Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Don't ask, don't tell - what's your option

here's a subject i'm loath to discuss... homosexuals... it's not that i have issues for or against them... but it always becomes a personal discussion where feelings get hurt and no resolution is found... but this is becoming the topic of many mainstream issues, and i feel this needs some light put upon it...

today's topic is "gays in the military"... again, a sensitive subject for many on both sides... "straights" oppose it for various reasons, many of them of personal nature... gays support it for opposite reasons, but these reasons are also very personal... so, let's discuss one portion of the issue, without trying to get off into any quasi-moral or religious debates... let's discuss fraternization.
fraternization: fraternus - "brotherly"; to associate on friendly terms; mingle, consort, mix
Dictionary: fraternization
the military has a severe dislike of fraternization... typically, it is meant to discourage favoritism or discord between officers and enlisted personnel... however, with the introduction of females into the military, fraternization has taken on a much broader meaning... members of equal rank, but opposite sexes, are segregated... while their MOS may be the same, and they may work hand-in-hand, they do not mingle, mix, or consort with one another (fraternize) outside their work scopes... in more plain terms, they don't bunk together...

this is not to say they don't date... members of equal rank may see one another socially... however, the military does not promote by social-group... if you are promoted to a rank above your significant other, you have placed yourself in a position where favoritism may be shown, one to another... this is natural between partners; this is illegal to the UCMJ... what yesterday was harmless, today is a court-marshaling offense...

fraternization between equals can still cause disorder and havoc in a military regiment... there is nothing wrong with well qualified women being in front-line positions... if they can do the job, let them do it... but how do you handle the known issue of fraternization?... by placing two (assuming heterosexual) people of the same gender in life-or-death situations, they naturally form a strong bond... what happens to that bond when they are opposite gender in the same situation?... that bond can easily progress to more... and then decisions of the two are compromised... they are no longer soldiers, but lovers... loyalties can get confused...

the simple solution to such a complex issue is to keep the genders separate... but what can the military do when gender is removed?... what do you do when your brigade has GBLT members?... at what point does the personal choices of some become greater than the good of the whole?... i'm not going to argue whether it's a personal choice or not... let's assume for this argument that it is a genetic/physical manifestation... fine... what do you do about having homosexuals serving in quarters?... working/fighting/bunking together?... do you attempt separation, like they do with male/female soldiers?... is there a "gay brigade"?... (a horrible term, but it keeps bouncing around in my head)...

separation doesn't solve the problem of fraternization... it actually compounds it... it places soldiers in a situation where fraternization is difficult to escape... where, at some point, it may become "normal"... the military unit is no longer fighting for God and Country, but for each other... it breeds dissension in the ranks of the unit... will a sargent send his/her lover out on point, or to charge a fortification, or first into a tunnel?... when does fraternization between individuals endanger others?...

and to touch on the "personal choice" issue for a moment, at what point does the Transgender get introduced?... i'm not talking those who have medically reconstructed themselves... but those who have decided that they prefer the garb of the opposite gender... do they get special treatment?... do we issue unisex uniforms?... and if we do, does that mean that the heterosexual females give up their right to their femininity?... or do we put the men in kilts and have a Scottish Brigade?...

the issue at hand is greater than even what i've discussed here... it's all well and good that homosexuals want to be treated equally and fairly, but what do the rest of us have to lose to give them this modicium of equality?...

and where do we stop?

Thursday, September 16, 2010

the last refuge of a scoundrel

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/carville-slams-odonnell-this-woman-has-run-against-masturbation.html

Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) once said that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."... i think he was close... first, try patriotism... at least attempt to gain favor by that common bond... but if that doesn't work, try vicious personal attacks.

i knew it was coming... when Christine O'Donnell won the Republican Party nomination for the Senate seat in Delaware over the Republican Party darling, Mike Castle, i knew the claws would come out... during the Republican race, it wasn't surprising to see some mud-slinging... Castle didn't want to lose, did he?... so it got a bit nasty between the two... while i didn't see the advertisements or the period leading up to the nomination, i imagine there was some nasty blows felled by both Castle and O'Donnell... she's a politician now, so it's to be expected (sad, isn't that?)... anyway, she won, and the Republican Party decided to be patriots and back her as "their" candidate... she ran on the Republican ticket, since she won, they might as well back her as best they can...

