Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Why Do They Even Pretend Any More?
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
I've Heard It Before
Sullivan's all excited about this:
''We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage."
That's the Tories making a bid for the gay vote. Sullivan compares them to the American Republicans, but I think a more telling comparison is to the Democrats. I mean, read that statement carefully: "We will consider the case for changing the law. . . ."
That sounds to me very much like "I will work with Congress toward repeal of DADT. . . ."
Ring a bell? And how much of an actual commitment do you see in either statement?
''We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage."
That's the Tories making a bid for the gay vote. Sullivan compares them to the American Republicans, but I think a more telling comparison is to the Democrats. I mean, read that statement carefully: "We will consider the case for changing the law. . . ."
That sounds to me very much like "I will work with Congress toward repeal of DADT. . . ."
Ring a bell? And how much of an actual commitment do you see in either statement?
Race and Intelligence -- Again (sigh)
This one has popped up again, the result this time of an e-mail sent by a law student relating a dinner conversation. Sullivan's commentary (or lack of it -- he passes the ball to Eugene Volokh) is the one that has the most room for dissection.
The best take on the circumstances is here. First, the "money quote," via Sullivan:
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.
For starters, this is horribly flawed and betrays a deep lack of understanding of the role of genetics in human behavior, and I think we have to take intelligence as behavior: our idea of "intelligence" is intimately tied to the expression of it. First misstatement: "Some things are genetic." Not as much as you might think, and her initial examples are correct, but the extrapolation starts going astray. The math performance already starts to bring in factors that are, strictly speaking, not necessarily genetic. (I can't quite fight off the idea that these sorts of arguments are framed by a world view of people as some sort of little black boxes that operate like wind-up toys -- it's simplistic in the extreme,and unfortunately, it pervades our culture. Or maybe it's just sloppy thinking -- not that the two are mutually exclusive.) And quite frankly, her children, whatever they may have inherited in the way of brains from their parents, are going to have the same chance of developing their genius as any other kid in that orphanage. If the environment is not conducive, that aspect of their heritage is going to be stunted.
Can I say one thing? The genetic basis of intelligence is a set of potentials. That's all. Potentials. (It's like the search for the "gay gene." There isn't one. Human behaviors, including the potentials for those behaviors, is not that simple.)
OK -- we've got a good example of sloppy thinking from a law student. She does redeem herself in the next paragraph, somewhat:
I also don’t think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects. One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to “explain” away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.
Somewhat, because she hasn't defined the "genetic position." I don't think you're going to disprove it until someone can identify the genes involved in the potential for high intelligence and then do broad studies to identify the incidence of those genes in various populations. Good luck. At least she admits the relevance of environmental factors, but she doesn't quite manage to use that to clarify her thinking about the genetic basis -- nor does the idea of "potential" in relation to "expression" ever seem to enter her head.
On to Volokh. (His full post is here.) Sullivan quotes his conclusion:
[T]he very attempt to suppress the openness to the possibility that there might be racial differences will make it impossible to disprove that possibility. Even if then the scientific community loudly says, “The evidence is clear: There are no racial differences in intelligence,” that statement should no longer be credible to us. Scientific consensus is trustworthy only to the extent that it’s the result of a process in which scientists — and others — are free to espouse all rival views. To the extent that espousing some views is too dangerous, the consensus that then emerges without the expression and discussion of those views stops being reliable.
OK -- gnashing of teeth, rending of garments. I'd expected better of Volokh, but I take it as illustrative of the degree of ignorance about the operations of science in this country. My response to the first sentence: how? How does suppression of an unpopular viewpoint make it impossible to refute it? First, I agree that it's pointless to try to suppress unpopular views. But the correct response in this context is further inquiry. Nevertheless, I fail to understand how suppressing an unpopular view is supposed to cause us to ignore the evidence against it. There's a conflation here that leaves Volokh's whole argument dangling. He's correct about the trustworthiness of scientific consensus, but he's ignoring the fact that the consensus is based on evidence -- it's not the espousal of rival views that's important, but the investigation of those views. It's whether the views are supported by evidence that makes them credible, not whether we've allowed the expression of all viewpoints. He's conflating two different realms of inquiry here -- call them the lab and the symposium. The symposium is believable to the degree that its content is based on evidence, not to the degree that its content is based on controversy.
And as for the underlying issue, which is still the "genetic" basis of intelligence in different races: "Race" as a biological concept is useful for taxonomists, but otherwise pretty much meaningless, particularly when applied to human beings. The genetic differences between human races are so small as to be unmeasurable. And any discussion of intelligence has to take into account not only genetic heritage but pre-birth environmental differences, differences in upbringing, self-fulfilling prophecies (which, regrettably, have been demonstrated in classroom environments), access to resources, differences in such basic things as nutrition and the attitudes and practices of parents toward learning and child-rearing in general. When you can describe all those factors fully, you can talk to me about innate differences in intelligence in different races.
As for the larger issue, why is this still a question? The moral and legal response has to be "so what?" but I suspect that there's more involved. It may be something as innocent as contrarianism. And it may not. (I'm running headlong into the fact that those genetic differences that express themselves in skin and hair color and the like are tiny; how small must the differences be in anything as complex as intelligence?)
And if we're going to discuss questions like this, we really need to start by defining our terms.
The best take on the circumstances is here. First, the "money quote," via Sullivan:
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.
For starters, this is horribly flawed and betrays a deep lack of understanding of the role of genetics in human behavior, and I think we have to take intelligence as behavior: our idea of "intelligence" is intimately tied to the expression of it. First misstatement: "Some things are genetic." Not as much as you might think, and her initial examples are correct, but the extrapolation starts going astray. The math performance already starts to bring in factors that are, strictly speaking, not necessarily genetic. (I can't quite fight off the idea that these sorts of arguments are framed by a world view of people as some sort of little black boxes that operate like wind-up toys -- it's simplistic in the extreme,and unfortunately, it pervades our culture. Or maybe it's just sloppy thinking -- not that the two are mutually exclusive.) And quite frankly, her children, whatever they may have inherited in the way of brains from their parents, are going to have the same chance of developing their genius as any other kid in that orphanage. If the environment is not conducive, that aspect of their heritage is going to be stunted.
Can I say one thing? The genetic basis of intelligence is a set of potentials. That's all. Potentials. (It's like the search for the "gay gene." There isn't one. Human behaviors, including the potentials for those behaviors, is not that simple.)
OK -- we've got a good example of sloppy thinking from a law student. She does redeem herself in the next paragraph, somewhat:
I also don’t think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects. One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to “explain” away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.
Somewhat, because she hasn't defined the "genetic position." I don't think you're going to disprove it until someone can identify the genes involved in the potential for high intelligence and then do broad studies to identify the incidence of those genes in various populations. Good luck. At least she admits the relevance of environmental factors, but she doesn't quite manage to use that to clarify her thinking about the genetic basis -- nor does the idea of "potential" in relation to "expression" ever seem to enter her head.
On to Volokh. (His full post is here.) Sullivan quotes his conclusion:
[T]he very attempt to suppress the openness to the possibility that there might be racial differences will make it impossible to disprove that possibility. Even if then the scientific community loudly says, “The evidence is clear: There are no racial differences in intelligence,” that statement should no longer be credible to us. Scientific consensus is trustworthy only to the extent that it’s the result of a process in which scientists — and others — are free to espouse all rival views. To the extent that espousing some views is too dangerous, the consensus that then emerges without the expression and discussion of those views stops being reliable.
OK -- gnashing of teeth, rending of garments. I'd expected better of Volokh, but I take it as illustrative of the degree of ignorance about the operations of science in this country. My response to the first sentence: how? How does suppression of an unpopular viewpoint make it impossible to refute it? First, I agree that it's pointless to try to suppress unpopular views. But the correct response in this context is further inquiry. Nevertheless, I fail to understand how suppressing an unpopular view is supposed to cause us to ignore the evidence against it. There's a conflation here that leaves Volokh's whole argument dangling. He's correct about the trustworthiness of scientific consensus, but he's ignoring the fact that the consensus is based on evidence -- it's not the espousal of rival views that's important, but the investigation of those views. It's whether the views are supported by evidence that makes them credible, not whether we've allowed the expression of all viewpoints. He's conflating two different realms of inquiry here -- call them the lab and the symposium. The symposium is believable to the degree that its content is based on evidence, not to the degree that its content is based on controversy.
