We Lose Yet Another Arab Linguist Because He Came Out of the Closet
(video from Heather's post at Video Cafe)
A gay National Guard platoon leader - an Arab linguist who has already served one tour in Iraq - was canned after coming out on the Rachel Maddow show this week. I think it's worth mentioning that the military has already adjusted its rules enough to allow felons convicted of violent crimes to join the military, but for some reason, gay people are just too icky to serve and you know how President Obama hates to upset anyone:
MADDOW: You knew there was a very good possibility that by coming out publicly on this show, you would get kicked out of the military.
But I have to ask what your reaction was when you actually got the letter this week.
CHOI: Well, when I got the letter, I was extremely angry. I was angry -- I mean, the letter is basically saying bottom line, Lieutenant Dan Choi, you're fired. You're a West Point graduate, you're fired. You're an Arabic linguist, you're fired. You deployed to Iraq, you're willing to deploy again, doesn't matter. Because you're gay, that's enough grounds to kick you out.
But the biggest thing that I'm angry about is what it says about my unit. It says that my unit suffered negative good order -- negative actions -- good order and discipline suffered. That's a big insult to my unit.
I mean, all the insult that the letter can do, to say that I'm worthy of being fired, you know, that's nothing comparing to saying that my unit is not professional enough, that my unit does not deserve to have a leader that is willing to deploy, that has skills to contribute.
MADDOW: In terms of the good order and discipline allegation, what has been the reaction that you got from your fellow troops, from your unit after you told them that you are gay? Was there upset, was there discord? Were there any negative consequences to your ability to function as a group?
CHOI: Two weeks after I appeared on the show, we had National Guard training. Basically, we went to marksmanship qualification. We shot our rifles. And I was leading some of the training as officer in charge, telling them to cease fire or fire, and I thought, for four days, nobody was saying anything, so maybe they don't watch TV or maybe they don't read the "Army Times." But at the end of the training, so many people came up to me, my peers, my subordinates, people that outranked me, folks that have been in the Army -- and this is an infantry unit, infantry men that -- coming up to me and saying, hey, sir, hey, Lieutenant Choi, we know, and we don't care. What we care about is that you can contribute to the team. And what leaders do, they look to see how can they make the best team before they go to war.
That's what they care about.
MADDOW: Dan, what recourse do you have? Do you plan to challenge this?
CHOI: Well, the letter says that I can basically do a couple of things. I can resign right now and get an honorable discharge, or I can fight it.
I intend fully to fight it tooth and nail. I believe that "don't ask, don't tell" is wrong, and what we really need to be encouraging soldiers to do is to don't lie, don't hide, don't discriminate, and don't weaken the military. That's what we need to be promoting.
MADDOW: Lieutenant Dan Choi, stay with us just for a moment. I want to bring into the conversation Congressman Joe Sestak. He's a Democrat from Pennsylvania. He's a retired U.S. Navy rear admiral. He's the highest-ranking former military officer to serve in Congress. Congressman Sestak, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
SESTAK: It's good to be here, Rachel.
MADDOW: What is your reaction to Lieutenant Choi's impending dismissal from the Army as a result of "don't ask, don't tell?"
SESTAK: First, Lieutenant, thanks for your service to our nation. And I think this is indicative of the kind of quality of man and woman that we have lost. Look, I went to war, and we knew by survey that when I went to war that we had a certain percentage in that carrier battle group, and when I was on the ground briefly in Afghanistan, that were gay. And now we come back to America and say they don't have equal rights. I've never understood it. This is something where we have to correct this. It's just not right.
I can remember being out there in command, and someone would come up to you and start to tell you -- and you just want to say, no, I don't want to lose you, you're too good. Congress, with this president, needs to act upon this. I have appreciated that the president is rightly focused on economic security and now with this budget, but I believe this summer or early this fall that we need to correct this.
MADDOW: When the president says, Admiral Sestak, when he says that it could be slow going in part because it has to move through Congress -- and again, we know this because he wrote it in a handwritten letter to somebody who is currently being kicked out of the military, as Lieutenant Choi is -- he's essentially saying that Congress will be part of the reason that this needs to go slow. But you're saying that this could actually happen quite quickly.
