Terminalcoffee discussion
Rants / Debates (Serious)
>
WTF is going on (and other general WTFs)?
I wish it would just be no big deal. Gays can say they're gay, if they choose. They do the same as heteros and don't harass, don't do pda's, don't have sex while on duty. Be cool. And if they don't want to deal, that's a choice, too.
Scout wrote: "I wish it would just be no big deal. Gays can say they're gay, if they choose. They do the same as heteros and don't harass, don't do pda's, don't have sex while on duty. Be cool. And if they d..."If they don't want to deal?
Actually heteros do harrass the women serving with them.
I support the repeal of DADT and if people don't want to serve with openly gay members of the military, they should not re-up next time. Then they can go out into the working world and work with openly gay people there.
Lori wrote: "Actually heteros do harrass the women serving with them."I've always said that those who don't want to serve with gays are really saying, "I'm afraid I might have to deal with someone who I don't want to have sex with being sexually attracted to me." My answer, "Welcome to the lives of most women."
Sorry I wasn't clear. By saying "if they don't want to deal", I meant that gays may not want to deal with the complications of coming out, and that's a choice, too. Good points, Kate.
Scout wrote: "Sorry I wasn't clear. By saying "if they don't want to deal", I meant that gays may not want to deal with the complications of coming out, and that's a choice, too. Good points, Kate."If they don't want to "deal with the complications", are they allowed to live their lives in the closet if they choose, or do they still risk being discharged if somebody sees them out with their partner?
Larry wrote: "I think it's the latter, SP."I know that's what it is now, I'm just asking if that's how it is in Scout's vision.
The expiration of the Bush tax cuts for upper brackets would return a tiny bit of progressivity to the tax code, though even that is problematic under the continuing grip of our skewed tax and regulatory regimes.If we were able to impose a European style progressive Value Added Tax (VAT) which is a tax on goods passed along through the production process and to the consumer, progressive because it would only apply to luxury or high ticket items (Yachts, Bentleys, jewels, for instance) the nation could raise a significant amount of revenue without placing a further burden on the middle class and the working poor. Of course, like raising the historically and internationally depressed income tax rates on the wealthy in America, this would require us to infringe upon the comfort of what for Republicans and conservatives has become a protected class.
Figuring out how to apply taxes fairly isn’t terribly difficult. What’s difficult in this country is transcending the vested interests and propaganda weighing against it in the political arena. It comes down in no small part to what we’ve discussed before: significant numbers of Americans vote against their own economic interest.
I was discussing the U.S. economy with a friend while bike riding yesterday. I told him I believe a root cause of our troubles is that we don't produce much anymore. We're a nation driven by consumerism, and this has been bolstered by a decade or two of politicians telling us to "go shopping" to boost the economy.My friend didn't argue against my premise, but added one of his own. He, like Ron Paul, believes we need to stop devaluing the dollar, eliminate the Fed and get back on the gold standard. Really?
Ken, do you have it in you to post a treatise as to the wisdom of such a move?
Maybe he meant Goldfinger. It's an easy mistake. [image error]
I wonder if Honor Blackman has a sibling named Offer.
Oops, didn't see Pi had already started a thread on this...go here:http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/4...
I believe the Cuckoo Economics crowd fears the Fed with a febrile paranoia comparable to that with which the Elders of Zion, the Trilateral Commission, and One World Government put fear in the hearts of some, considered as they are to be diabolical, supernatural conspiracies ready to prevail in the blink of an eye. The Cuckooists not only consider all New Deal era financial and regulatory reforms as the first sign of the apocalypse, their goal when it comes to currency is a return to wampum as far as I can tell. Their notion is that in the pure economic state of nature, when disasters strike, such as recessions or depressions, nature must take its course (without government interference) no matter what despair and tumult the populace must suffer. Returning to the gold standard is nuts, but these days nutty ideas are commonly bantered in otherwise unlikely places (congress, the mainstream media).There’s nothing wrong with a consumer society as long as the actual consumers sustain enough income to continue consuming. As some of us have pointed our tirelessly and no doubt tiresomely, a result of historical levels of income disparity is that with larger and larger portions of before and after tax GDP going to a smaller and smaller group of people, those counted on to do the bulk of the consuming in America have less and less with which to do it. The top brackets sit on their money, or gamble with it in the derivatives market for instance.