And as for the underlying issue, which is still the "genetic" basis of intelligence in different races: "Race" as a biological concept is useful for taxonomists, but otherwise pretty much meaningless, particularly when applied to human beings. The genetic differences between human races are so small as to be unmeasurable. And any discussion of intelligence has to take into account not only genetic heritage but pre-birth environmental differences, differences in upbringing, self-fulfilling prophecies (which, regrettably, have been demonstrated in classroom environments), access to resources, differences in such basic things as nutrition and the attitudes and practices of parents toward learning and child-rearing in general. When you can describe all those factors fully, you can talk to me about innate differences in intelligence in different races.
As for the larger issue, why is this still a question? The moral and legal response has to be "so what?" but I suspect that there's more involved. It may be something as innocent as contrarianism. And it may not. (I'm running headlong into the fact that those genetic differences that express themselves in skin and hair color and the like are tiny; how small must the differences be in anything as complex as intelligence?)
And if we're going to discuss questions like this, we really need to start by defining our terms.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Stories from the Frontlines: Former Navy Petty Officer Third Class, Joseph Rocha
May 3, 2010
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
After the recent letter by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recommended the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” be delayed, this is my plea to you on the behalf of the soldiers serving in silence to end this law now:
I never wanted anything more in my life than to be a career officer. My entire childhood I was exposed to abuse, violence, and crime. I came out of it all with a simple, yet overwhelming desire to serve. When my first attempt at getting into the Naval Academy failed, I waited restlessly until I turned eighteen. I enlisted on my birthday and set off to prove myself to the Academy. I was eager to leave the cruelty of my past and join a true family.
I knew I was gay, but it was irrelevant to me then. I was determined to join an elite team of handlers working with dogs trained to detect explosives. As I studied hard to pass exams and complete training, I was convinced that the current law would protect me. I knew that based on merit and achievement I would excel in the military.
I never told anyone I was gay. But a year and a half later while serving in the Middle East, I was tormented by my chief and fellow sailors, physically and emotionally, as they had their suspicions. The irony of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is that it protects bigots and punishes gays who comply.
Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to. They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission of homosexuality. My higher-ups seemed to think that gave them the right to bind me to chairs, ridicule me, hose me down and lock me in a feces-filled dog kennel.
On one day in the Middle East, I was ordered by a superior to get down on my hands and knees and simulate oral sex on a person working in the kennel. We were supposed to pretend that we were in our bedroom and that the dogs were catching us in the act. Over and over, with each of the dogs in our unit, I was forced to endure this scenario.
I told no one about what I was living through. I feared that reporting the abuse would lead to an investigation into my sexuality. Frankly, as we continue to delay the repeal of this horrible law, I can’t help but wonder how many people find themselves in similar, despicable situations and remain silent. My anger today doesn’t come from the abuse, but rather from the inhumanity of a standing law that allowed for it.
Three and a half years later when the Navy started investigating claims of hazing, I had finally earned my place at the Naval Academy Preparatory School. But instead of celebration, I began to question the life of persecution, degradation, and dishonor DADT had forced on me. I questioned the institution -- our great military -- that would condone and endorse this kind of treatment of its own members. The only thing I had ever done wrong was to want the same thing my straight counterparts wanted: a brotherhood and something to stand for.
At NAPS I realized that a career of service under DADT would be a forfeiture of my basic human rights. It would be a forfeiture of basic job security, peace of mind, and meaningful relationships, particularly with my fellow straight service members whom I was forced to deceive and betray.
After completing a six-week officer candidate boot camp, my commanders said they wanted to offer me a leadership role. But after what happened in the Middle East and even the suicide of my close friend, I was mentally and emotionally depleted. And so -- with my knees buckling -- I offered my statement of resignation in writing:
"I am a homosexual. I deeply regret that my personal feelings are not compatible with Naval regulations or policy. I am proud of my service and had hoped I would be able to serve the Navy and the country for my entire career. However, the principles of honor, courage and commitment mean I must be honest with myself, courageous in my beliefs, and committed in my action. I understand that this statement will be used to end my Naval career."
They say some people are just born designed for military service. It‘s the way we are wired, and the only thing that makes us happy. For too many of us, it‘s the only family we ever had. I am sure now, more than ever, after all the loss and hardship under DADT, that all I want to do is serve as a career military officer.
Mr. President, any delay in repeal is a clear signal to our troops that their gay brothers and sisters in arms are not equal to them. I plead that you take the lead -- fight for repeal -- and allow qualified men and women to serve their country.
Very respectfully,
Joseph Christopher Rocha
Former Petty Officer Third Class, U.S. Navy
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
After the recent letter by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recommended the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” be delayed, this is my plea to you on the behalf of the soldiers serving in silence to end this law now:
I never wanted anything more in my life than to be a career officer. My entire childhood I was exposed to abuse, violence, and crime. I came out of it all with a simple, yet overwhelming desire to serve. When my first attempt at getting into the Naval Academy failed, I waited restlessly until I turned eighteen. I enlisted on my birthday and set off to prove myself to the Academy. I was eager to leave the cruelty of my past and join a true family.
I knew I was gay, but it was irrelevant to me then. I was determined to join an elite team of handlers working with dogs trained to detect explosives. As I studied hard to pass exams and complete training, I was convinced that the current law would protect me. I knew that based on merit and achievement I would excel in the military.
I never told anyone I was gay. But a year and a half later while serving in the Middle East, I was tormented by my chief and fellow sailors, physically and emotionally, as they had their suspicions. The irony of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is that it protects bigots and punishes gays who comply.
Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to. They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission of homosexuality. My higher-ups seemed to think that gave them the right to bind me to chairs, ridicule me, hose me down and lock me in a feces-filled dog kennel.
On one day in the Middle East, I was ordered by a superior to get down on my hands and knees and simulate oral sex on a person working in the kennel. We were supposed to pretend that we were in our bedroom and that the dogs were catching us in the act. Over and over, with each of the dogs in our unit, I was forced to endure this scenario.
I told no one about what I was living through. I feared that reporting the abuse would lead to an investigation into my sexuality. Frankly, as we continue to delay the repeal of this horrible law, I can’t help but wonder how many people find themselves in similar, despicable situations and remain silent. My anger today doesn’t come from the abuse, but rather from the inhumanity of a standing law that allowed for it.
Three and a half years later when the Navy started investigating claims of hazing, I had finally earned my place at the Naval Academy Preparatory School. But instead of celebration, I began to question the life of persecution, degradation, and dishonor DADT had forced on me. I questioned the institution -- our great military -- that would condone and endorse this kind of treatment of its own members. The only thing I had ever done wrong was to want the same thing my straight counterparts wanted: a brotherhood and something to stand for.
At NAPS I realized that a career of service under DADT would be a forfeiture of my basic human rights. It would be a forfeiture of basic job security, peace of mind, and meaningful relationships, particularly with my fellow straight service members whom I was forced to deceive and betray.
After completing a six-week officer candidate boot camp, my commanders said they wanted to offer me a leadership role. But after what happened in the Middle East and even the suicide of my close friend, I was mentally and emotionally depleted. And so -- with my knees buckling -- I offered my statement of resignation in writing:
"I am a homosexual. I deeply regret that my personal feelings are not compatible with Naval regulations or policy. I am proud of my service and had hoped I would be able to serve the Navy and the country for my entire career. However, the principles of honor, courage and commitment mean I must be honest with myself, courageous in my beliefs, and committed in my action. I understand that this statement will be used to end my Naval career."
They say some people are just born designed for military service. It‘s the way we are wired, and the only thing that makes us happy. For too many of us, it‘s the only family we ever had. I am sure now, more than ever, after all the loss and hardship under DADT, that all I want to do is serve as a career military officer.
Mr. President, any delay in repeal is a clear signal to our troops that their gay brothers and sisters in arms are not equal to them. I plead that you take the lead -- fight for repeal -- and allow qualified men and women to serve their country.
Very respectfully,
Joseph Christopher Rocha
Former Petty Officer Third Class, U.S. Navy
Those Medieval Bestiaries Were TRUE!
You have to wonder whether some people's heads have spent entirely too much time up their butts. The latest from Arizona:
The Arizona state Senate on Thursday passed a bill making it illegal for a person to “intentionally or knowingly creating a human-animal hybrid.”
The bill, which passed 16 to 12, would prohibit anyone in the state from “creating or attempting to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm.”