SESTAK: I think it could, yes. I think the president as commander in chief needs to be the one that says to the military -- and I understand what Secretary Gates said recently about the plate is kind of full -- that's not the Defense Department's decision. This is the commander in chief's decision to say we need to change it, which he has.
I'd like to see us move it by this summer, and I think we can. We had hearings a year ago, and I'm a co-sponsor of the bill, and I testified at it. But we never got it out of committee. But I honestly believe with this particular president -- let's just re-emphasize that everyone, everyone is created equal.
MADDOW: Do you think, Congressman Sestak, do you think that as an interim step, if it can't be done by the summer, if it can't be done some time soon for some reason, do you think that the president could order the military to stop investigating whether people are gay? Just stop implementing the policy for now until it can be reviewed, until Congress has a chance to decide if they're going to act on the matter? Would that be wise?
SESTAK: I'm not sure. The reason I say this is we are a nation of laws. And in this last administration, we saw executive actions that seemed to bend, if not break, those laws. And even though it's for the right reason right now, I'd like to see us take this on right now, begin the process.
All linguists of being gay. I wouldn't put it past them. I could easily see Ann Coulter or Michael Savage saying such things
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
"Arab linguist" (which he isn't) rather than an "Arabic linguist" (which he is).
with Noam Chomsky. That sounds about the Coultergeist level of "humor" and "reason".
Talking of "nuts" wait till that International dirt bag, homophobic gay hating jerk off, piece of scum O'Reilly starts on this one. His hate speil about gays is known all over the civilised world, not just America. He will not be able to contain his gutter dwelling self.
Not just for his service to the country, but for his dedication to his principles in the face of certain dismissal.
I truly hope DADT is overturned quickly and all these excellent service men and women are immediately reinstated.
Lt Choi is a fine young man. I hope he succeeds in his fight to be reinstated.
This issue just infuriates me. Twelve thousand five hundred soldiers were dismissed because they were gay. What a waste of expertise and talent. Disgraceful.
Reading Obama's letter gives me hope that he'll do the right thing, but this situation needs to be rectified immediately.
tell them to get the pentagon on track...1.800.828.0498 or 1.866.220.0044 and reinstate this man!
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/obama-don...
LT Choi is just collateral damage.
I'll be most pleased to be proven wrong.
Wasn't it Obama that did fundraisers with "let's lynch teh gays" type preachers? And invited rick warren to his inauguration. Me thinks he may not like them.
Well whether Wingnuts want to admit it or not, Obama is a Christian. He may well be anti-homosexuality. Which is disappointing, since he got a lot of gay support during his run for election.
is against homosexuality --He is just for Civil Unions...and not gay marriage.
Conservatives: Keeping America safe by discharging soldiers who can keep America safe.
.....and if they have time on the side to out a CIA agent keeping America safe from real WMDs they'll do that too.
Obviously hating gay people supersedes the need for Arab linguists. Why would we need them anyway...
My friend wrote a very good piece on gay marriage. Check it out:
http://yellingatthemoon.com/2009/05/08/anargu...
do you really want obama to do what clinton initially attempted? cuz that didnt work out to well, and helped to give the repukes congress
I understand where you're coming from, but I think we're well past that argument, now. The definition of pragmatism is as relative as anything else.
For example, I've already heard so-called centrists suggest that major health care reform should be put on hold until the financial crisis is resolved. From my point of view, pragmatism, in this case, necessitates dealing with our failed health care system as part of the solution to the financial crisis. Similarly, for me civil rights come before any other issue in priority. As I see it, universal rights and the liberties outlined in the Constitution are the foundation for everything else - our country is purposeless without the effort to secure the blessings of liberty for all its citizens & form a more perfect union.
For you and others, it may not seem pragmatic to deal with "Don't Ask/Don't Tell," while there are so many other pressing issues. However, it's worth bearing in mind that your priorities aren't universally shared. Lt. Choi & thousands like him are losing their careers & livelihoods because of DADT - I can't imagine that bailing out CitiGroup or getting a comprehensive farm bill is their first priority.
