gdp's Comments

NewsReal Blog : The Military’s Logical Policy: People Who Are Likely to Sleep Together, Don’t Sleep Together

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:57:17 +0000

No need for a hunch...they have estimates. Although I have a hunch the the estimates are off because it relies on gay people reporting their own identity or nature of their household. It assumes that a) gay people know they're allowed to list their partner as a member of their household and b) a gay servicemember trusts the confidentiality of the American Community Survey and personal identifiable information won't be turned over to the military. That said, these are the numbers available: Out of all military, 2.2% are gay or lesbian. Out of all men in the military, 1.5% are gay. Out of all women in the military, 6.2% are lesbian. You never hear about lesbians causing problems because no one is particularly worried about lesbians being too masculine to serve. The problems that people imagine might happen are based on stereotypes and prejudices of gays and lesbians as well as men and women. And they're incapable of reconciling the cognitive dissonance in holding all those prejudices at the same time while insisting they have no prejudices. I am indeed curious to know how those opposed to repealing DADT feel about the Navy lifting the ban on women serving on submarines.

NewsReal Blog : The Military’s Logical Policy: People Who Are Likely to Sleep Together, Don’t Sleep Together

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:30:48 +0000

Perhaps it's worth conceding that the policy hasn't been a complete failure, but a successful transitional policy.

NewsReal Blog : The Military’s Logical Policy: People Who Are Likely to Sleep Together, Don’t Sleep Together

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:06:28 +0000

The purpose of the DADT compromise was to prevent gay soldiers from getting harassed as they were under the previous policy. The "Don't Ask" portion is really "Don't pursue, don't harass." And the "Don't Tell" portion is really "If a gay servicemember is discovered to be gay, they will likely be harassed. So it's best if they are compelled to hide their sexual orientation." It was the harassment, the hazing of gay soldiers, that disrupted unit cohesion. So the only way to protect the gay servicemember and unit cohesion was to discharge the gay servicemember. As anecdotal or rhetorical you may find this to be, the evidence of the hazing of gay soldiers was submitted as testimony when DADT legislation was crafted. However we have evolved as a society inside and outside the military to be more tolerant of gay people. That makes it unnecessary to discharge gay soldiers if they are found out to be gay. However the military has to discharge them because it's a federal law that they have to. Additionally, this unnecessary law often causes gay soldiers to under perform either due to the stress caused by the fear of being found out or intentionally being mediocre so as to not draw attention to themselves. The old way didn't work either because the old way didn't get rid of gay soldiers. And there is actually no way to get rid of gay people. All it does is force gay people to have to stay in the closet, which is actually very difficult to do even if a gay person wants to be in the closet. It's just a law of human nature. The more you appear to be hiding something the more people will seek to find out what it is you're hiding. The only gay people that succeed at staying in the closet are the ones that have learned, not only how to be dishonest really well, but to hide the fact that they're being dishonest. And I don't think dishonesty is a skill anyone finds commendable.

NewsReal Blog : The Military’s Logical Policy: People Who Are Likely to Sleep Together, Don’t Sleep Together

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:31:52 +0000

Yes, and male and female soldiers work together without women hiding the fact that they're women.

NewsReal Blog : The Military’s Logical Policy: People Who Are Likely to Sleep Together, Don’t Sleep Together

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:44:49 +0000

Gay men and women are perfectly capable of controlling themselves. We know this because gays are already serving in the military--some of them are already out. Gay soldiers will have to adhere to the very same standards of conduct as heterosexual soldiers. Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell does not mean they'll be openly "sexual", just openly gay--meaning they won't get kicked out if they happen to mention their family or get caught corresponding with their partner. Gay men know they would put themselves in physical danger if they were inappropriately sexual in a situation where they are outnumbered, literally, 100 to 2. If sexual harassment is your concern, 1/3 of those discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell have been women. Many of whom were reported for being lesbian by male soldiers they rejected. 43% of gays currently serving are women despite that women only make up 14% of active duty personnel.

