the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

the politics necessary to get congress to vote common sense.... *sigh*

Executive summary: After nine months, several hundred thousand surveys and interviews and "town hall" meetings, and a 200-something page report, the men in charge of the Pentagon report concluded that almost nothing needs to be done to allow gays to serve openly in the military and allowing them to tell the truth will have almost no impact.

Duh.

I say "almost nothing needs to be done" because some "training" will be necessary and I say "almost no impact" because there will be a handful of bigots who feel threatened by someone else's sexuality (but why?) who must be dealt with and by "training" I mean something along the lines of "the rules that have always been in place are still in place except people can admit they're gay now."

In other words, as my Marine said long ago, all that will be necessary is this: "Marines, there will be no incidents. Dismissed."

I guess I should be impressed that the researchers found that new facilities to accommodate gays and lesbians aren't necessary :roll:, etc.

McCain, of course, is against allowing gays to serve openly no matter what anyone says. When he was running for office, he said he'd support changing the law when the military leaders said it should be changed. He seems to have meant that the decision would have to be unanimous. Now that the report is out, he's complaining that no one asked the military members how they felt about repeal of the policy (as if the military has ever worked that way). He knows this, of course. I think he's counting on his Republican colleagues (who have never served) to defer to his opinion.

I think they're misinterpreting the numbers of the survey, too. (I'm watching the C-SPAN Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on repeal now.) They're behaving as though the 28% who responded are a fair cross-section of the rest. I think that's bullshit, and here's why: the 72% who did not respond spoke with their lack of vote. Isn't this how voting works? When you are offered a voice and you don't speak, you are saying you don't care enough about the issue to bother.

Think about it. Of the millions of Americans who have the franchise, what percentage bothers to go to the polls? Of the ones who don't, what are their reasons? There are many excuses--all politicians are crooks/the same--but the bottom line is that they don't care what the outcome is.

Well, wait. I could add to that that you might not vote because you already know your vote doesn't matter. I haven't voted lately because I'm one of a handful of liberals in a sea of conservativism (East Texas, where I'm registered), but that doesn't mean I don't care. I just recognize an exercise in futility when I see it. I'd venture to say that offering your opinion on repeal of DADT doesn't fall into this category, though. We're talking about people whose lives will be directly affected by the change, in every case. A lack of response to this survey means you don't think it matters.

So...a couple of the senators are making a big deal of the fact that only 28% of service members polled responded, and of those, a sizeable chunk of Marines (30% or so) said they'd have serious problems serving in combat with anyone who was openly gay. So what we have is roughly 8% of Marines (that is, 30% of the 28% who bothered to respond to the survey) who have serious issues about serving with openly gay Marines (but when actually under fire, even these don't care if their buddies are gay). Let me repeat that: when the lead is flying, even this tiny segment of Marines who are worried about whether their buddies are looking at their 6 have a sudden shift in priorities and want only to know that their buddies have their 6.

McCain just berated Admiral Mullen for not asking the question of whether military members are in favor of repeal or not. Mullen had the correct response, of course: the military doesn't work by vote, and that would essentially be suggesting that this is a referendum, which it isn't. We don't ask our military members if they want to go to Iraq. We don't ask them if they want 15-month deployments. We don't ask them if they want to serve with women, or with Muslims, or with blacks. The point of the survey was to determine the effect of repeal on military effectiveness.

McCain is an ass. Everyone else is being respectful in their disagreements; it's impressive to watch the exchange of disparate ideas. Except McCain. He asked a question and interrupted Mullen several times to contradict him. He essentially presumed to give Mullen leadership lessons.

His "lessons" were bullshit, too. If you want your troops to work with you, you don't ask them whether they agree it should be done. You tell them what must be done, tell them they're entitled to their feelings and you will listen to them and will answer their questions about policy, but that you expect them to conduct themselves, as always, with respect and professionalism. To imply in any way that they have a say in whether something is done when they do not (as in this case) is poor form. It is misleading and it makes for even more disgruntled troops.*

* Troops are only happy when they're disgruntled about something. One of the unwritten but understood roles of leadership is control of the focus and level of troop disgruntlement.

McCain is playing a stalemate game here. He's saying that he isn't suggesting a referendum, but of course, if the question had been asked and a large percentage of military members said they were against repeal, youcanbetyourass McCain would be arguing--vehemently--that "the troops had spoken."

Seriously...he's so passionately and unreasonably against letting gays serve openly that I'm wondering where he keeps his rent boy. I also wonder exactly what did happen between him and his fellow POWs. I'm not kidding.

Anyway. The main issues being argued are these: Whether it being the right thing to do (duh) trumps combat effectiveness. To answer this, we need to know whether it will affect combat effectiveness. The study says no.

But why are we even having the hearing? Senate Republicans have threatened to not vote on anything until they get the Bush-era tax cuts extended.

One final comment, and I'll trundle off to do homework: Why, in the name of all we hold dear, do we value the ignorance and fears of a few outspoken bigots over fairness and the integrity of all troops?

That is all. Carry on.

d