Lastly, I'm reminded that the argument out of pragmatism is neither new nor unique to the issue of LGBT civil rights. It has been presented repeatedly in the face of mounting pressure to honor the intent of the Constitution, whether it was the end of Institutional Slavery, civil rights for the American descendents of slaves, opposition to the internment of Americans of Japanese descent, civil rights for gay & lesbian employees of the government in the 1950s, universal suffrage for women, the necessity of torture & warrantless wiretapping, and on and on. In the end, pragmatism makes a flimsy break wall in the face of an onrushing torrent.
In other words, let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness an ever-flowing stream.
As with many issues in this country right now, there seems to be a general consensus that the way we've always done things is wrong and has to be changed, but a vocal, virulent, ruthless, and completely batshit insane right-wing minority intent on stopping it. It's possible (and I hope I'm not just engaging in wishful thinking) that what's happening here is that Obama is letting brave people like Lt. Choi and 2nd Lt. Zell become public faces for the costs of DADT, and (I hope) we'll start seeing other stories coming out from their fellow soldiers supporting them and serving as evidence that, in the ranks, sexual orientation is less of a big deal.
What makes me think this is that President Obama is such a consummate political animal that he would not hand-write a letter expressing so strong a sentiment without full knowledge that it would become public -- and no media outlet can report the letter to 2d Lt. Zell without also describing her, and her service, and how losing a qualified officer hurts our readiness. Although over the years the popular media has reported many names and statistics about the harm DADT has done to individual soldiers and to our ability to staff the armed forces as effectively as possible, I do not recall that there have been many "poster children" for how DADT is foolishly and needlessly hurting these soldiers, their careers, and our military.
Real soldiers in uniform, with names and photographs and live TV appearances, are much, much harder for the right-wingers who worship the military to attack effectively. Possibly, just possibly, by letting Lt. Choi and 2nd Lt. Zell and others twist for a while, what's being set up is a calculated way to ultimately win this battle in the medium-term (say within six months) without directly expending the enormous Presidential political capital on it that Clinton did.
The attitudes of the American people and military have changed substantially on gay issues in 15 years -- it may be here that Obama is calculating that Congress will be able to change this quickly (through efforts of people like Rep. Sestak) without the President taking the initiative. It's sad to see politics get in the way of forcefully doing what's right -- but, on the other hand, 17 years ago Clinton tried to forcefully do what's right and it resulted in 15 years of DADT. If there really is a circuitous approach going on here (like we've seen this administration take on other issues, like setting up health care reform to pass with only 51 votes), maybe it's an approach that will actually work this time.
I'm not saying Obama doesnt support gay equality in the military. I dont have enough information to make that judgement. I will however point out a flaw in your argument; the fact that its a handwritten letter doesn't actually mean anything. The letter could just as easily be an evasive maneuver, by saying "I want it but it isnt happening now" he absolves himself of any responsibility and lends himself the image of a person for gay equality.
I'm not saying this is true. I personally believe (but do not know) Obama is for gay equality, at least to some extent. I'm just saying that the letter isnt proof for or against Obama's stances on gay equality in the military.
I've read or heard people say how Obama is bidding his time and being politically careful. That may be the case and I hope it is. It would be nice though if all this maneuvering, if in fact that is what is happening, is not necessary. I hope people, in hoping Obama will represent real change, are not engaging in a false hope. Sorry I such a downer about this.
Conservatives are more worried about teh gays not being happy than the national security of our country. Priorities people. We can have another 3,000 dead and keep 3,000 gays from getting married and serving in the military or save 3,000 lives and let 3,000 gays enjoy their own life. Seems like an easy choice to rational people. But then again, conservatives are not rational people.
is intended to be a factual statement
what the big deal is here. If this person or any other gay service member really wanted to serve in the armed forces, then they would just keep it to themselves. There is no room for individuality in the armed forces. This is not a civil rights issue. Its a morale issue. Same goes for women in combat jobs.
