Monday, November 29, 2010

California Elected The Senator It Deserves

Shown is California's re-elected Senator Barbara Boxer. Post-election, she felt she could let her hair down. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only thing that was holding the rest of her face up. Either that or they ran out of prune juice at the Senate commissary. In any event, Babs is getting back up to speed very quickly. Her high and mighty majesty's latest pronouncement proves it.

Wishing to bring a bit of San Francisco to our military, Boxer has compared Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military with the policies of a gang of totalitarian regimes. Speaking to her good buddy Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut: "We now stand with this rule with countries like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan in banning gays and lesbians from military service. Now our brave young men and women fight alongside allies like Australia, the United Kingdom and others who allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. Let's not stand with Pakistan, and with North Korea and Iran. It's just wrong."

Well, I don't have a quarrel with not standing with Pakistan, North Korea and Iran on much of anything. But I get a little lost on exactly how our treatment of gays in the military is anything like theirs. Muslim Iran and Pakistan have some rather draconian methods of dealing with gays--in or out of the military. And loony tunes Kim Jong Il said of America that it is part of the "popular gay culture in the West, which many perceive to embrace consumerism, classism and promiscuity." But he only kills gays when they don't laugh at his great sense of humor.

I'm not persuaded either way about gays and lesbians serving in the military, though I lean towards allowing them to live their own lives outside of military facilities and battlegrounds and keep their equipment in their pants while on duty (which is the same attitude I have towards straights in the military). Don't ask, don't tell seems a bit silly to me anyway, since any military personnel who exhibit the traditionally stereotypical caricature of homosexuals aren't going to have to tell anyway. Still, in the long run, I would accept the decision of the non-political officers and enlisted personnel before I would impose any drastic policy on our entire military.

As it stands now, our military simply doesn't prohibit gays and lesbians from serving in the military. Behave like a good soldier and nobody's going to rat you out. On the other hand, if you are so incapable of controlling your sexual impulses that you have the need to define yourself by whom you sleep with, perhaps the military is not a good career choice. Don't ask, don't tell was not instigated to keep gays out of the military. It was a compromise reached when Clinton overstepped his bounds (as Obama and Boxer wish to do now) by replacing prevailing opinion among the military (and probably a moderate majority of non-military civilians) with campaign promises, electoral pandering, and political-correctness. In other words, its express purpose was to allow gays into the service so long as they didn't make a big deal of being gay.

Furthermore, after nearly two decades of don't ask, don't tell, many enlisted men and commissioned officers are gay (just as they likely always were), and anyone who believes that their fellow service men and women don't know or care is being very naive. Every special favor done for gays in the civilian sector has resulted in at least an increase in flamboyantly sexual demonstrativeness that would otherwise have been moderated. Now if we're talking about a sales clerk at Macy's, it simply isn't that much of a problem. In fact, it might be a plus. But we're talking about the military where uniformity of behavior and absence of constant sexual innuendo is a necessity.

Still, wherever you stand on gays in the military, Boxer has just raised the stakes. She left Saudi Arabia out of her false parallels, thereby not mentioning that the punishment for homosexuality is a quick beheading. Even the New York Times made note of that distinction between Muslim and Western nations (including even the backwards old United States). Boxer seems to have a need for extreme rhetoric to avoid awakening America to the fact that her stand on the matter is nothing more than more forced social experimentation in the worst possible place. The current system works for both gays and straights, so why mess with success?

There are those who suggest that Boxer should think before opening her big mouth. They have apparently not seen the picture of what Boxer looks like when she tries that. Her personal petty self-image problem, her hysterical pronouncements, and her need to force her ultra-liberal personal beliefs on an unwilling military are all signs that both Boxer and more than 50% of California voters are at least a little psychotic.


17 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

I must admit to having never spent too much time thinking through the whole "gay rights" issue, of which, I always felt military policy was just one battleground. It seems to me that sex is a biological function designed to promote reproduction. As such, homosexuality is, by definition, an abherent behavior.