This is one of those situations where words simply fail me.
The Arizona state Senate on Thursday passed a bill making it illegal for a person to “intentionally or knowingly creating a human-animal hybrid.”
The bill, which passed 16 to 12, would prohibit anyone in the state from “creating or attempting to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm.”
This is one of those situations where words simply fail me.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Reviews in Brief: Mizuna Kuwabara's Mirage of Blaze, anime dir. by Susumo Kudo
This is another one of those supernatural/reincarnation things that, to be quite honest, I tend to like quite a bit. So far it hasn't gone into any great detail on the previous incarnations of the characters, but I'm only up to episode 7. (Which means that at some point you can expect an update to this.)
The story so far centers on Takaya Ohgi, a high-school student, and his friend Yuzuru Narita, who start having bizarre experiences -- Yuzuru is beset by the ghosts of long-dead warriors (in his bedroom, no less), while they both see a girl burst into violet flames. They rush her to the hospital; when she regains consciousness, she has no burns, but doesn't remember anything.
The boys also encounter a stranger, whom Takaya almost thinks he's met before. This is Nobutsuna Naoe, a "Seelenwandrer" (wandering soul) who not only shows up in Yuzuru's bedroom to exorcise the ghosts, but also tells Takaya that he is also a Seelenwandrer and he is actually Lord Kagetora, the adopted son of Kenshin Uesagi, a feudal lord of several hundred years before. You can imagine how Takaya reacts to this, but his doubt starts to crumble when Yuzuru is possessed by the spirit of a long dead warrior chieftain, which marks the beginning of another stage in one of those ongoing Japanese civil wars that never seems to die, even though all the combatants have.
The drawing style is what I'm starting to call "high shoujo" -- definitely a bishounen aesthetic behind the character renderings, and enough differentiation that I can actually tell the characters apart. I'm realizing that one thing I like about manga and anime is the degree of abstraction in the character designs. I find it very appealing, but if you're really into the comic realism of American superhero comics, you may not enjoy it as much.
I'm told there's a BL element in this one (which actually comes out much more clearly in the sequel, Rebels of the River Edge, which I have seen with English subs), mainly in the relationship between Takaya and Naoe, but it's still pretty subliminal.
On the whole, the production values are fairly high -- the incidental music is unobtrusive, and while the opening title song (in English, for some reason) is a little over the top, the closing title is a nice, melancholy string quartet arrangement.
Part of the reason for doing this, aside from working on my German, is to help me decide if this is a DVD I want to own. So far I'm leaning toward buying the series, so I guess that makes it a thumbs up.
Who Are They Trying to Kid?
Arizona is going off the deep end. Now they're after legal immigrants.
As the academic year winds down, Creighton School Principal Rosemary Agneessens faces a wrenching decision: what to do with veteran teachers whom the state education department says don't speak English well enough.
The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.
State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators.
It strikes me (and granted, this is based on limited information) that too much is being left to the individual interpretation of the evaluators. I'd like to know what objective criteria they are using.
"The teacher obviously must be fluent in every aspect of the English language," said Adela Santa Cruz, director of the Arizona education-department office charged with enforcing standards in classes for students with limited English.
I wonder how many teachers in the U.S. overall would satisfy that requirement. Especially those who expect to communicate with their students.
As the academic year winds down, Creighton School Principal Rosemary Agneessens faces a wrenching decision: what to do with veteran teachers whom the state education department says don't speak English well enough.
The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.
State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators.
It strikes me (and granted, this is based on limited information) that too much is being left to the individual interpretation of the evaluators. I'd like to know what objective criteria they are using.
"The teacher obviously must be fluent in every aspect of the English language," said Adela Santa Cruz, director of the Arizona education-department office charged with enforcing standards in classes for students with limited English.
I wonder how many teachers in the U.S. overall would satisfy that requirement. Especially those who expect to communicate with their students.
DADT Post
The shit, as they say, is hitting the fan. Hard. It seems Sec. Gates, at the request of Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Onward Christian Soldiers), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee -- and who, be it known, opposes repeal of DADT for no discernibly sane reason, wrote a letter:
Letter from Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen to Chairman Skelton on DADT
From the AP report:
In a strongly worded letter, obtained by The Associated Press, Gates told a House committee on Friday that forcing policy changes on the military before it's ready "would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter."
WTF? First off, under current law, they can only survey straight servicemembers and their families. How about surveying the people who are going to be most immediately affected? Oh, wait -- they can't admit to being gay. And here I thought Catch 22 was a novel.
John Aravosis addresses this as well:
1. We didn't poll the troops on whether they liked blacks in the 1940s.
2. We didn't poll the troops on whether they wanted to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. We don't poll the troops on decisions made by their commander in chief. The notion is silly, and downright dangerous in a democracy, let alone in the military itself.
4. The repeal of DADT impacts the families of the troops? Really? How so? That is quite possibly the biggest bunch of homophobic bullshit yet in this entire debate. What, every servicemember is going to have to adopt a homo if the repeal passes? Or will serving with openly gay people suddenly turn all the troops gay, so their spouses will be impacted when every soldier starts playing Lady Gaga CDs non-stop? How exactly is letting gay people, who already serve in the closet, now serve openly, going to "impact" and have "consequence[s]" for the families of service members?
Pam Spaulding has assembled some of the reactions. They're mostly not real positive.
MIND-BLOWING UPDATE: here is the official WH reaction. Protect thy keyboards.
I'm calling bullshit on this one.
I'm happy to see that the Speaker of the House is also calling bullshit -- in nice, Beltway language, of course:
“We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted.”
And at the risk of repeating myself:
1) We've been studying this issue for over 50 years. Why do we need another study?
2) Our allies all implemented the change in policy in six months or less. Why is it going to take us three times as long? Are our military commanders that incompetent?
The only conclusion I can some to is that it's finally out in the open: The Christianist generals don't want repeal and they will drag their feet as long as possible to avoid having that happen. And of course, based on evidence from other countries, the longer they stall and the longer they take with implementation, the worse the transition will be. That way, they get to say "I told you so." I'm not sure whether the White House is actually conniving with them on this, but you can bet they will not face any repercussions for impeding the president's publicly stated policy decision. Of course, there's always the possibility that Obama is lying and has been. For a "fierce advocate," his administration has a really crappy record on gay issues. And he is, after all, a politician. Sort of goes with the territory.
Letter from Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen to Chairman Skelton on DADT
From the AP report:
In a strongly worded letter, obtained by The Associated Press, Gates told a House committee on Friday that forcing policy changes on the military before it's ready "would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter."
WTF? First off, under current law, they can only survey straight servicemembers and their families. How about surveying the people who are going to be most immediately affected? Oh, wait -- they can't admit to being gay. And here I thought Catch 22 was a novel.
John Aravosis addresses this as well:
1. We didn't poll the troops on whether they liked blacks in the 1940s.
2. We didn't poll the troops on whether they wanted to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. We don't poll the troops on decisions made by their commander in chief. The notion is silly, and downright dangerous in a democracy, let alone in the military itself.
4. The repeal of DADT impacts the families of the troops? Really? How so? That is quite possibly the biggest bunch of homophobic bullshit yet in this entire debate. What, every servicemember is going to have to adopt a homo if the repeal passes? Or will serving with openly gay people suddenly turn all the troops gay, so their spouses will be impacted when every soldier starts playing Lady Gaga CDs non-stop? How exactly is letting gay people, who already serve in the closet, now serve openly, going to "impact" and have "consequence[s]" for the families of service members?
Pam Spaulding has assembled some of the reactions. They're mostly not real positive.
MIND-BLOWING UPDATE: here is the official WH reaction. Protect thy keyboards.
"The President's commitment to repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is unequivocal. This is not a question of if, but how. That's why we've said that the implementation of any congressional repeal will be delayed until the DOD study of how best to implement that repeal is completed. The President is committed to getting this done both soon and right."
I'm calling bullshit on this one.
I'm happy to see that the Speaker of the House is also calling bullshit -- in nice, Beltway language, of course:
“We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted.”
And at the risk of repeating myself:
1) We've been studying this issue for over 50 years. Why do we need another study?
2) Our allies all implemented the change in policy in six months or less. Why is it going to take us three times as long? Are our military commanders that incompetent?
