Speaking of the minimum wage, I came up with a great alternative. How about a policy that employers can’t make people work for a wage that’s lower than what they’re willing to work for? For instance, if someone offers you a job and you don’t think the wage is sufficient, it would be illegal for them to force you to take the job. What do you think?

we would not have unemployment benefits

That would be a good thing.

we wouldn’t have the minimum wage

That would be even better.

we wouldn’t have salaries

You ran off the tracks there. I take it you have some sort of mental process that led you to this very bizarre conclusion?

The role of social engineers in America’s cultural experience is only rated well by the engineers who sought to impact the culture.-

The problem is that social engineering is such a broad term. If we take away any form of social engineering then we would not have unemployment benefits, we wouldn’t have the minimum wage, we wouldn’t have salaries, on and on.

The fears people have about gay people in showers is still comical to me. I shower after swim practice with about a dozen gay men; some of them quite easy on the eye, so to speak. There has yet to be a single case of an orgy breaking out. We’re adults and we behave appropriately. It’s the minimum expectation. We have a couple of straight members who shower with us as well. I showered with men when I was in the Navy. Gay and straight men are showering together all the time in public gym locker rooms. I have the sense to know that staring at someone is rude and will likely make them uncomfortable. I also know that there are a few insecure people out there who could get outright violent over it. I’m an adult and I respect others’ space bubbles. This issue is blown way out of proportion. I don’t pinch anyone’s butt and I don’t think men should be doing it to women either, in any workspace.

A little ribbing always happens in the military. I think it can actually be a bonding experience if the tone is playful. I think any case of true harassment ought to be investigated, regardless of who’s doing it or who is the recipient of it. Jokingly calling a teammate “fag” probably falls under playful ribbing. Repeatedly doing it and with a clearly negative tone is bad for morale in a situation where it’s crucial that people function as a team and should not be tolerated, regardless of whether the recipient is actually gay, and they may not be.

Now some of the others –like Thailand and Estonia and the Swiss (do they wear the same outrageous but sexy uniforms that their counterparts in the Vatican wear and carry those pikes?) might tickle the failure meter… but not the Israeli or Brits. Granted, the French and Itals may have a well deserved reputation for holding up the surrender flag a little early in conflicts… but not the Israeli or Brits.

The role of social engineers in America’s cultural experience is only rated well by the engineers who sought to impact the culture.

But now we’re waaaaay off topic.

-By comparison, all other military forces, or nearly all, are failures.-

Then why did America appeal to countries like the UK and Australia for help in the war on terrorism? And is there any evidence that these militaries are failures because of gay soldiers?

-And integration of the races? Oh yeah, head into any public high school cafeteria at lunchtime in a mixed neighborhood and show me how well that “integration of the races” really worked, will ya? Are you that disconnected from real life?-

I think that the blacks who grew up with segregation in first half of the 20th century might not have been quite as blase about it.

Come on, we all know that social experimentation with OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES is the hallmark of progressive, LeftLiberal policies

Which is why I’m suspicious of this study, and the motives of those who want to ditch DADT. Don’t misunderstand: It’s an unethical policy and it should be ditched. But leave the military culture alone. That means women have to put up with remarks and getting their butts pinched, and gay men have to put up with fag jokes.

Anyone with the balls, er, whatever to serve wouldn’t whine about either.

And this comparison to other militaries that allow gays is specious. What military would you compre the US military to? By comparison, all other military forces, or nearly all, are failures.

This is factually incorrect

No, it is factually correct. Clinton could have changed the police with an executive order, no matter what anyone thought about it — had he actually had principles, and believed in changing the policy to reflect them.

I see the 60′s and the leaders back then a whole lot different than you do if you think that was the height of social progress for gays and lesbians –very differently. And integration of the races? Oh yeah, head into any public high school cafeteria at lunchtime in a mixed neighborhood and show me how well that “integration of the races” really worked, will ya? Are you that disconnected from real life?

But then we’re seriously OT on the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at UC-SB report if we start assessing the true value of the GL in the 60s or how far the “races have integrated”.

You’re an experiment, of some sort, that went horribly wrong.

“Frankenfurter, it’s all over. Your mission is a failure, you’re lifestyle’s too extreme. I’m your new commander, you now are my prisoner. We’ll return to Transylvania. Prepare the transit beam!!”