NewsReal Blog : Ryan Sorba is an Arrogant Tool

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:21:51 +0000

You are correct. Banning gay marriage isn't about dictating who can sleep with whom. It's about dictating who can have a family.

NewsReal Blog : Ryan Sorba is an Arrogant Tool

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:13:53 +0000

Gay activists didn't pick the fight with marriage--conservatives did. Transport back to the 90s, gays weren't particularly interested in getting married. Actually quite the opposite, gays wanted liberation from marriage. Gay activists just wanted access to the same privileges that married heterosexuals get. The mere threat of gays getting married has been a useful political wedge for conservatives. From DOMA in 1996, to putting same-sex marriage bans on ballots in 13 states in 2004 where there was no gay marriage movement. Plus introducing a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that would never get ratified, just to get the votes on record to campaign on. And then 7 more anti-gay marriage state ballot initiatives in 2006. I can't tell you what it's like have legislation targeted directly against you, your specific class, enshrined in state constitutions and federal law. At some point we had to fight back simply because it is demoralizing to see folks putting our families up for popular vote and debating the value and worth of our families. And you are right, we will stop at nothing because at this point we're protecting our families. Because a lot of these state same-sex marriage bans went beyond prohibiting gays from getting married, but prohibited "marriage-like rights"--meaning they ban domestic partnerships and even Power of Attorney contracts. When you take something away from people that they didn't even have to begin with, what you take away is their dignity.

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:16:12 +0000

Hey, you brought up the socialism. There's a difference between being fascinated and calling someone you know to be female a "he" repeatedly. And then you act like that's totally different from disparaging someone because they're gay. You're engaging in social pressure to get people to conform, and then you cry socialism. Please. I've heard this stuff all my adult life. I'm surprised, given how much you're fascinated by her appearance, you didn't pick up on the ancestry too. Maybe you were too busy doing a crotch and tit check. It appears to me these boards are bests for sexist and gender policing fun and people who just replace one form of bigotry for another.

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:41:08 +0000

On the contrary, progressives love teaching civics and history. You're aware that today the people that would be most affected by a civics literacy test, if it was given to everyone, would be the lower class right? And mostly Southerners, the GOP stronghold. I'm opposed to disenfranchising voters, even if they're Republican voters. I mean, it's pretty obvious that the GOP is uninterested in debating public policy and the base doesn't seem to care. That indicates to me that Republican voters don't know much about civics...and the fact that they can't understand how Obama gets elected and why Republicans can't pass anything as a minority party. This is basic majority rule stuff.

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:15:11 +0000

I provided examples of actual questions from those old civics literacy tests above. "If a person charged with treason denies his guilt, how many persons must testify against him before he can be convicted? " "In what year did the Congress gain the right to prohibit the migration of persons to the states?" "Who is the solicitor general of the state judicial circuit in which you live and who is the judge of such circuit? If such circuit has more than one judge, name them all." "What does the Constitution of Georgia provide regarding the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus?" These are civics questions, they are questions about law and government. If that's not enough, here's an actual test given to Aftican-American voters in Georgia in 1958: http://content.sos.state.ga.us/u?/adhoc,552 And here's Albama's 1965 Voter literacy test: http://www.ccle.fourh.umn.edu/literacy.pdf So, you can see for yourself, they were civics literacy tests. A civics literacy test would be a test about civics. That's what he said, that's what he meant.

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:55:49 +0000

Dude, Rachel Maddow presented the same exact portion of the speech as this site did. The facts aren't different, but the opinion is. Tancredo was blaming the fact that Obama won the election because there were "people who could not even spell the word ‘vote,’ or say it in English" who were allowed to vote. "people who could not even spell the word ‘vote,’ or say it in English" Who, in your opinion, is he referring to? Which voters do you think can't say "vote" in English?