There are plenty of other countries who will accept openly gay soldiers. Why don't you go knock on their door.
once again let me just reiterate that there is no such thing as individuality in the armed services.
If there is also a DADT for religion in the military.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
as far as religion is concerned, being openly gay in the military doesn't concern what happens to your soul. They can't be compared.
The non-Christians in the US military are dealing with serious moral issues.
http://www.truthout.org/article/military-evan...
I see what you're saying about the difficulty of changing the situation. But, I don't think that means we should stop trying.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
without resorting to magical belief systems.
I guess the killing that goes on in the military doesn't really concern your precious "soul" either.
ditto ditto
ha
frank burns would be a happy camper in today's army.
onward christian soldiers
marching as to war
with the cross of jesus
going on before...
How does DADT apply to women?
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
im talking about morale and how it would be affected by flamboyant people and women in the infantry, etc.
Uh, yeah. In other words, you're afraid of LGBT people and so you think that it's OK to discriminate against them & deny their civil rights.
You sir, are a bigot, whether you realize it or not.
You don't know ANY gay people do you? Especially those in the military. Until you can safe;y say that you actually have met and know some gay people then you can STFU!
You seem to assume anyone gay is flamoyant. Simply not true. I see you also object to women in the infantry.
And how should it affect morale? If people are doing their jobs and minding their own business, why should anyone care what they do in their spare time?
You yourself might do something I find distracting, but as long as you don't bother me with it, I'm fine. Prayer comes to mind. Don't ask me to pray.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
My friend's kid got a mohawk haircut, because he really wanted one, so it was a "reward" for good behaviour. When he went to school, it caused an uproar amongst the other kids, so the school principal phoned his mother (my friend). She asked if her son was doing anything wrong. The principal said, "No." She told him, "Then phone the other parents, not me."
See what I'm tellin' ya here?
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
the military certainly isn't looking for the flamboyant types and if he really wanted to serve, he just would. No matter the consequences. Even if that includes keeping your personal life to yourself.
The dude's not wearing short shorts and a belly shirt.
The issue is a bit more complex than that. If some guy has a boyfriend (or in some states a husband) and wishes to talk on the phone with them - should they be able to "I love you" without fear of being overheard? Can they loved one live in their home on base just as military wives and such do?
Those are the things gay service members need to hide. It's not about "flamboyance".
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
hahaha point taken, but no you might as well abandon all hope of married gay couples living on base together because it just isn't going to happen. Not in this lifetime or any other.
Al Azif, I have a few things to say.
1) Your use of the word "flamboyant" makes it seem like you have this idea that gay people act the way some gay people on television act, limp wrist movements and all. This is extremely stereotypical- have you even ever met anyone gay before?
2) Morale... So you're saying that knowing that your fellow soldier may or may not like members of the same sex is demoralizing, whereas felons being allowed in the military (i.e. knowing your fellow soldier is a felon) is not? There is no morale issue. The only people who would be affected are the bigots, and we should not be protecting bigots. They are free to believe whatever they wish, but their beliefs should not factor in whether or not to accept gay people into the military.
What exactly does being gay have to do with someone's ability to preform in the military? It has nothing to do with it because the two are mutually exclusive. Being gay does not overlap with being in the military. I know a few people like to throw around the idea that "some male members might feel discomfort" but, one, that is not something you should consider because it is baseless, and two, the same logic could apply to women. Why have women in the military, it may make some men feel uncomfortable? Why have black people or latinos or asian-americans in the military? It may make the white people uncomfortable.
Your argument is easily destroyed. The fact is that you don't think gays should be allowed to be openly gay in the military is because of YOUR discomfort and YOUR misguided beliefs. YOU feel uncomfortable around gay people. YOU are the bigot. Why should anyone else suffer?
You are afraid of everything...and your hole is the safeest place for you and away from decent people.