American companies ship their jobs overseas in order to reduce their labor and environmental costs, while in the meantime reducing both jobs and income (or keeping it stagnant, which it has been for several decades)for workers here. As the consumers lose purchasing power, the economy suffers. Increasingly the same businesses sending their jobs overseas are also selling their products there, where societies with better income distribution retain purchasing power to consume goods. While these major enterprises do still enjoy our tax rates and our defense apparatus, the American worker and American consumer are fairly irrelevant by now.
Of course, once conservatives have achieved their goal of repealing the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries and returned to us a state of economic purity all will be like paradise once more. Then of course the debate will shift to the wisdom of the wheel, and the always controversial fire.
Mod
For a look back into history at how much damage the gold standard did during the 20s and 30s, read Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World.
I haven't followed the whole gold standard discussion so I don't know why Ron Paul thinks it would be some kind of panacea...
Our "leaders" still can't get it right on the wars, taxes and a whole host of other things, but today they finally managed to do the right thing with DADT.Senate Votes to Repeal DADT
Mod
Mod
The queers are so distracting they will cause those around them to lose limbs...
Big deal about nothing. People in the armed forces seem to be taking the practical approach. They've known all along that they've been serving with gays, and they're ok with that. People's personal lives aren't the concern of the government. A paradox when it comes to Republicans, who say they want less government control.
A big spread in USA Today last week focused on Newt Gingrich and a few other leading republicans denouncing President Obama for not embracing American exceptionalism. Their criticism stems from the president's response to a question about exceptionalism at a NATO press conference.Below is what the president said. I challenge you to find anything in it critical of the United States, or showing any lack of pride in his country. Yet Gingrich and others are trying to pound him with this.
Ignorant political windbag fuckholes.
=====================
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.
And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.
And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone.
WTF? Captain Owen Honors is demoted because of something he did in '06 and '07. He's the fall guy; surely his superiors knew what was going on. I'm all for repealing DADT, but punishing people retroactively? This guy was acting within the bounds at the time, and I don't see any malicious intent. Just crap, this is. I feel for this guy.
Again, personal attacks are meant to shut people up.
Scout, Owen Honors was demoted because of videos HE made and distributed. Just because his superiors may have known doesn't make him a "fall guy" it makes him the guy who got away with it for a while and then didn't get away with it. In addition, the videos didn't have anything to do with DADT. It is my understanding that they were made and distributed solely for the purpose of mocking homosexuals and lesbians.
Doesn't matter to me why they were made. Some from his command have said they were made to inform and to entertain. Okay, that's a fine motive, but the commander of that many personnel and that much hardware should be an adult. They shouldn't be working from the playbook of Alfred E. Neuman.What, me worry?
Phil wrote: "Doesn't matter to me why they were made. Some from his command have said they were made to inform and to entertain. Okay, that's a fine motive, but the commander of that many personnel and that much hardware should be an adult."Very true!
Mod
I think this guy was captain of a ship when this came down, so he must have been considered a good leader by his superiors. Times do change, and what he did was in '06. That's why I say WTF. Retroactive PC judgments have ruined a good man's career. If he did the same thing today, then he would be fair game.
Are we saying, then, that codes of conduct don't vary according to venue? We act the same in a school board meeting as we would on a ship at sea? At a strip club? In church? At home with our friends? I'm just saying that the guy was acting in accordance with the accepted rules on ship at the time. If not, his captain should have put a stop to what he was doing. No one seems to see this guy as someone who thought he was doing a good thing that was sanctioned by his superiors. We don't have to like what he did, but maybe we can see that he's not a bad guy. Maybe he showed poor judgment, but he didn't break any laws. Yet his career is destroyed.
Scout, we can see that his behavior is inappropriate for ANY leader in ANY setting. And while he may not have broken any laws, he sure as hell acted against the Navy rules and regulations, no matter how good a guy he is. This is not a "PC judgment"! It's his superiors disciplining him for conduct inappropriate to his position and his situation.