The only conclusion I can some to is that it's finally out in the open: The Christianist generals don't want repeal and they will drag their feet as long as possible to avoid having that happen. And of course, based on evidence from other countries, the longer they stall and the longer they take with implementation, the worse the transition will be. That way, they get to say "I told you so." I'm not sure whether the White House is actually conniving with them on this, but you can bet they will not face any repercussions for impeding the president's publicly stated policy decision. Of course, there's always the possibility that Obama is lying and has been. For a "fierce advocate," his administration has a really crappy record on gay issues. And he is, after all, a politician. Sort of goes with the territory.
Regulation is a Bad Thing
Hey, Sarah baby -- how about "Spill, baby, spill!" It's going to be really bad:
The spill was bigger than imagined - five times more than first estimated - and closer. Faint fingers of oily sheen were reaching the Mississippi River delta, lapping the Louisiana shoreline in long, thin lines.
"It is of grave concern," David Kennedy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told The Associated Press. "I am frightened. This is a very, very big thing. And the efforts that are going to be required to do anything about it, especially if it continues on, are just mind-boggling."
The oil slick could become the nation's worst environmental disaster in decades, threatening hundreds of species of fish, birds and other wildlife along the Gulf Coast, one of the world's richest seafood grounds, teeming with shrimp, oysters and other marine life. Thicker oil was in waters south and east of the Mississippi delta about five miles offshore.
And it could have been avoided, except that we all know that businesses are responsible citizens who will take all necessary steps to do the right thing. Yeah, right:
British Petroleum once downplayed the possibility of a catastrophic accident at an offshore rig that exploded, causing the worst U.S. oil spill in decades along the Gulf Coast and endangering shoreline habitat.
In its 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well, BP suggested it was unlikely, or virtually impossible, for an accident to occur that would lead to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish and mammals.
It gets worse -- it seems that BP has a habit of cutting corners like crazy:
In a report Sawyer prepared after his review, he said BP's "widespread pattern of unapproved design, testing and inspection documentation on the Atlantis subsea project creates a risk of a catastrophic incident threatening the [Gulf of Mexico] deep-water environment and the safety of platform workers." Moreover, "the extent of documentation discrepancies creates a substantial risk that a catastrophic event could occur at any time."
"The absence of a complete set of final, up-to-date, 'as built' engineering documents, including appropriate engineering approval, introduces substantial risk of large scale damage to the deep water [Gulf of Mexico] environment and harm to workers, primarily because analyses and inspections based on unverified design documents cannot accurately assess risk or suitability for service," Sawyer's report said. He added, "there is no valid engineering justification for these violations and short cuts."
Sawyer explained that the documents in question - welding records, inspections and safety shutdown logic materials - are "extremely critical to the safe operation of the platform and its subsea components." He said the safety shutdown logic drawings on Atlantis, a complex computerized system that, during emergencies, is supposed to send a signal to automatically shut down the flow of oil, were listed as "requiring update."
"BP's recklessness in regards to the Atlantis project is a clear example of how the company has a pattern of failing to comply with minimum industry standards for worker and environmental safety," Sawyer said.
And don't forget, Halliburton's involved. That's the same Halliburton that has such a stellar record, through its former subsidiary KBR, as a contractor in Iraq. The same Halliburton that was once run by Dick Cheney. That's the same Dick Cheney who had secret conferences with the oil industry on energy policy.
And the members in good standing of the boob toob are calling it Obama's Katrina. Puh-leeze.
And of course, this just proves that government regulation of business is A Bad Thing.
A note about offshore drilling: Obama's caving on this issue to the Republicans was wrong-headed to begin with. I'm still firmly convinced that our energy policy should be focused on renewable, non-petroleum-based energy sources. Offshore drilling is the least desirable solution, or one of the major ones. Accidents are going to happen. They're much more likely when the companies getting the leases can't be relied on to do it right.
And it seems that "bipartisanship" is becoming Beltway shorthand for "screw everybody."
Update:
If you want the right-wing/teabagger party line on this, see this post at Mahablog.
The spill was bigger than imagined - five times more than first estimated - and closer. Faint fingers of oily sheen were reaching the Mississippi River delta, lapping the Louisiana shoreline in long, thin lines.
"It is of grave concern," David Kennedy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told The Associated Press. "I am frightened. This is a very, very big thing. And the efforts that are going to be required to do anything about it, especially if it continues on, are just mind-boggling."
The oil slick could become the nation's worst environmental disaster in decades, threatening hundreds of species of fish, birds and other wildlife along the Gulf Coast, one of the world's richest seafood grounds, teeming with shrimp, oysters and other marine life. Thicker oil was in waters south and east of the Mississippi delta about five miles offshore.
And it could have been avoided, except that we all know that businesses are responsible citizens who will take all necessary steps to do the right thing. Yeah, right:
British Petroleum once downplayed the possibility of a catastrophic accident at an offshore rig that exploded, causing the worst U.S. oil spill in decades along the Gulf Coast and endangering shoreline habitat.
In its 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well, BP suggested it was unlikely, or virtually impossible, for an accident to occur that would lead to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish and mammals.
It gets worse -- it seems that BP has a habit of cutting corners like crazy:
In a report Sawyer prepared after his review, he said BP's "widespread pattern of unapproved design, testing and inspection documentation on the Atlantis subsea project creates a risk of a catastrophic incident threatening the [Gulf of Mexico] deep-water environment and the safety of platform workers." Moreover, "the extent of documentation discrepancies creates a substantial risk that a catastrophic event could occur at any time."
"The absence of a complete set of final, up-to-date, 'as built' engineering documents, including appropriate engineering approval, introduces substantial risk of large scale damage to the deep water [Gulf of Mexico] environment and harm to workers, primarily because analyses and inspections based on unverified design documents cannot accurately assess risk or suitability for service," Sawyer's report said. He added, "there is no valid engineering justification for these violations and short cuts."
Sawyer explained that the documents in question - welding records, inspections and safety shutdown logic materials - are "extremely critical to the safe operation of the platform and its subsea components." He said the safety shutdown logic drawings on Atlantis, a complex computerized system that, during emergencies, is supposed to send a signal to automatically shut down the flow of oil, were listed as "requiring update."
"BP's recklessness in regards to the Atlantis project is a clear example of how the company has a pattern of failing to comply with minimum industry standards for worker and environmental safety," Sawyer said.
And don't forget, Halliburton's involved. That's the same Halliburton that has such a stellar record, through its former subsidiary KBR, as a contractor in Iraq. The same Halliburton that was once run by Dick Cheney. That's the same Dick Cheney who had secret conferences with the oil industry on energy policy.
And the members in good standing of the boob toob are calling it Obama's Katrina. Puh-leeze.
And of course, this just proves that government regulation of business is A Bad Thing.
A note about offshore drilling: Obama's caving on this issue to the Republicans was wrong-headed to begin with. I'm still firmly convinced that our energy policy should be focused on renewable, non-petroleum-based energy sources. Offshore drilling is the least desirable solution, or one of the major ones. Accidents are going to happen. They're much more likely when the companies getting the leases can't be relied on to do it right.
And it seems that "bipartisanship" is becoming Beltway shorthand for "screw everybody."
Update:
If you want the right-wing/teabagger party line on this, see this post at Mahablog.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Letters from the Front Lines: Former Army Capt. Rebecca H. Elliott
April 30, 2010
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I am the mother of two young children, and an Iraq war veteran. I joined up just like my dad – a retired Army officer – and my sister, who currently serves in the Guard. My brother is a reservist and has been deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Two weeks ago, our family gathered together as he is leaving again for Afghanistan -- his 4th deployment. Even my husband, Jay, served as an officer in the Air Force until 2008.
Like my dad, I chose the Army. I reached the rank of Captain and was a platoon leader in the military police. I was there during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
I had some of the best NCO's (non-commissioned officers) in the Army who could accomplish any mission. Several members of my platoon received decorations for valor during the combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
On my last day of active duty, some of my old squad leaders revealed to me that one of my former team leaders was gay. They figured it was safe to tell me, as I was leaving the Army. My first feelings on the matter were, frankly, a little surprised, followed by complete indifference.
I was surprised because I had never suspected the soldier of being gay. But then, I never really had any thoughts about her sexual orientation whatsoever.
When I reflected on it, it didn't make one bit of difference in how she performed her job or how she related to the other soldiers in the platoon. She had the respect of her squad leaders (fairly conservative men, mind you), who kept her secret and continued working with her side-by-side for years.