...and it's clear you have a problem with "teh gays". You're "go to another country" comment is very telling. It's been proven that morale is not hurt by this. I guarantee you this soldier did not flaunt his sexuality or make an unwanted move on a fellow soldier. You're assuming this mans sexuality is the most important thing about him and it's not. Fortunately, it appears attitudes such as yours are on the wane...
Also equally telling is the fact that he ignored that Mr. Choi came out on a television show AFTER he had already served a tour in Iraq. If he was so "flamboyant" why wasn't he 'caught', as they say, earlier? Could it be that the fact that he's gay had no impact on his ability in the military so people didn't care, or just assumed he was straight?
Naaah couldn't. Teh gays demoralize others because of their 'flamboyance'.
Why must a certain portion of the population keep secret something that is integral to who they are? The military recognizes religion already. Even to the point of putting ones religion on the dogtags. That's an individual choice. In the military, personnel often discuss where they came from and what made them who they are. It's good to understand who the person is next to you. These are comrades in arms, regardless of religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
It appears that it is not the people "in the trenches" who care about the orientation or gender of the person there with them. It's the politicians in Washington and the pundits and religious right who are doing all of the complaining.
Remember in the past, when it was illegal for African Americans to be in the military. Even as late as WWII, they were kept in the rear because they were "unfit for combat". It was supposed to be detrimental to morale to allow them to serve in combat. Now we know how stupid that was.
I hate war and don't want to see any people die in one, ever; but if someone wants to volunteer to defend our country, we should be proud to have them.
I've always kept my gayness top secret because it's such a taboo.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Edwin, it's ok to be gay.
I failed to mention that I was responding to the comment that there is no individuality in the military. My point was that there is, indeed, individuality. When I said that religion was a choice, I did not mean that sexual orientation was. I know that someone is going to come back at me on that one.
My point is that why should the choice of religion be more important to cater to than the non-choice of orientation? It shouldn't. Orientation of a person is more integral than the choice of religion, in my opinion.
That was just a funny. My humour is very dry. Your post was fine with me. I'm very out.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Oh you! Stop being so flamboyant, queen - you might make someone somewhere uncomfortable. After all, there are outwardly heterosexual people who aren't as comfortable with their own sexuality as you & I are.
As a HUGE lesbian, I avoid wearing pants and never leave the house without full makeup for fear that I might lure some unwitting straight woman into my lavender web of depravity.
Too much overt fabulousness from you, Missy, & the straight men-folk might feel start feeling too plain & drab while strangely drawn to Judy Garland & a$$less chaps...
Let's not forget Bette, Barbra and Cher!
Let me catch you up. We have High Def TV, Stereo receivers and Swine flu here in 2009. So you're trying to say that all military personnel reacts, acts, thinks as one? dude, this is not Hollywood and not Terminator. That has to be one of the most moronic comments I have ever read. Being a soldier does not strip you from your individuality at least. Or at most your sexuality. Lay off the movies. This isn't Kurt Russell in "The Soldier" or even one of Arnolds films. This is real life and soldiers are not machines. If they were, why are they killing themselves at a rate not seen since WWII from the horrors of a real war that you will never be part of. There is individuality in every aspect of life. It cannot be trained out of you. Hate to get personal but what a complete idiotic statement. Here's a fucking quarter, buy a fucking brain or take an online psychology class.
is intended to be a factual statement
for saying that.
I'm with calgarylady - thank you for saying that.
thousands of years prosecution of sexuality.
Ludicrous
The phear of teh gay would be funny, if it wasn't so sad.
There are some well trained, well disciplined and effective armed forces for other nations that do not take issue with an individuals sexuality. If they can handle it, what stops the US military from doing it? Is the US military less mature or responsible?
No, it's those pesky "Christian values" this country was founded on. I'm always hearing Christians around here complain that they're persecuted in the US and their views are marginalized and their freedoms are being taken away, yet EVERY facet of life in this USA caters to them and their fairy tales. Not allowing open Gays in the military because of the Bible makes about as much sense as not allowing Muggles in the military because of the Harry Potter books. Ridiculous.