That said, I really am not in favor of discrimination against gays. Some of this issue may have to do with the fact that tax policy and other public policy has been designed to promote marriage. Undoing that must be extremely well thought through to avoid unintended consequence. It does seem that just like I don't believe a woman's right to pursue a career in sports journalism should automatically provide her access to a men's locker room, perhaps a gay person's right to openly pursue a military career is an idea which, for practical reasons, is not the best idea.

I can't agree that Californians got the Senator they deserve. Those who voted for her opponent surely deserve better. That state has long been a magnet for liberals and the "victims" who depend on them, but there are plenty of rational people there as well. It is a shame they are being driven out. I still shudder to think of the day liberals and their victims set their sights on the Great State of Tennessee.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: Like you, I'm not in favor of discrimination against gays. It is likely that eventually the military working with Congress and the White House will figure out a way to solve the problem of making the admission of gays into the military services a non-issue. But hysterical cries of medieval witch hunts such as those from Babs Boxer only serve to stir up resentments.

In the civil realm, laws against discrimination have morphed into laws favoring gays. That has been annoying to a great many people, but the harm done is relatively minor. Allowing gays to serve is not the same as forcing the military to accept them without laying the groundwork and making the rules clear. It will do more harm than good. The military, as I suggested, is not Macy's. Unit cohesion and martial discipline don't matter much to Macy's, but they are absolutely necessary in a professional army.

Once the military and the civilian authorities can simply phase gays in without increasing the Uniform Code of Military Justice by one-third by adding "anti-discrimination" rules, the issue will just go away. But I can't see the Boxers of this world letting it happen that way.

LL said...

Don't ask/don't tell works. They should leave it as-is.

LawHawkRFD said...

LL: The military invented the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The current arrangement works. Contrary to what Boxer would have people believe, gays are not forbidden to serve in the military. There's no question that many thousands are doing so right now. But that's not good enough for the left which doesn't want mere tolerance. It wants to impose its values on everyone else. And the worst place to do that is the military. DADT simply says "keep your private life private."

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
As for Babs being reelected, she is not from Kern County. And we residents of Kern County do not deserve her.

Wasn't discrimination originally all about race? And now as time goes by every possible difference among us is being branded as discrimination.
You don't like the cut of my hair, so are you discriminating? Of course some one will eventually label that as bigoted. Or worse yet someone else will decide to change my hair and beat me senseless because I'm not in their area of acceptable.

If the gay community would simply live their life like the rest of us and not demand that the rest of us openly accept their lifestyle then fine.
Behavior in public has always had guide lines. When or if the gays will ever acknowledge that fact their lives will be much simpler.

With that lifestyle change accomplished the military would probably be willing to accept them with no restrictions. It seems that the only goal is to demand their sexuality CHOICE be accepted by everyone as normal.

TJ clearly defined what the purpose of sex is and what homosexuality is. What additional abhorrent behaviors will we be forced to embrace in the future?

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: The Constitution doesn't even forbid discrimination. It only prohibits invidious discrimination. That originally meant race, creed, color, national origin or prior condition of servitude. Statutes since have added things to the list, and that's where the military issue lies. I have no firm opinion nor any horse in the gays in the military race. Accepting people as fellow soldiers regardless of their private sexual orientation is one thing. Making entry into the military strictly about that orientation is what Boxer and the left want to do, and that's just not the way to do it, if it's to be done at all.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Back when a conservative Republican was elected, California was a really nice place to live. Unfortunately it has gone downhill since then.

I think California has to hit rock bottom with no one helping it out. Tough love has to be employed with treating California as an addict who won't help itself. At some point, a moment of clarity might develop.

As always, keep your powder dry and your killing lanes clear. :-)

Ponderosa said...

Boxer and those who demand that gays be allowed to serve “openly” do not even bother to answer the following:

How will it improve national security?

That is the one and only focus. If not, it should at least be the starting point. Make that case first. They cannot and will not, so out comes the slander and intimidation.

The left pulls this crap all the time. The onus lies with them but they ignore it and switch to demonizing any and all opposition.

BTW, the Australia is a completely invalid comparison - the ADF is a standing army of 60K.
Excellent soldiers, different mission.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Good advice.