As an officer, I would have been bound by my position to report such “credible information” that would have led to the discharge of a great NCO. I am glad that I was never placed in the position of having to choose between one of my soldiers and enforcing this terrible law, which I feel is unfair and wrong.
Please, Mr. President – at this critical time -- do not allow those serving their country to be forced to choose between good, honorable soldiers, and upholding an unfair law.
Please, do not continue to allow gays and lesbians in the service to have to choose between hiding a part of their identity and continuing to serve their country.
Please, help Congress repeal “Don't Ask Don't Tell” now.
Respectfully,
Former Capt. Rebecca H. Elliott
Untied States Army
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I am the mother of two young children, and an Iraq war veteran. I joined up just like my dad – a retired Army officer – and my sister, who currently serves in the Guard. My brother is a reservist and has been deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Two weeks ago, our family gathered together as he is leaving again for Afghanistan -- his 4th deployment. Even my husband, Jay, served as an officer in the Air Force until 2008.
Like my dad, I chose the Army. I reached the rank of Captain and was a platoon leader in the military police. I was there during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
I had some of the best NCO's (non-commissioned officers) in the Army who could accomplish any mission. Several members of my platoon received decorations for valor during the combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
On my last day of active duty, some of my old squad leaders revealed to me that one of my former team leaders was gay. They figured it was safe to tell me, as I was leaving the Army. My first feelings on the matter were, frankly, a little surprised, followed by complete indifference.
I was surprised because I had never suspected the soldier of being gay. But then, I never really had any thoughts about her sexual orientation whatsoever.
When I reflected on it, it didn't make one bit of difference in how she performed her job or how she related to the other soldiers in the platoon. She had the respect of her squad leaders (fairly conservative men, mind you), who kept her secret and continued working with her side-by-side for years.
As an officer, I would have been bound by my position to report such “credible information” that would have led to the discharge of a great NCO. I am glad that I was never placed in the position of having to choose between one of my soldiers and enforcing this terrible law, which I feel is unfair and wrong.
Please, Mr. President – at this critical time -- do not allow those serving their country to be forced to choose between good, honorable soldiers, and upholding an unfair law.
Please, do not continue to allow gays and lesbians in the service to have to choose between hiding a part of their identity and continuing to serve their country.
Please, help Congress repeal “Don't Ask Don't Tell” now.
Respectfully,
Former Capt. Rebecca H. Elliott
Untied States Army
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Maybe Even Illinois
My standing joke is, in the event I get married, I would most likely have to go to Iowa. "Can you imagine how embarassing it would be for a Chicagoan, a resident of one of the major cultural capitals of the world, to admit that he had to go to Iowa to marry his husband?"
Well, it ain't just me. Here's state rep. Deb Mell, announcing her engagement:
She got some congratulations, too.
We have a civil unions bill stalled in committee in the Assembly, and a marriage bill, introduced by my senator, Heather Steans, stalled in committee in the Senate. It's sort of sad that in the first state to repeal it's sodomy laws in 1961, we can't move a little more quickly on this. They can't blame it on the Republicans any more -- they're no longer in control of the Legislature. So what gives?
Well, it ain't just me. Here's state rep. Deb Mell, announcing her engagement:
She got some congratulations, too.
We have a civil unions bill stalled in committee in the Assembly, and a marriage bill, introduced by my senator, Heather Steans, stalled in committee in the Senate. It's sort of sad that in the first state to repeal it's sodomy laws in 1961, we can't move a little more quickly on this. They can't blame it on the Republicans any more -- they're no longer in control of the Legislature. So what gives?
Stories from the Front Lines: A Military Chaplain
April 29, 2010
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
As an active-duty military chaplain who just returned from a 15-month deployment in Iraq, this is my appeal for justice:
Over the years some of us have buried our closest friends -- officers and enlisted, African American, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, Whites, rich, poor, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims and Jews. They had the courage to make the supreme sacrifice in order for us to reap the bounties of freedom. We owe them a debt of gratitude which can never be repaid.
What is remarkable about these Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Coastguardsmen is they understood the personal risk when they answered the highest calling of our nation. What could be a nobler act then to give one’s life to one’s country, knowing that in their lives many freedoms would be denied them?
And when their story is told a significant piece of their life would be missing.
As they sleep under the crosses, the stars of David and the crescents there is no bigotry. There is no prejudice. There is no hatred. And within the sacred confines of their resting place there is no law of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” There is only purest democracy.
When the final cross has been placed in the last cemetery, will it only be then that we as a nation acknowledge our gay brothers and sisters who took the risks of life and truth to answer their nation’s highest calling? How many of these brave men and women lie in military graves and still hide in death?
They are among the unknown soldiers.
There are only a few who know the truth of those who lie in these graves. There are only a few who know the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn them in silence and fear. The nation remains silent and owes no allegiance to who they truly were nor does it honor their loved ones. What does that say of our sacred values?
If one gay person was killed in defense of America, issues such as the destruction of unit morale or the fear of people not wanting to join the military devalue their sacrifice. This is not about appeasing the uncomfortable feelings of a minority; this is a universal and transcendent matter of justice. America was built on the common Jewish and Christian heritage of justice when the Bible commands: “Justice, justice you shall pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20).
It is easy for those who do not live in fear of being ‘outed’ to say: ‘We must wait and examine this law further.’ But when you have to watch what you say, where you go, and who you talk to, this erodes the human person. When you live in fear that the wrong pronoun slips through your lips, or a co-worker see you in public with your life long partner and you respond ‘this is just a friend’, this degrades your human self worth.
Gays and lesbians wait not for justice, for them justice is denied, but they wait for the ‘knock on the door.’ They are haunted daily waiting ‘to be found out.’
We went to foreign lands to wage war to liberate people so they would not have to live in the fear of waiting. But citizens of our own land who served nobly, who died to secure freedoms which they would never profit from, must live in fear waiting for justice.
"Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" is an unjust law. It degrades the human soul because it forces those who willingly serve to live in shameful humiliation because of deceit and fear. It undermines the very principles and values of what it means to be an American. Living the façade of a life goes against the Core Values of every Armed Service. How much longer is justice going to be denied? There comes a time when despair and fear must end.
Mr. President, we depend on your sense of justice and fairness to help end this gross injustice so we, as a nation, do not have to wait for the final marker to be placed in the last cemetery.
We ask you to lead the way in repealing this unjust law and replace it with a policy of non-discrimination that advances open and honest service. A law that is consistent with true American values and honors the sacrifices of so many who have served – and died -- in silence.
With deepest respect,
A military chaplain
(The writer is currently serving and unable to identify himself publicly.)
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
As an active-duty military chaplain who just returned from a 15-month deployment in Iraq, this is my appeal for justice:
Over the years some of us have buried our closest friends -- officers and enlisted, African American, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, Whites, rich, poor, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims and Jews. They had the courage to make the supreme sacrifice in order for us to reap the bounties of freedom. We owe them a debt of gratitude which can never be repaid.
What is remarkable about these Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Coastguardsmen is they understood the personal risk when they answered the highest calling of our nation. What could be a nobler act then to give one’s life to one’s country, knowing that in their lives many freedoms would be denied them?
And when their story is told a significant piece of their life would be missing.
As they sleep under the crosses, the stars of David and the crescents there is no bigotry. There is no prejudice. There is no hatred. And within the sacred confines of their resting place there is no law of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” There is only purest democracy.
When the final cross has been placed in the last cemetery, will it only be then that we as a nation acknowledge our gay brothers and sisters who took the risks of life and truth to answer their nation’s highest calling? How many of these brave men and women lie in military graves and still hide in death?
They are among the unknown soldiers.
There are only a few who know the truth of those who lie in these graves. There are only a few who know the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn them in silence and fear. The nation remains silent and owes no allegiance to who they truly were nor does it honor their loved ones. What does that say of our sacred values?
If one gay person was killed in defense of America, issues such as the destruction of unit morale or the fear of people not wanting to join the military devalue their sacrifice. This is not about appeasing the uncomfortable feelings of a minority; this is a universal and transcendent matter of justice. America was built on the common Jewish and Christian heritage of justice when the Bible commands: “Justice, justice you shall pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20).
It is easy for those who do not live in fear of being ‘outed’ to say: ‘We must wait and examine this law further.’ But when you have to watch what you say, where you go, and who you talk to, this erodes the human person. When you live in fear that the wrong pronoun slips through your lips, or a co-worker see you in public with your life long partner and you respond ‘this is just a friend’, this degrades your human self worth.