President Obama has stated publicly that he is a “fierce advocate of equality” for gay and lesbian Americans. Yet, his silence is more eloquent than his words. Not a peep out of him about the recent gains in marriage equality. He could redeem himself in my eyes if he appointed Dan Choi as the new military affairs guy to replace the "photo-op" idiot who just resigned. Who's in a position to Draft Dan Choi?
Did you listen to his speech at the correspondents dinner? He mentioned that when he and Axelrod decided to make their very big decision, the knew that Iowa was where they would go to declare their partnership. I believe he is working on the issue, but I don't expect him to solve it in 6 months.
at its utmost.
It's like the Republicans want this country destroyed by our enemies.
For both of these soldiers, they were the few, the proud...they could be all they could be...etc...When we didn't know they were gay. But when the military found out they were gay they were a liability? Am I reading this right?
That would be like someone curing cancer at a 100% rate then finding out the person who cured it was gay and labeling his cure as unreliable because of his sexual orientation. How fucking stupid is that!
These homophobes are the liability. We could have the greatest person on earth doing the greatest thing possible and they'd label them undesirable at best because they're gay. Chances are one of these rich Evangelicals are wearing an outfit designed by a gay guy. Not trying to be stereotypical but it hasn't stopped them from wearing a it.
is intended to be a factual statement
Be all that you can be, unless that's gay, of course.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
People who support DADT will insist that "they dont have to inform us of their sexuality" and so its OK. This is deeply flawed as shown in a few other comments.
To adress your main point however, yes. People who support DADT DO think like this. They DO think that being gay means that you cant ever be as good as a heterosexual in the military. To them, being gay is analogous to being weak or bad or immoral and that makes gay people unfit to serve.
They'll try and evade saying this outright and will say equally crazy, unproven, and flat out untrue remarks like "it'd lower morale" despite how silly and idiotic that is. If introducing a group of people that might make someone uncomfortable in the military then why do straight people get precedent over gay people? What if gay people feel uncomfortable about straight people? Why arnt heterosexuals forced to keep a lid on it or be kicked out? Or why arnt we protecting white supremacists from the non-whites that may cause them discomfort? Why not protect the sexists and discharge all women from the military?
Because it doesnt make sense. And because the US has learned that. "Teh gay" is the same in every way, yet DADT supporters would have you believe otherwise. It's disgusting.
unless they're gay! Repuke fuckers!
~S! Dan!
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
Rightists praising worthless, fearmongering Christofascist preachers and beauty contest pigs while firing the people trained to protect us from wingnut religionists.
Rightwing nuts are sick!
I saw the interview and found the guy impressive. He’s obviously smart and articulate. He wouldn’t be a platoon leader if he weren’t a capable leader. His skills are desperately needed. So WTF?
Starting with Plato’s Symposium and the 300 who stood with Leonidas at Thermopolae, evidence is undeniable. Polls show that a majority of Americans think this is a non-issue. So what’s the problem?
Is the Commander in Chief bigoted? Is he afraid of the homophobic minority of Americans? Is he afraid of right-wing hate radio/TV? Is he reluctant to confront those in the military chain of command -- top to bottom -- who are homophobic? Is he reluctant to ask homophobes to confront the genuine basis of their fear and hostility? (Forget Leviticus! That recourse is way too easy to make ridiculous.)
* * * * *
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/h...
* * * * *
If the problem lies with the military, then that’s where it should be addressed. Homophobic recruiting? Homophobic training? Homophobic chain of command? Deal with it! And you can’t deal with it by trusting the welfare of our nation and its leadership to “privatized” mercenaries. Rome’s Praetorian Guards, anybody? Ask Caligula how well that worked out!
* * * * *
Collateral kvetch. Why aren’t genuine linguists protesting against the denigration of their discipline? A linguist is an academic scholar with advanced training. A person who’s fluent in two languages, and able to rephrase the same meaning between the two languages, is a translator.
Well, depending on the degree of training and Lt. Choi's duties, he may well qualify for the designation of linguist. A linguist is defined as a specialist in linguistics, and linguistics as the study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics.