It's really bad when $20 or $30 billion can be spent on foreign aid to Greece rather than investment in California because Greece is in better financial condition.

LawHawkRFD said...

Ponderosa: The left doesn't consider national security as a genuine issue, so they feel free to use the military as just another social experimentation laboratory.

You're right about Australia. But it's also important to note that none of the western nations she mentioned make any exceptions for gays. Do your job and keep your hands off the others. The military has to be able to control its own version of "lifestyle," and it's compatible with any gay willing to act in accord with military rules of good order and discipline. Our social engineers have difficulty dealing with the concept that the military is not an cannot be like civilian life.

AndrewPrice said...

I think the writing is on the wall that "don't ask don't tell" will eventually go away. I don't have a particular view on it one way or the other. I will leave that up to the military.

That said, I do think it's ridiculous that we're supposed to make accommodations for people who define themselves by their sex lives. That is behavior and does not deserve protected status any more than being a heterosexual deserves protected status.

Ponderosa said...

Heh. Close.

The items most consider to be 'bugs' are
'features' to the left.

The mischief the leftie groups outside the military will create with lawsuits, protests, more laws, etc. plus the change in personnel - will leave it a hollow shell in two or three decades.

The US Army will end up unionized or something equally debilitating. The point is to undermine, a particular 'issue' is a merely a lever. Next step:
Get rid of "So help me God" from the oath.

Look at every other institution they control. They take the original Mission Statement and flip it on its head.

If you have the time, do a little digging, take a look at what has been done to the Girl Scouts in the last 40 years.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I agree. In civilian life, the inconveniences of having to accommodate non-conformist behavior are more annoying than anything else. In the military, many of the things I've done over my life would be considered insubordinate or even dangerous. For one thing, I can't help expressing my opinion to those in authority over me. But that is tolerated in civilian life. In the military, things that are commonplace for us can't and shouldn't be allowed. Talking back to a superior officer is one of those. I would not have been a good fit in the military.

Like you, I believe that if gays can accommodate themselves to the military life rather than the other way around, I have no objection.

LawHawkRFD said...

Ponderosa: Every institution that the left has succeeded in subverting has experienced the breakdown of traditional mores. The Boy Scouts have maintained their high ideals and patriotism despite the determination of the left to turn them into something like a knitting group. I am aware of the fact that the Girl Scouts have gone precisely the opposite direction, and it's a real shame.

The thought of a unionized army is a good topic for an entire thesis. When a private gets an order and says he has to talk to his shop steward first, we will be in deep poo-poo. We already have to worry that some of our European allies will leave our troops in danger because their shift is over. And I recoil at picturing the "grievances" filed against a Marine drill sergeant because he is so mean that he creates a hostile working environment.

StanH said...

DADT, is a matter for the military, especially when we are at war. I believe the outgoing Marine Commandant made it clear that DADT works, leave it alone, that’s good enough for me.

My opinion about gays in the military are, your sexual preferences are your own. Mind your own business, do your duty, and who cares. However if you’re compelled to do drapes, floral arrangements, around the barracks, and insist that mauve be included in the uniforms, find another line of work

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: I think you've taken a very reasonable stand. I tend to agree. Although I can't see how a properly-behaving gay or lesbian can't serve honorably, I still feel I have to defer to the military people who should be the most important source of input on the issue. At this juncture, I'm not sure how the younger officers and enlisted men and women feel about it, but I'm sure it's more open than the view of most people of my generation.

LawHawkRFD said...

For those of you who were nice enough to point out that many of us Californians didn't deserve the kind of government Boxer represents, I offer my thanks. I was playing with the old saying that "a people gets the form of government it deserves." In fact, we have a form of government in which "the people" means the majority. That 46% or 47% of us who didn't vote for Boxer are stuck with what the others did. But taken as a whole, from the Senate to the House to the State House, the legislature and the big city governments, Democrats have gotten what they deserve, and it's the job of the rest of us to overcome the adversity and get the form of government we deserve.

Post a Comment