I am trying to ask this in as non-condemnatory way as possible--do you really think that what this guy did was no big deal, or are you trying to provoke debate?
Serious jobs require serious people.There are many things wrong with his actions.
To begin, he was in charge of ALL of the people on the ship, not just the pilots. He was the leader of the women, and of the "fags" too. If those videos were "good for morale," was that all-around, or just for those WASP males like himself?
Second, as a leader it's up to him to set the tone for the ship. Does the Navy really want a bunch of immature morons making fart jokes in charge of a warship? Do you? Is pandering to the least common denominator how leadership is demonstrated?
Finally, these are our tax dollars at work. Is this man a good representation of you? Me? Do you want him at the controls of nuclear weapons? Any weapons? "Hey Jocko, watch me piss on this warhead before I slam it up Saddam's ass!" No, thank you.
Scout wrote: "I think this guy was captain of a ship when this came down, so he must have been considered a good leader by his superiors. Times do change, and what he did was in '06. That's why I say WTF. Retroactive PC judgments have ruined a good man's career. If he did the same thing today, then he would be fair game. "Scout, nothing has changed in the last four years that would make him more fair game now than he was then. He's fair game because he violated the code of conduct and made some very poor decisions. DADT has nothing to do with this. I don't see anything wrong with holding a man responsible for his actions.
It's seriously beyond my comprehension that this even needs a discussion.
Same here, Lori. I don't understand how anyone in command could think making those videos, let alone showing them, was a good idea.
Let me say that I don't condone bullying or bigoted behavior. You all have good points, and I agree overall. I've thought about how to express more clearly what bothered me about Honors' demotion.Here it is. As I understand it, Honors was a young man under the command of his ship's captain when he made the videos. The captain should have put a stop to it immediately and demoted Honors if he was violating the code of conduct at the time.
Since the captain didn't demote Honors, it follows that Honors's behavior didn't violate the code at the time (or that the captain was turning a blind eye and neglecting his duty). In any case, Honors had every reason to think that his behavior was appropriate. He was even subsequently rewarded by being made captain of a ship.
Then, five years after making the videos, he's reprimanded and demoted. That just doesn't feel right to me.
As a teacher, I stopped kids in their tracks if they made fun of another student or made a bigoted remark. I was in charge, and I taught them about what was and wasn't acceptable behavior in the classroom. Honors wasn't taught this lesson until it was too late for him to salvage his career, and that's why I have sympathy for him.
Lori wrote: "It's seriously beyond my comprehension that this even needs a discussion."Hee. This is where I was, too...
Mod
That's pretty high up in the organization. Almost as high as you can get! He wasn't a kid. Does an adult - a second in command - really need to be told that raunchy, gay bashing videos are not "acceptable behavior?"
Mod
"Over the years, I've gotten several complaints about inappropriate material during these videos - never to me personally, but gutlessly through other channels," Honors said in one of the videos. "This evening, all of you bleeding hearts - and you, fag SWO boy - why don't you just go ahead and hug yourselves for the next 20 minutes or so, because there is a really good chance you're going to be offended tonight." SWO is the Navy acronym for Surface Warfare Officer, the large branch of the Navy dedicated to overseeing the service's fleet of ships." (Washington Post)
I really appreciate your making me feel heard and understood, Bun. I hear you, too. We don't have to agree on all points.
Wow, I so read that as, "I really appreciate your making me feel hard and understood."
Right on. There is always hope for understanding between reasonable, good-hearted people. I wish it were this simple for politicians, but there are so many forces driving them that have nothing to do with the good of the people. I long for statesmen and not politicians.
Is it OK to drive a firetruck to lunch? Our city council says yes: firemen have to eat, and they need the truck in case of a call.
The firemen around here drive it to the grocery store too.
Maybe it was take a fire truck to lunch day.
Terminalcoffee
Books mentioned in this topic
Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals (other topics)Room (other topics)
Mockingjay (other topics)
Catching Fire (other topics)
El cuaderno de Maya (other topics)
More...
"We send these young people into combat. We think they're mature enough to fight and die. I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve wi..."
Thanks Phil!