If Lt. Choi's duties go beyond simple translation (and it's likely that they do, because to be truly useful, it would help immensely if the translator understands issues like the cultural differences to help put a statement in context), then he is a linguist, not a translator.
Wouldn't redefining all of us through our common thread of humanity be the right thing to do? When are we going to rise above this snide pettiness and do what is right? And we call ourselves an advanced civilization? Really? Or are people like Lt. Choi and others going to keep paying for our judgment and prejudice?
It needs to stop NOW.
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
My kids are in their twenties and I've never gotten the feeling they care one way or another if a person is gay. It sounds like the platoon feels the same way. They believed he was a good leader and that's all that mattered.
Jeanne
Let me ask all of you something. Why do you even care about this issue? Is it so you can sit back after a long day at work and feel warm and squishy inside? Well newsflash the military doesn't give a shit. The military isn't your social experiment, so I don't think I need to tell you where the service is going to ask you to place all this diatribe.
In your ass.... in case you aren't quick enough.
like the main point I made before. If they really wanted to serve and lay down some scunion they would just treat it as a non-issue. Simple as that. They wouldn't go on the "Rachel Maddow" show and make a big stink on the TV about it. Especially an officer.
Just reread that and saw he was in the Nasty Guard. Who cares, good riddance. All of you act like its detrimental that we lost one translator. We pump them shits out of the DLI in Monterey no problem. reeeeaaaaall big loss.
there are plenty of gay linguists in the service that we will readily accept. Gay people who don't have press packets ready and waiting to deliver to primetime news.
All of you are pathetic. Makes me sick that I identify with you on certain issues. Move on.
Seems this issue effects you pretty strongly considering you've posted on it so much - and so vehemently.
All the more I will say on the issue is this: I understand what you are saying about the difficulties of changing the nature of the armed forces. But, I have spent a lot of time with veterans (Have been working on a documentary about the struggles of returning to civilian life in a troubled economy) and in my conversations with them the issue has arisen from time to time. All have been supportive of opening up the service to gays for many of the reasons posted here (ie - the need for qualified and skilled personnel) so I don't think your portrayal of our armed forces as a bunch of scared homophobes is very accurate.
Also, as someone who has been threatened at gunpoint, knifepoint and by a group of dudes with a metal pipe because they assumed I was gay (I'm not, I just happen to be a "flamboyant" hetero - as us wacky artists often are) I have learned first hand the difficulties gay men and women often face. Therefore, I feel very strongly that we as a nation need to move beyond our irrational bigotry of homosexuality - often justified by one obscure line in Leviticus beside some radically insane and barbaric ideas obviously written by primitive minds just as so many other oppressive ideas have been justified by "scriptural values" or "traditional values" - and continue evolving into the freedom loving nation we have always struggled to be.
Again, I understand your notion that the armed forces is a tough institution to change, but I think you underestimate the maturity of the people serving and the importance of our continued struggle for true liberty for all.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Its not as if they come out of translator school with anything useful anyways. Arabic might all be written the same, but the military teaches Modern Standard Arabic as opposed to Iraqi Arabic, or Syrian Arabic etc.
A good friend of mine just graduated after three years of studying Arabic. She is a Marine and highly decorated and from the stories she is able to tell, it is a very vital skill. Yes, there are varying dialects, but that was part of her education - which though she has officially graduated, still is required to have continuing education for said dialects.
I don't understand why you feel the need to denigrate a very difficult and vital part of foreign relations.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
every issue I bother to log into to comment on will be posted with a certain amount of vehemence. Its because Im pissed off that I have to check my spam email address for the username and password to this site.
Usually the vehemence you show is reserved for self-hating closet queens, like Ted Haggard. Dislike what the mirror that Dan Choi is holding shows you?
unfortunately for you, your rebuttal holds all the water of a five year old reciting it. How far do you think you'll get with this by calling everyone who disagrees with you gay?
To the supreme court!!!11 *hums theme to wizard of oz*
I honestly don't care who you do or do not sleep with, but it's telling that you are so very worried that someone might think you like men.
Comments are closed on this entry