This won’t be anywhere near as controversial as incorporating women into the military. It won’t hurt recruiting, it wont hurt training, it won’t hurt morale, and it wont hurt unit cohesion.

Is there any evidence that allowing Gays to serve without lying will do any harm to our military? Any at all?

My guess is that those that are so torqued up to keep the policy are the kind of soldiers that ruin morale for everyone else too.

Would that be “straight” or “merrily forward”, as a friend of mine used to say?

So these policies which were supported and enacted by liberals like Clinton and Barney Frank should be kept because liberals don’t like the military?

The only argument which you’ve used to keep this ban is that bad things will happen if the ban is lifted. Has there ever been 1 country where lifting a ban on gay soldiers caused the destruction of that country’s military?

These policies hurt the entire miltiary, including the straight soldiers who supposedly need to be protected.

I’m waiting for VtheK and North Dallas Thirty to weigh in again on why the support DADT.

Coupled with that:

You should be discharged immediately some on here would argue.

Go ahead and just say it: “V the K and North Dallas Thirty say you should be discharged immediately.”

Now, I could go into details on what my feelings on DADT are. However, by your making those two statements, you’ve demonstrated you weren’t listening in the past when I did.

Given that, I shall not bother correcting or amending you. Those people here who actually read my posts know what is true; allowing you to persist with your groundless argument does far more damage than getting angry over it.

I applaud Michigan Matt for giving a lot of thought to his very articulate arguments. But on this issue, I say ditto, ditto, ditto to everything Calarato has posted.

I know dozens of colonels and generals, most of them retired, and have found it not worth even discussing the issue with those of my generation. I’m guessing most of them preferred the pre-DADT system.

If we join Britain, Israel, Australia, and others, in letting openly gay personnel serve in the military, it will be young captains who have to make it work in the officer corps, not colonels and generals, and senior NCOs who have to make it work among the enlisted men and women. At the time I ended a 35-year association with the Air Force I found that the young generation of junior officiers and senior NCOs — with the exception of many of those who grew up in the rural South — was generally willing to try to make it work if it ever comes about.

The late Barry Goldwater once said, in regard to this issue, that the only important thing is whether a soldier can shoot straight. I agree that that ought to be our goal, especially when I look at the most recent figures on the difficulty the Air Force is having in filing some skilled positions (USAF, for example, is short almost half the linquists it needs).

Scott, #$, I agree with the plea to write our senators. I would, except I’m “represented” (?) in the U. S. Senate by Sam Brownback, a bozo who brags about his anti-gay positions.

And of the three pictures accompanying the article, two are of the Phelps family. The remaining picture is of Frankenstein’s monster, who to my knowledge is not registered with either party.

Warning – site is not safe for work. I forgive him for his moonbattiness because he has such great eye candy.

Clinton could have changed the military policy with a mere executive order. However, Clinton had no principles, morals or ethics — he governed by the polls, and instead of taking a stand, he wanted “consensus.”

DADT was the result of a cowardly, unprincipled President. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is factually incorrect, although Clinton did mess it up. Clinton COULD have made the change as prior to DADT it was an administrative policy, -not a formal part of the UCMJ. However at the time he proposed this there were objections in Congress from “conservative” Democrats and Republicans, and an in-house revolt of upper ranking military and civilian leadership in the Pentagon, including Colin Powell.

So Congress made clear it was going to enact the ban into law, which it eventually did. So Clinton did not have any longer the option of changing the policy “with a stroke of the pen”.

What he did do however was create the administrative policy that in theory prevents the military from asking if you are gay. He called it an “honorable compromise”. Of which it was neither. That policy is still in existence today, although it has been modified a few times. Bush, to his credit, has not revoked it. (Although to his detriment, he has not called for a repeal of the law either.)

If you want to blame Clinton, thats fine with me, but there is plenty of blame to go around. I’d start with Sam Nunn myself. I think Clinton flubbed more in the timing and manner that he presented the change, and for what he was willing to settle for, not so much with intent.

An interesting side-angle on this is whether the Congress, in enacting the ban into law, actually usurped power that should be reserved for the Office of the President, the Commander in Chief.

And “michigan-matt” I challenge you to go back to my first statement and actually respond to the points I’ve made, instead of endlessly repeating the same tired “old chestnuts” as Grandpa-Cheney might say.