Gays and lesbians wait not for justice, for them justice is denied, but they wait for the ‘knock on the door.’ They are haunted daily waiting ‘to be found out.’
We went to foreign lands to wage war to liberate people so they would not have to live in the fear of waiting. But citizens of our own land who served nobly, who died to secure freedoms which they would never profit from, must live in fear waiting for justice.
"Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" is an unjust law. It degrades the human soul because it forces those who willingly serve to live in shameful humiliation because of deceit and fear. It undermines the very principles and values of what it means to be an American. Living the façade of a life goes against the Core Values of every Armed Service. How much longer is justice going to be denied? There comes a time when despair and fear must end.
Mr. President, we depend on your sense of justice and fairness to help end this gross injustice so we, as a nation, do not have to wait for the final marker to be placed in the last cemetery.
We ask you to lead the way in repealing this unjust law and replace it with a policy of non-discrimination that advances open and honest service. A law that is consistent with true American values and honors the sacrifices of so many who have served – and died -- in silence.
With deepest respect,
A military chaplain
(The writer is currently serving and unable to identify himself publicly.)
Open Secrets
This looks promising:
The Supreme Court seemed skeptical Wednesday of arguments by gay rights opponents that the names on a petition asking for the repeal of Washington state's domestic partnership law should be kept secret.
Several justices questioned whether people who voluntarily signed a petition asking for a public referendum could then expect privacy. They were concerned that keeping the names of petitioners private might invalidate other vital open records like voter registration rolls or lists of donors to political candidates.
"Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who also called the arguments to keep the names private "touchy-feely."
That's Antonin Scalia saying that.
Jake Blumgart has a summary of the session. This is choice (and it's Scalia again, landing on James Bopp, arguing for the anti-gay groups):
JUSTICE SCALIA: What about just—just—what about just wanting to know their names so you can criticize them?
(Laughter.)
MR. BOPP: Well...
JUSTICE SCALIA: Is—is that such a bad thing in a democracy?
MR. BOPP: Well, what is bad is not the criticism, it's the public—it's the government requiring you to disclose your identity and belief.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But part of the reason is so you can be out there and be responsible for the positions you have taken.
MR. BOPP: Well, then why don't they require both sides?
JUSTICE SCALIA: So that people — people can criticize you for the position you have taken.
MR. BOPP: Then why don't they require both sides if that was the purpose?
JUSTICE SCALIA: What do you mean, "both sides"? The other side hasn't signed anything.
MR. BOPP: The other side...
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: When they sign something, they will be out there for public criticism as well.
MR. BOPP: Okay. But this is a one-way street.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Oh, this is such a touchy-feely, oh, so sensitive about—about any—(Laughter). You know, you can't run a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his political positions known.
MR. BOPP: I'm sorry, Justice Scalia, but the campaign manager of this initiative had his family sleep in his living room because of the threats.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, that's bad. The threats should be moved against vigorously, but just because there can be criminal activity doesn't mean that you—you have to eliminate a procedure that is otherwise perfectly reasonable.
Quite aside from the fact that the campaign manager is a paranoid freak, the R71 side has no argument. Their position is simply that they want to be able to operate in secret -- look at the fight NOM is giving the Maine Board of Election Commissioners, who've found them in violation of campaign disclosure laws.
It's almost a shame that they don't get to play the Scary Homo Brownshirts card, but that's not the issue before the Court. I'd love to see Scalia tackle some of their examples. (If I find that post that had some of the better ones, I'll give you a link.) What they boil down to is on the order of the guy who was hurt because the gay members of his country club won't talk to him any more because of his support for R71. Poor thing. That's real harassment, isn't it?
As usual with SCOTUS, I hesitate to be optimistic, but it looks like, aside from Alitto, the R71 crowd isn't getting much sympathy. Of course, to expect the Supreme Court to trash a fundamental aspect of the American political system is asking a lot, don't you think?
The Supreme Court seemed skeptical Wednesday of arguments by gay rights opponents that the names on a petition asking for the repeal of Washington state's domestic partnership law should be kept secret.
Several justices questioned whether people who voluntarily signed a petition asking for a public referendum could then expect privacy. They were concerned that keeping the names of petitioners private might invalidate other vital open records like voter registration rolls or lists of donors to political candidates.
"Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who also called the arguments to keep the names private "touchy-feely."
That's Antonin Scalia saying that.
Jake Blumgart has a summary of the session. This is choice (and it's Scalia again, landing on James Bopp, arguing for the anti-gay groups):
JUSTICE SCALIA: What about just—just—what about just wanting to know their names so you can criticize them?
(Laughter.)
MR. BOPP: Well...
JUSTICE SCALIA: Is—is that such a bad thing in a democracy?
MR. BOPP: Well, what is bad is not the criticism, it's the public—it's the government requiring you to disclose your identity and belief.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But part of the reason is so you can be out there and be responsible for the positions you have taken.
MR. BOPP: Well, then why don't they require both sides?
JUSTICE SCALIA: So that people — people can criticize you for the position you have taken.
MR. BOPP: Then why don't they require both sides if that was the purpose?
JUSTICE SCALIA: What do you mean, "both sides"? The other side hasn't signed anything.
MR. BOPP: The other side...
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: When they sign something, they will be out there for public criticism as well.
MR. BOPP: Okay. But this is a one-way street.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Oh, this is such a touchy-feely, oh, so sensitive about—about any—(Laughter). You know, you can't run a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his political positions known.
MR. BOPP: I'm sorry, Justice Scalia, but the campaign manager of this initiative had his family sleep in his living room because of the threats.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, that's bad. The threats should be moved against vigorously, but just because there can be criminal activity doesn't mean that you—you have to eliminate a procedure that is otherwise perfectly reasonable.
Quite aside from the fact that the campaign manager is a paranoid freak, the R71 side has no argument. Their position is simply that they want to be able to operate in secret -- look at the fight NOM is giving the Maine Board of Election Commissioners, who've found them in violation of campaign disclosure laws.
It's almost a shame that they don't get to play the Scary Homo Brownshirts card, but that's not the issue before the Court. I'd love to see Scalia tackle some of their examples. (If I find that post that had some of the better ones, I'll give you a link.) What they boil down to is on the order of the guy who was hurt because the gay members of his country club won't talk to him any more because of his support for R71. Poor thing. That's real harassment, isn't it?
As usual with SCOTUS, I hesitate to be optimistic, but it looks like, aside from Alitto, the R71 crowd isn't getting much sympathy. Of course, to expect the Supreme Court to trash a fundamental aspect of the American political system is asking a lot, don't you think?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
ROFLMAO
This is just wonderful:
Via Crooks & Liars
Crayola Thanks the Tea Partiers - watch more funny videos
Via Crooks & Liars
I Hadn't Thought of This Angle
But then, I don't think like a Republican. Very interesting article from Greg Palast that brings back the Rove years:
What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote -- and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas.
In 2008, working for Rolling Stone with civil rights attorney Bobby Kennedy, our team flew to Arizona to investigate what smelled like an electoral pogrom against Chicano voters ... directed by one Jan Brewer.
Brewer, then Secretary of State, had organized a racially loaded purge of the voter rolls that would have made Katherine Harris blush. Beginning after the 2004 election, under Brewer's command, no less than 100,000 voters, overwhelmingly Hispanics, were blocked from registering to vote. In 2005, the first year of the Great Brown-Out, one in three Phoenix residents found their registration applications rejected.
That statistic caught my attention. Voting or registering to vote if you're not a citizen is a felony, a big-time jail-time crime. And arresting such criminal voters is easy: after all, they give their names and addresses.
Captives of Sheriff Joe's prison, Maricopa County, ArizonaSo I asked Brewer's office, had she busted a single one of these thousands of allegedly illegal voters? Did she turn over even one name to the feds for prosecution?
No, not one.
I keep forgetting that Republicans don't really like the American system -- they think elected representatives passing legislation by majority vote is totalitarian, remember. They prefer their own brand of totalitarianism, like deciding ahead of time who gets to vote for those representatives.
No, on thinking about it it doesn't sound like conspiracy thinking. It sounds like the way Republicans do elections.
What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote -- and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas.
In 2008, working for Rolling Stone with civil rights attorney Bobby Kennedy, our team flew to Arizona to investigate what smelled like an electoral pogrom against Chicano voters ... directed by one Jan Brewer.
