].
And yes garage I did in fact don the uniform of the Union (that was the North cause I don't know if they taught that in the Soviet school system). Anyway it wasn't about playing war but the after battle festivities.
...what I have been able to do is for the first time get the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff,
Ahahahahaha!
Ahahahahaha!
This is an "accomplishment" to the left.
Wow.
You voted for him, Ann. You were warned. Sorry.
DHOTUS: I agree with the basic principle that anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces, and make sacrifices on our behalf, on behalf of our national security, anybody should be able to serve. And they shouldn’t have to lie about who they are in order to serve
I want to be a fighter pilot, but I'm colorblind...
if someone is willing to go into harms way and put thier ass on the line (pun intended) in a combat zone then their sexual preferences shouldn't matter.
Bullshit. It the platoon sgt is having an affair with my gunner, they are going to get us all killed.
This should be a reverse chickenhawk - if you haven't served in a victor unit, shut up. You have no idea what you're talking about.
One would think a law professor would know there is no "right" to serve in the military...nor to defend the country.
I'm retired military. Personally, I don't care what side of the road you tinkle on in your personal life but just as I wouldn't say to some woman "I know what it's like to have a baby" I find it vexing to constantly hear people who know nothing of the military yet deign to explain to me how homosexuality is not detrimental to the good order and discipline that service members must maintain.
Here's some facts for you. Fat people don't have a 'right' to be in the military. 'Flat-footed' people don't have a 'right' to be in the military. Sickly people don't have a 'right' to be in the military. Illiterates have no 'right' to be in the military. Pedophiles (another sexual choice) have no 'right to be in the military'. Felons have no 'right' to be in the military. People who don't "get with the program" have no 'right' to get in the military.
"Right"? You TEACH people?
This should be a reverse chickenhawk - if you haven't served in a victor unit, shut up. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Ok fine.
It's pretty funny how bristly you get every time some woman besides yourself is flattered.
The bottom line remains that Obama made a promise and broke it.
Yet again.
He's provided zero leadership on pursuing something that he put into his own SOTU speech. He does not merely "seem" to be playing both sides of the issue, he explicitly is.
The Democrats control both houses of congress, and the White House, and did nothing to repeal DADT - instead the passed a timewaster "study".
@Althouse, "Believe me, I've had people say "you don't look like a law professor" or some such thing to me thousands of times over the last quarter century, and I remain superficially polite, but I can tell you it is not appropriate in a professional setting. Unless we are in a social context where it would be welcome for you to say "you look beautiful," then you should not say "you look like a student." Okay?"
Why?
Your weird sensitivities threaten our essential humanity. If that gold digger (that's a Cee Lo Green reference) acts like a student, yet claims to be a faculty member, then it's only natural for anyone who finds that to be incongruous to so state.
I didn't know you were such a wilting flower. It is unbecoming for a law professor to exhibit such passive aggression. Okay?
People like to tell me that I "don't even look pregnant" even though I'm twenty pounds heavier than six months ago. I just don't reply.
@ Shirley, "People like to tell me that I "don't even look pregnant" even though I'm twenty pounds heavier than six months ago. I just don't reply."
Why aren't you more gracious? They are just trying to behave appropriately. Okay?
Re Pete's comment, at the beginning of WWII the military was not only segregated, but whole areas were closed off to Blacks. It took a whole lot of effort and manpower shortages to overcome that during the war. President Truman was about the politics, as I recall.
Regards — Cliff
The way that presidents and members of Congress have ceded decisions about what is allowed under the Constitution for political reasons is disturbing in so many ways. Obama takes the cake here but Bush did this same shit, and members of Congress do it constantly.
Hey, ass clowns! You took an oath to defend the Constitution. Unlike judges, you have been duly elected by the people. So defend the Constitution.
Seven Machos said,
"Hey, ass clowns! You took an oath to defend the Constitution. Unlike judges, you have been duly elected by the people. So defend the Constitution."
He already lied in front of the world when he pledged to defending the Constitution he violates just by holding office. He was born a dual citizen, as such he is not a Natural Born Citizen. He spits on the Constitution.
At Clark Air Base in the Philippines, a group of bull-dyke lesbians took over a female dorm, a squadron softball team, and the inspection section of an aircraft maintenance squadron. They bullied and coerced heterosexual women into relationships with them. They rewarded their friends and punished anyone who opposed them with bogus sexism complaints. They used their influence to get attractive women assigned to their section and dorm. They were finally brought down by an IG investigation resulting from complaints by numerous heterosexual females.
That is happening now, with at least one unit in the Army, that I know of. Has been happening for years. One NCO I know was blackmailed into a group BDSM session with a gang of lesbian soldiers in exchange for a good NCOER a few years back. Apparently they have a friend high up in PERSCOM who arranges the gang to serve together as much as possible and it's been going on for years. At least one SGM is involved and at least one MAJ.
So yes, this shit happens. It's pretty naive to claim that it doesn't. That said, libtards are nothing if not naive.
There's the argument that if you lift the ban you can't blackmail soldiers into keeping silent. But you can still blackmail them into putting out in exchange for favorable NCOERs and other favorable treatment. I think women are more vulnerable to this than men are, because there is less of a stigma against personal honor for women to explore sex with other women than there is for men.
A good friend of mine was one of the women blackmailed. She told me all of the sordid details. It's like something out of a Pat Califia novel. I'm not exaggerating. There was at least one instance of a woman in Iraq being detailed to serve as a lesbian sex slave to a senior NCO for a week at a time. (It says something else on the orders). My friend is a dedicated soldier, though, and wants to stay in and finish her career. She doesn't consider herself a lesbian.
Oh. It started with lesbians ogling her in the shower. It started outside of a combat zone, but the issues continued into a combat zone. (The war slowed down a lot. Hey, bored soldiers get into all kinds of trouble.)
Anyone who thinks this is merely a question of whether homosexuals "can do the job" is a frigging idiot.
Mick -- You are wrong, dumb, and shrill.
Now having said that, what I have been able to do is for the first time get the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff, Mike Mullen, to say he thinks the policy should end.
One might almost think that Mullen was forced into making that statement against his will, since Obama's achievement was to get him to say it. Anyway, the CJCS is really more of a politician than a soldier (or in this case a sailor) - when's the last time he ever had to live in close quarters with others or use a communal shower?
Plus an erroneous possessive apostrophe.
Post a Comment