but WHOA!, when she won, the Democrats skipped right over Patriotism... they've gone straight to personal attacks on her character and ability... it's no wonder there are comparisons between O'Donnell and Sarah Palin... the Democrats hate her, too!...

i already noted (by twitter) how they had already begun attacking O'Donnell by referencing her in a 1996 video in which she references masturbation (oh, the horror)... according to the Democrats, her comments are those of an idiot who thinks masturbation is equivalent to adultery... the problem is that she was discussing the spread of AIDS, not the prevalence of adultery (or masturbation)... her commentary was about how the discussion of AIDS had been turned by liberals (read: Democrats) from the actual causes of the spread of the disease... you see, the liberals suggested that one method to prevent the spread of AIDS was to teach school children about masturbation... (i bet these same people are now required to register their domicile with the state, and can't live within 5-miles of a school, but i digress)... O'Donnell's revolutionary suggestion was this:
  • have one sexual parter (it's called monogamy, for those who haven't heard of it)
  • have sexual relations only once you have committed yourself in marriage (and that's until death do you part)
as for masturbation, O'Donnell dismissed that as not addressing the core issue of AIDS, which is promiscuity... and she's right... masturbation isn't abstinence... it's not even close... much of the time, it's meant to inflame the lusts which would lead to promiscuity...

but, in true scoundrel fashion, the Democrats want to turn this into "she's a crazy anti-masturbation religion-freak"... they want to turn it into personal attacks...

Part 2:
James Carville, a Democrat "strategist" (read: lead attack dog), went on to attack O'Donnell further... he called her a "fiscal conservative" (to him, that's an insult)... and to support this, he noted how she took several years to pay off her student loans! (the horror)... i ask you; just how many college age students are financially responsible?... damn few, that's how many (myself included)... for that matter, several of them will run up credit card debts which take them even longer to pay off (myself included, again)...

they've gone so far as to say that she defaulted on her home mortgage... i know that it is a shock, but maybe she defaulted because she couldn't afford it... you know; like all those sub-prime mortages that the Democrats forced Fannie-May and Freddie-Mac to subsidize... you remember; the ones that we had the bail-out for... maybe you should look up TARP, and i'm not talking canvas...

and now, they say she was $11,000 in arrears to the IRS, which she settled for an "undisclosed amount"... hmmm... who else has had IRS troubles?... Dom Daschle-$140,167... Timothy Geithner-$35,000... Kathleen Sebelius-$7,918... as a matter of fact (and of record) there is $9.3 million in overdue taxes on Capitol Hill... sounds like a case of pots and kettles, to me...

no... sounds like the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

too astonished to give this a title

WTF?:
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is not a new problem...Natives Americans (some of my ancestors) use to call it WHITE PEOPLE.
so, is what you're saying, everyone go home?... or is it that unchecked migration is okay?... if it's #1, then you're against illegal immigration, and you're for returning the Gaza back to the Israelites... if it's #2, then you're okay with people stealing goods and services from tax payers, without paying taxes, themselves...

if you're for #1, fine, but we "invaders" are taking our industry and agriculture back with us... your "ancestors" were perfectly fine the way they were with their 40 year life-span and 500 warring tribes...

and if you're for #2, you're the reason we pay for billions in healthcare for people who want to be nothing more than parasites... having LEGAL immigrants is what has made America the greatest country in the world; a country where people like you are able to espouse their point of view, no matter how foolish...

so, which is it?... do you want the Jewish people to return to their homes in Israel?... or do you want to send the rest of us into poverty paying for people who don't contribute to the greater good?


and this said on September 11th... a day when people should be patriots... this guy wants to either dissolve the country or destroy it.

Friday, September 10, 2010

I've been breaking all the wrong laws!

ICE Draft Immigration Detainer Policy
QUOTE:
As a general matter, immigration officers should not issue detainers against an alien charged only with a traffic-related misdemeanor
i have a wild idea... how 'bout you keep them in custody for some other law they broke... like the Immigration laws?... just me thinkin' again.

if i don't have my driver's license, i'll get detained... heck, i didn't show up to traffic court once, and they issued a warrant for my arrest!... these guys enter our country illegally, and they get released?... if i didn't know better, i'd say there's racial profiling going on, and they singled out ME!