Brewer, then Secretary of State, had organized a racially loaded purge of the voter rolls that would have made Katherine Harris blush. Beginning after the 2004 election, under Brewer's command, no less than 100,000 voters, overwhelmingly Hispanics, were blocked from registering to vote. In 2005, the first year of the Great Brown-Out, one in three Phoenix residents found their registration applications rejected.
That statistic caught my attention. Voting or registering to vote if you're not a citizen is a felony, a big-time jail-time crime. And arresting such criminal voters is easy: after all, they give their names and addresses.
Captives of Sheriff Joe's prison, Maricopa County, ArizonaNo, not one.
I keep forgetting that Republicans don't really like the American system -- they think elected representatives passing legislation by majority vote is totalitarian, remember. They prefer their own brand of totalitarianism, like deciding ahead of time who gets to vote for those representatives.
No, on thinking about it it doesn't sound like conspiracy thinking. It sounds like the way Republicans do elections.
Stories from the Front Lines: LCpl. Danny Hernandez, USMC (Separated)
April 28, 2010
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I was humbled to have earned the title of U.S. Marine just two years ago – my goal since I was 14 years old. But just nine weeks ago, I was informed of my discharge under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.
Mr. President, if I could be serving my country right now – I would be. Instead, I was fired while you were my Commander and Chief.
The stories we hear of discharged service members are becoming far too common and are based around a primitive law that we should have eliminated years ago. As this injustice continues to hurt our country, we are in desperate need of your support and leadership as we work to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
After I finished my training, I was a 20-year-old reservist. I returned to school to continue working on my undergraduate degree with hopes of becoming an officer. I wish I could tell you about my distinguished service, about stories from the war overseas, or about how being a Marine has changed my perspective on life, but I can’t.
My discharge came from the fear that my sexual orientation was going to be revealed by a third party; a group of unknown Marines who threatened to use my sexuality as a way to retaliate after a dispute in a bar. I had spoken with two fellow Marines from my unit; both of whom I trusted. They calmed me, told me that it wasn’t a big deal, and reassured me that everything was going to be fine.
I returned to drill only to find out that the two Marines – the Marines I confided in -- had mentioned it and word had reached my 1st Sergeant and Commanding Officer. They told the two Marines to submit written statements detailing everything I had told them.
When I walked in to my 1st Sergeant's office the first question out of his mouth was, "Are you gay?"
I answered honestly. The investigation was now underway.
The 1st Sergeant proceeded to tell me that there was no way he could protect my privacy in the matter, citing the “grapevine,” and having no control over what people within the unit said or did. I was told by my CO to hang tight and wait to hear from the Battalion Commander.
Ultimately I was discharged, a fate I found out only through my persistent calls and emails. My dreams of being an officer had been shattered and it felt as if the world was tumbling down on me and all I could do was step aside.
Upon earning the title of Marine, I took an oath and vowed to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” This enemy is a domestic one, and with your direction as Commander and Chief, this is a war in which we can be victorious.
“Semper Fidelis” is the Marine Corps motto meaning “Always Faithful.” Not only am I willing and anxious to go overseas, but I am prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice in order to protect our freedoms.
I have remained faithful to my country; please be faithful to me.
Very Respectfully,
LCpl. Danny Hernandez,
USMC (Separated)
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I was humbled to have earned the title of U.S. Marine just two years ago – my goal since I was 14 years old. But just nine weeks ago, I was informed of my discharge under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.
Mr. President, if I could be serving my country right now – I would be. Instead, I was fired while you were my Commander and Chief.
The stories we hear of discharged service members are becoming far too common and are based around a primitive law that we should have eliminated years ago. As this injustice continues to hurt our country, we are in desperate need of your support and leadership as we work to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
After I finished my training, I was a 20-year-old reservist. I returned to school to continue working on my undergraduate degree with hopes of becoming an officer. I wish I could tell you about my distinguished service, about stories from the war overseas, or about how being a Marine has changed my perspective on life, but I can’t.
My discharge came from the fear that my sexual orientation was going to be revealed by a third party; a group of unknown Marines who threatened to use my sexuality as a way to retaliate after a dispute in a bar. I had spoken with two fellow Marines from my unit; both of whom I trusted. They calmed me, told me that it wasn’t a big deal, and reassured me that everything was going to be fine.
I returned to drill only to find out that the two Marines – the Marines I confided in -- had mentioned it and word had reached my 1st Sergeant and Commanding Officer. They told the two Marines to submit written statements detailing everything I had told them.
When I walked in to my 1st Sergeant's office the first question out of his mouth was, "Are you gay?"
I answered honestly. The investigation was now underway.
The 1st Sergeant proceeded to tell me that there was no way he could protect my privacy in the matter, citing the “grapevine,” and having no control over what people within the unit said or did. I was told by my CO to hang tight and wait to hear from the Battalion Commander.
Ultimately I was discharged, a fate I found out only through my persistent calls and emails. My dreams of being an officer had been shattered and it felt as if the world was tumbling down on me and all I could do was step aside.
Upon earning the title of Marine, I took an oath and vowed to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” This enemy is a domestic one, and with your direction as Commander and Chief, this is a war in which we can be victorious.
“Semper Fidelis” is the Marine Corps motto meaning “Always Faithful.” Not only am I willing and anxious to go overseas, but I am prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice in order to protect our freedoms.
I have remained faithful to my country; please be faithful to me.
Very Respectfully,
LCpl. Danny Hernandez,
USMC (Separated)
OK -- I Might Decide I Like Harry Reid
According to The Hill, Harry is finally playing hardball:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has deployed unusually tough tactics to pressure Republicans to back Wall Street reform — a move that could shore up his liberal base, but one that GOP centrists say is counterproductive.
Reid will need at least one Republican vote in order to move the legislation forward, but centrists in that party caution that the Democratic leader’s actions have been divisive and unnecessary.
"Counterproductive" -- ya think? Of course the "centrist" Republicans (who are only slightly more right-wing than "centrist" Democrats) are going to say that -- their Wall Street paymasters and the wingnut party leadership are going to make them look like -- well, spoiled five-year-olds, just like Lindsay Graham.
Reid shows no signs of backing down and has even suggested the Senate no longer has any Republicans who could be considered moderate.
On Tuesday, Republicans voted to defeat a motion to begin debate on Wall Street reform legislation.
It was the second time in two days that Reid scheduled a vote on the matter, and he plans a third vote on Wednesday and a fourth on Thursday, according to a Democratic aide.
Reid also scheduled a vote Monday evening, during the dinner hour, to force senators to show up on the chamber floor, a move that was seen as punishment for Republicans voting to block the Wall Street bill earlier in the day.
Reid could bring lawmakers back to the chamber again after regular hours to discuss Wall Street reform, disrupting their evening schedules.
Yee-hah! Maybe the Democrats have finally figured out that the Republicans are not operating in good faith (which, come to think of it, the Republicans have said, almost in so many words).
I hope he keeps scheduling vote after vote after vote until the Republicans finally cave. From the urban heartland, this is making the Republicans look just like what they are: waterboys for the oligarchy.
Chuck Grassley (R-Bank of America) is priceless:
Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), the only Republican to vote for Democratic legislation regulating derivatives, said the tactic “sours” the mood of the Senate.
“The reason it sours it is because [the Democrats] keep wanting bipartisanship, but they’re always defining bipartisanship as one Republican and 59 Democrats; that’s not bipartisanship,” Grassley said.
Grassley said he told Reid on Monday that he had a problem with the leader’s strategy of putting political pressure on Republicans in hopes of getting one or two to defect.
"'Sours' the mood"? Are you serious? And Grassley has problems with Reid putting political pressure on Republicans. Well, sweetheart, turnabout's fair play, you know?
If we think back a day or two to Lindsay Graham (R-Good Ol' Boi) and his snit about Reid wanting to move immigration reform to the front burner, I think we'll see a pattern: the Senate really is all about process and perquisites and collegiality, and substance be damned. I think the Republicans want to hold on to that because that way the don't actually have to do anything, you see? (They've already demonstrated quite graphically that they're not interested in actually governing -- it's called the George W. Bush administration.)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has deployed unusually tough tactics to pressure Republicans to back Wall Street reform — a move that could shore up his liberal base, but one that GOP centrists say is counterproductive.
