The military has lowered its standards again to try to boost recruitment and I worry about the kinds of people fresh-out-of-high-school recruits might be serving next to, especially when the military is giving guns to people with a past including criminal misconduct such as making terrorist threats (to allow the Army to cash in on the Michigan Militia crowd). The enlistment age has been raised to 40, we're giving out a lot of medical wavers, and a past of drug abuse (to cash in on the stoner crowd) and alcohol addiction is no longer a problem (so our soldiers might not be the most fit). High school drop-outs are being accepted (so much for the smart-soldier argument). We're allowing all of these people to enlist in the military even though they have some serious problems that could put themselves and the soldiers they serve with in danger. But if you're gay, you'd better keep it quiet or you're going to be discharged.
And you guys are telling me that homosexuals are thought of and treated as equals? The message being sent here is that they are worse than criminals, alcohol abusers, and athsmatics. We should be ashamed.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Well I for one agree with one thing--homosexuals are worse than asthmatics. What if you're an alcoholic, asthmatic, ex-con homosexual? Does that even things out?
Seriously though, you forgot an important factor in all this:
Lower Standards=Lower Pay
Even though there's a deficit of recruits, Lt. Trouble, and a whole host of butterbars, will likely be offered some sort of early release in the next few months, because the military can't afford the bump in pay that will hit when they get promoted.
Can you believe that? Even with all the dough that's flying around the military-industrial complex these days, they can't afford to pay for a few more First Looies.
Yeharr
Why are you listing asthmatics with alcoholics, drug users, and ex-cons?
Our military defense budget for this year is 440 Billion, more than the next 18 countries combined. Why are we not demanding accountability on what that money is being spent on? With that amount, we should have an army big enough to invade several countries at once and win. I think the weapons systems are costing way too much, and not enough people are writing to their state and federal officials demanding to know where the money is being spent.
Always,
Because a lot of military wavers were for athsmatics. People in the military do a lot of physical activity and quite a bit of running. Ot's probably difficult to be a good soldier when you can't breath, making it dangerous for those who rely on you to help defend a unit.
Folks are not writing because the money's invisible until it's threatened to be taken away. Then, all of a sudden, that boondoggle defense system is the life's blood of the village of East Jesus, Texas, where the gear flanges are made, and the SCLM runs their typical 'life in a small town will be changed forever story.'
Yeah, we should be demanding accountability for the military budget. We should also be demanding accountability for about 800 other things as well. How do you want to divide them up? You take the odd numbers, and I'll take the evens?
Brilliant GOP stategy--fuck things up so many pladces and all at once, so that it's next to impossible to focus on any one thing.
Yeharr
They are not going to lower the pay in the army BP, and I am fairly doubtful that a bunch of LT are going to be cashiered becasue we can't pay them. (not to say that alot fo them shouldn't be cashiered becasue they are fools but that is another topic.)
Where the army is going to face a serious enlistment problem soon is their policy that they won't accept a person who was on Ritalin. (didn't know that did you?) With the massive growth of the ADD/ADHD buggaboo in schools this is going to be a serious problem. Soon.
Polanco (and everyone), please go to my blog today and get the addys for the different gov't. officials listed there. Then write to beg them to do something concerning the sale to Dubai Ports World of the security contract for 7 of the ports in the United States. This is a very serious issue which directly affects those of us that live in the Bay Area here.
As to the issue of gays in the military, I already weighed in on it. The reason they have a don't ask/don't tell policy is so that open sexual relations in the ranks will be minimized. When you introduce sexuality into fighting in the trenches, people can often make bad decisions in favor of a lover. The same could be said for mixed heterosexual units.
P.S. I misspoke when I mentioned 'security'. However, they are in charge of port management. And the security is done through the U.S. Coast Guard, which can only oversee about 5% of what is imported. It will be much easier to take advantage of the 95% free lunch if the port management is a group that comes from an area where security has been repeatedly compromised, to say the least. To read more about the compromises, read THIS article.
As if there aren't open sexual relations between heterosexuals in the military.
Not to belittle the threat, saur, but unless I'm vastly mistaken the ports that would fall under the control of DPW are New York, New Jersey, Philly, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans. So the West Coast is "safe". I, on the other hand, need to move. Soon.
I remember some story about them firing Arabic translators because they were gay. That's the most laughably asinine thing I think I've ever heard of. Except for, you know, 51 percent of America voting for George W. Bush, of course.
Brad, you are very mistaken. One of the major ports is Tampa.
Polanco, sure the heteros also have sexual relationships. That's not a good idea, either, and is discouraged.
Right, so why not allow gays and discourage relationships? Why treat them differently than anyone one else? And like I said before, it's not really discouraged. You're not suppossed to fraternize within your own unit and most people don't, but soldiers marrying soldiers happens a lot.
I have to say, the assumption that gays would have relationships that are discouraged more than heteros would really bothers me. That shows that you ARE thinking of them as diferent. What makes you think they wouldn't be professional? What makes you think they wouldn't follow orders? Wha makes you think that there aren't gay people in the military right now doing their jobs very well, doing exactly what they're told, and keeping a low profile? People just don't want to have to hide who they are, and by having a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, what you're saying is, "You are not patriotic enough. You are not good enough. As soon as we know you're gay, WE WILL think differently of you." Doesn't that say more about the public perception and the stereotype of gays than it does about their ACTUAL behavior?
Good post, agree that the demonising of homosexuality in the armed forces is a disgrace.
Men and women are not showering and sleeping in the same location.
That depends on where you are at anonymous.
Actually sex between hetro soldiers while deployed is forbidden too. (unless they are married) Not to say it doesn't ahppen alot though. Just like gay sex happens alot despite the whole "ban" thing. Personally, as a (ex) soldier, I have no problem with gays in the military. As long as they do their job well I really don't care who or what they choose to have sex with.
exmi, did you mind showering, dressing and sleeping with known gay men?
Anon,
Big fucking deal. There are gays in the military now showering and sleeping in the same place as heteros and no one knows. If you have a problem showering and sleeping around gay men, it's YOUR problem, especially if all they've done to make you uncomfortable is to BE gay. What an intolerant asshole.
Polanco, well...I think that the main argument is that homosexuals might sleep in the same close proximity, which would allow for more of a chance of sexual intimacy, than heteros.
But what do *I* know? I'm not in the armed forces.
And like it or not, the plain fact is that they are different. Whether that's bad or not is a different argument, but there's no getting around the fact that they have very different sexual preferences.
It was a question. Who's the asshole?
They ARE NOT different. That's like saying someone who is black is different and shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. There is no reason to believe they would do anything to make anyone uncomfortable, and AGAIN, discomfort of aothers shows stereotype and bias that is the problem of those HOLDING those views. Anyone who thinks gays should be treated differently or agrees that they should not be given the same rights as everyone else is an asshole.
Whew, you are over the top. I am showing myself the door.
don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...
So he is gone before I get to respond to his question. Oh well. No great loss.
Although the level of vitriol is going up here again.
Fine. Anyone who is intolerant of another person simpl because of who they choose to love is not welcome here.
Post a Comment