tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post8236420346843742303..comments2022-11-14T07:03:49.162-06:00Comments on by a cynical libertarian: State of the Union, Part IIKyla Denaehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079377672682346142noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-48997080345647008732010-02-22T07:59:41.066-06:002010-02-22T07:59:41.066-06:00Sun Tzu- good point. I didn't realize they co...Sun Tzu- good point. I didn't realize they could be discharged because of it. Thanks for clearing that up- and you're right, that does do away with any ability for them to serve in any free way.<br /><br />I still don't see any need for them to trumpet it to the skies though. :P But you're also right- heterosexual people do the same thing. Unfortunately. ^.^<br /><br />Noah- He understands it, just chooses to play dumb or something like that. >.<<br /><br />He's been partisan for quite awhile though- as far back as when he wrote his book Audacity of Hope. That book was nothing but Republicans vs. Democrats/Democrats are infallible, Republicans are evil...it was a pretty disgusting book in that respect. :PKyla Denaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079377672682346142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-81194357682905358792010-02-21T20:39:30.260-06:002010-02-21T20:39:30.260-06:00An excellent analysis, as always! But I'm sure...An excellent analysis, as always! But I'm sure President Obama understands the Constitution well enough: he just doesn't believe in it (an attitude he shares with almost every other politican in Washington, Republican or Democrat). Politicians believe in an "evolving Constitution" that means whatever they want it to mean instead of what it says. There's a grain of truth in that view, because it has to be adapted to changing times and conditions -- but politicians naturally use that grain of truth as an excuse to defy the clear meaning of the Constitution. They shouldn't get all the blame, however, because the Supreme Court has been equally guilty of reinterpreting the Constitution to fit its prejudices.<br /><br />I do disagree with your suggestion that President Obama is too partisan. Nobody in Washington is being much of a hero these days, but Obama is more frustrating because he hasn't seemed to fight for what he claims to believe in. His partisanship is a fairly recent development, probably due to the looming 2010 elections.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-73859835065337227762010-02-19T19:48:05.215-06:002010-02-19T19:48:05.215-06:00And I think it's obvious by now I'm in the...And I think it's obvious by now I'm in the minority who happened to like the CU decision. As you noted, for someone who talks about the Constitution, Obama does sometimes have the most curious grasp of what it means and what limitations it places upon government.Sun Tzuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03435848395263035323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4092775041710446078.post-39282400277615959102010-02-19T19:44:53.111-06:002010-02-19T19:44:53.111-06:00"gay people aren't kept from serving"..."gay people aren't kept from serving" - True, since there are estimates of up 60,000 serving already. But this is basically the same critique that we use for gay marriage. Gay people can get married, they just cannot get married to the people they would want to be married to. If it is discovered that someone has engaged in homosexual relationships, they can be discharged and prevented from serving on that basis alone. Which would seem to belie the notion that they aren't prevented from serving. <br /><br />I don't particularly think it's any of our business who anybody has sex with either, but the comfortable assumption that somehow gay people are only okay if they don't trumpet and announce their sexuality is also just plain wrong as it assumes that somehow heterosexual people don't do the same thing. Sadly, I can find many examples of "our" people who do. It would be probably a better more idyllic society that treats its individual's sexuality as a private affair confined to the bedroom or the private sphere of the home, but that's not the world we live in, and in a military barracks filled with mostly proud young men, it's practically an impossible world to assume will begin to develop anytime soon. <br /><br />As a bigger problem, the integration of women has been far more complicated for the same reasons that people claim would be a problem for integrating gays into the military (sexual fraternization, sexual predatory habits, etc). That problem, at least from my perspective, isn't the women. It's the handful of dishonorable men who end up raping them or drumming them out of the military on accusations of homosexuality because they didn't respond (favorably) to sexual advances. I'm fairly comfortable as a result assuming that the people who would cause the problems integrating an open homosexual are other men, and not the homosexual somehow wanting to flaunt and trumpet his private sex life with his comrades in arms (which I would surmise that the military's cultural norms would prevent and limit to friendly discourse among the most trusted squadmates, just as it does for actual closeted homosexuals within the context of their friendships and familial relationships for many). <br /><br />For the record, I don't think this is as widespread a problem as is commonly believed, but it's pretty obvious to me that the true problem isn't going to be homosexuality or gender equality in serving line units. It's homophobia and sexism.Sun Tzuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03435848395263035323noreply@blogger.com