Reid will need at least one Republican vote in order to move the legislation forward, but centrists in that party caution that the Democratic leader’s actions have been divisive and unnecessary.
"Counterproductive" -- ya think? Of course the "centrist" Republicans (who are only slightly more right-wing than "centrist" Democrats) are going to say that -- their Wall Street paymasters and the wingnut party leadership are going to make them look like -- well, spoiled five-year-olds, just like Lindsay Graham.
Reid shows no signs of backing down and has even suggested the Senate no longer has any Republicans who could be considered moderate.
On Tuesday, Republicans voted to defeat a motion to begin debate on Wall Street reform legislation.
It was the second time in two days that Reid scheduled a vote on the matter, and he plans a third vote on Wednesday and a fourth on Thursday, according to a Democratic aide.
Reid also scheduled a vote Monday evening, during the dinner hour, to force senators to show up on the chamber floor, a move that was seen as punishment for Republicans voting to block the Wall Street bill earlier in the day.
Reid could bring lawmakers back to the chamber again after regular hours to discuss Wall Street reform, disrupting their evening schedules.
Yee-hah! Maybe the Democrats have finally figured out that the Republicans are not operating in good faith (which, come to think of it, the Republicans have said, almost in so many words).
I hope he keeps scheduling vote after vote after vote until the Republicans finally cave. From the urban heartland, this is making the Republicans look just like what they are: waterboys for the oligarchy.
Chuck Grassley (R-Bank of America) is priceless:
Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), the only Republican to vote for Democratic legislation regulating derivatives, said the tactic “sours” the mood of the Senate.
“The reason it sours it is because [the Democrats] keep wanting bipartisanship, but they’re always defining bipartisanship as one Republican and 59 Democrats; that’s not bipartisanship,” Grassley said.
Grassley said he told Reid on Monday that he had a problem with the leader’s strategy of putting political pressure on Republicans in hopes of getting one or two to defect.
"'Sours' the mood"? Are you serious? And Grassley has problems with Reid putting political pressure on Republicans. Well, sweetheart, turnabout's fair play, you know?
If we think back a day or two to Lindsay Graham (R-Good Ol' Boi) and his snit about Reid wanting to move immigration reform to the front burner, I think we'll see a pattern: the Senate really is all about process and perquisites and collegiality, and substance be damned. I think the Republicans want to hold on to that because that way the don't actually have to do anything, you see? (They've already demonstrated quite graphically that they're not interested in actually governing -- it's called the George W. Bush administration.)
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Stories from the Front Lines, Maj. Mike Almy
Here is the first in this series from SLDN.
April 26, 2010
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
If you end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), I’d re-enlist the day you sign repeal into law.
For thirteen years, I served in the United States Air Force where I attained the rank of major before I was discharged under DADT.
As the Senate Armed Services Committee considers including repeal in the Defense Authorization bill, we’re very close -- just two or three votes -- to passing repeal in committee. I ask for you to voice your support to put us over the top.
I come from a family with a rich legacy of military service. My father is a West Point graduate who taught chemistry at the Air Force Academy, flew helicopters in Vietnam, and ultimately retired as a senior officer from the Air Force. One of my uncles retired as a Master Gunnery Sergeant from the Marine Corps, with service in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Another uncle served in the Army in Korea.
Growing up, I didn't really know what civilians did, I just knew I would follow in my father's footsteps and become a military officer.
I joined Air Force ROTC in 1988 and was awarded a scholarship. I earned my jump wings in 1991. In 1992, I graduated from ROTC in the top 10% of all graduates nationwide. In 1993, I went on active duty, just as DADT was becoming a law.
Stationed in Oklahoma, I was named officer of the year for my unit of nearly 1,000 people. Later, I was one of six officers selected from the entire Air force to attend Professional Military Education at Quantico, Virginia.
During my career, I deployed to the Middle East four times. In my last deployment, I led a team of nearly 200 men and women to operate and maintain the systems used to control the air space over Iraq. We came under daily mortar attacks, one of which struck one of my Airmen and also caused significant damage to our equipment. Towards the end of this deployment to Iraq, I was named one of the top officers in my career field for the entire Air Force.
In the stress of a war zone, the Air Force authorized us to use our work email accounts for “personal or morale purposes” because private email accounts were blocked for security.
Shortly after I left Iraq -- during a routine search of my computer files -- someone found that my “morale” was supported by the person I loved -- a man.
The email -- our modern day letter home -- was forwarded to my commander.
I was relieved of my duties, my security clearance was suspended and part of my pay was terminated.
In my discharge proceeding, several of my former troops wrote character reference letters for me, including one of my squadron commanders. Their letters expressed their respect for me as an officer, their hope to have me back on the job and their shock at how the Air Force was treating me.
Approximately a year after I was relieved of my duties, my Wing Commander recommended I be promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, even though the Air Force was actively pursuing my discharge.
But instead, after 16 months, I was given a police escort off the base as if I were a common criminal or a threat to national security. The severance pay I received was half of what it would have been had I been separated for any other reason.
Despite this treatment, my greatest desire is still to return to active duty as an officer and leader in the United States Air Force, protecting the freedoms of a nation that I love; freedoms that I myself was not allowed to enjoy while serving in the military.
Mr. President, I want to serve. Please fulfill your promise to repeal DADT and give me that chance.
Thank you,
Major Mike Almy
United States Air Force
Stories from the Front Lines
April 27, 2010
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
My name is Joan Darrah and I served in silence under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) for almost two decades. I share my personal story with you as we’re at a critical point in the fight to repeal this discriminatory law.
We urgently need your voice and leadership as we lobby the Armed Services Committees and the full House and Senate to end DADT this year.
I’m sure, as I do, you remember exactly where you were on September 11, 2001.
At 8:30 a.m. that day, I went to a meeting in the Pentagon. At 9:30 a.m., I left that meeting. At 9:37 a.m., American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon and destroyed the exact space I had left less than eight minutes earlier, killing seven of my colleagues.
On Sept. 11, 2001, I was a lesbian Navy captain who, at that time, had more than 28 years of dedicated military service. My partner, Lynne Kennedy, an openly gay reference librarian at the Library of Congress, and I had been together for more than 11 years. Each day, I went to work wondering if that would be the day I would be fired because someone had figured out I was gay.
In spite of that stress, somehow Lynne and I had learned to deal with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; we had made the requisite sacrifices. I had pretended to be straight and had played the games most gays in the military are all too familiar with.
But after Sept. 11 our perspective changed dramatically. In the days and weeks that followed, I went to at least seven funerals and memorial services for shipmates who had been killed in the Pentagon attack. As the numbness began to wear off, it hit me how incredibly alone Lynne would have been had I been killed.
The military is known for how it pulls together and helps people; we talk of the "military family" which is a way of saying we always look after each other, especially in times of need. But none of that support would have been available for Lynne, because under "don't ask, don't tell," she couldn't exist.
In fact, had I been killed, Lynne would have been one of the last people to know, because nowhere in my paperwork or emergency contact information had I dared to list Lynne's name. This realization caused us both to stop and reassess exactly what was most important in our lives. During that process we realized that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was causing us to make a much bigger sacrifice than either of us had ever admitted.
Nine months later, in June 2002, I retired after 29 years in the U.S. Navy, an organization I will always love and respect.
Today, nine years after that fateful day at the Pentagon, I am now committed to doing everything I possibly can to get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" so our military can finally be open to all qualified and motivated individuals who want to serve their country. This is the right step for our country, for our military, and for all gay men and lesbians.
As a veteran, and as a witness to the 14,000 men and women who have been discharged, I thank you for your bold words in your State of The Union address: “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do.”
I have great love and respect for our country, and I know that we will be a stronger and better country when we repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
With great respect,
Capt. Joan Darrah
United States Navy (Ret.)
Today's Must Read
This is a stunning indictment of Wall Street the Reagan legacy of "greed is good," and the soulless idiots who think Ayn Rand is god.
The summary header says it all:
The investment bank's cult of self-interest is on trial against the whole idea of civilisation – the collective decision by all of us not to screw each other over even if we can.
And why is it, do you suppose, that our "moral guardians" are silent on Goldman Sachs and its cronies?
The summary header says it all:
The investment bank's cult of self-interest is on trial against the whole idea of civilisation – the collective decision by all of us not to screw each other over even if we can.
And why is it, do you suppose, that our "moral guardians" are silent on Goldman Sachs and its cronies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)