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:46:01 +0000

Yes there were racist Democrats, like Strom Thurmond, who were Segregationists and later switched to the Republican Party in 1948 after President Harry Truman (Democrat) desegregated the military and started a Civil Rights Committee. Maybe look up "Dixiecrat" sometime. The Democrats did right by the country and changed, even though it cost them votes and caused a mass exodus of southern members. That's why the Democrats in recent history have such a loyal African-American base. You can't trick minorities into voting for candidates in a party that is so blatantly opposed to equality. The voting demographics speak for themselves, and Republicans don't like what it has to say. You can't win elections by alienating 25% of the voting electorate. You know why? Because today, in the 2000's, it turns off half the white voters who actually believe in 1 person 1 vote.

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:09:27 +0000

She looks like how a lot of gay women look...not an anomaly at all. The fact that this is all you find interesting, and not say, public policy and things of public concern, is what's wrong. You can't change or save the country (whatever you're trying to do) by worrying about women not adhering to some Nazi defined gender role. And I'm not using "Nazi" as a metaphor, but as an example--they actually did put women who didn't conform to gender in concentration camps. You need to check yourself before you start calling other people socialists.

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:48:34 +0000

Rachel Maddow aired the exact same remarks, out of Tancredo's own mouth, that are in this article we're commenting on. Here's the transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35311229/ns/msnbc_tv-... 2/3 of Americans do not even understand the three separate branches of government. So it is unlikely that he was taking about a uniform test everyone has to take as it would disenfranchise white, natural born American citizens. Immigrants would pass it because they're already required to take a civics test when they become citizens. And that is not a jab at white people, but that the lower and middle class would be the ones most affected, the majority of which are white. Or perhaps he is just as ill informed as his audience was. Such a test would exclude part of the Republican base if given to everyone. No matter how hard is is for some folks to believe, Obama won because white people voted for him. He won in states like Iowa, which is 96% white. So, Tancredo is wrong from the get go to suggest Obama only won because of immigrants, and that was race-baiting on Tancredo's part.

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:50:37 +0000

Tancredo was suggesting giving legal US citizens tests to register to vote. You have to be a citizen to vote...so he's obviously not talking about illegal aliens, or even legal aliens voting. Immigrants already take a civics literacy test when they become citizens, so it wouldn't be necessary to make them take another one when they register to vote unless one were trying to prevent legal citizens from voting. This discussion is likely pointless as most here seem to be more concerned with Rachel Maddow's gender as if you have never seen a gay person before.

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:02:10 +0000

Right... Do you have some point? I'm a lesbian, she's a lesbian. What of it?

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:40:08 +0000

She is an attractive butch lesbian. ;)

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:44:01 +0000

Rachel Maddow brought up that the country has had civics literacy tests in the past and they were used to discriminate and prevent folks from voting because Tancredo was suggesting we bring that back for the same purpose. Tancredo is the one that bought it up. That's what this article is about. I'm bringing it up because this article brought it up. I'm merely replying to the article. It seems you have a bit of trouble following the conversation. The MSNBC link was just a link to a sample civics literacy test given to immigrants. But here's all you need to know for an immigrant to become a citizen from the uscis.gov website: USCIS - Study Materials for the Naturalization Test http://bit.ly/9DHwFi

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:45:44 +0000

Immigrants already take a civics literacy test. They have to before they become citizens. A test which most natural born citizens would fail by the way. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/ But I was replying to this blog which says "Tancredo didn’t say “literacy,” and he wasn’t talking about race. He said “civics literacy,” which implies a basic understanding of U.S. government and history. " Rachel Maddow was also referring to civics literacy tests, so she didn't get anything wrong.

Big Journalism : MSNBC's Rachel Maddow No Entiende Inglés

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:20:24 +0000

The literacy tests that were designed to stop blacks from voting that Maddow spoke of were, in fact, civics literacy tests. She provided examples of those literacy tests, which frankly you couldn't have passed. "If a person charged with treason denies his guilt, how many persons must testify against him before he can be convicted? " "In what year did the Congress gain the right to prohibit the migration of persons to the states?" "Who is the solicitor general of the state judicial circuit in which you live and who is the judge of such circuit? If such circuit has more than one judge, name them all." "What does the Constitution of Georgia provide regarding the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus?" Only blacks were ever asked these questions as whites surely couldn't have answered them. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35304909 Not that you'd bother making a correction.