Worst Argument Ever Against DADT Repeal

So apparently, there is a website called (ironically enough) "The American Thinker." And apparently, this website employs someone known as "Robin of Berkeley." I can't find any pictures of Ms. OfBerkeley, so I will just go ahead and assume that this is a fairly accurate artist's rendition:

 

Anyway, here is Robin of Berkeley's resoned argument for keeping Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Repeal!

By Robin of Berkeley

The debate about repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," now passed into law, has triggered a long-repressed memory of mine from the '70s. 

Wow, a memory repressed for almost 30 years! It must have been horribly traumatic! Were you attacked by a gang of "wilding" youth? Witness a murder? Did you see terrible things in 'Nam?

  It was when I was hit on by a woman. 

Oh my God, that must have been horrible! Wait, what? When you say "hit on," do you mean she assaulted you? Tried to force you into sex? Groped you against your will? What horrible thing did this woman do?

I was changing in the locker room when one of the women in the class, Judy, stared at me lasciviously.  I automatically turned away and got the heck out of there.  

Um, yeah. Okay. That's what your subconscious repressed for almost 3 decades? Being looked at? 

I mean, granted, if that did really happen, I could see where that would make you uncomfortable. Of course, I'm used to it by now, being the insanely handsome devil that I am, but sure, I could see feeling a bit awkward. 

I felt unnerved, repelled.  Guys had looked at me that way.  And if I liked them, then I relished the attention.  But a girl eyeing at me that way?  That made me very uncomfortable.

Usually, this sort of paragraph is preceded by the phrase "Dear Penthouse Forum. . ."

At the time, my reaction proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to me that I was straight.  

You needed proof?   It's usually pretty easy to tell. I find women attractive, so I'm "straight." I don't really need to prove anything. You don't find women attractive, so you are also "straight." There's really no "proof" involved. And I have to assume the lesbian population of Berkeley isn't spending a whole lot of time mourning the loss. 

 Fortunately, at that time, there wasn't any peer pressure on youth, at least in that realm.  Back then, the media and the schools weren't pitching homosexuality. 

Okay, first of all, in what time period did you live in which there was no peer pressure? The Mesozoic? And secondly, who the hell is "pitching homosexuality?" And is that supposed to be a pseudo-clever "pitcher/catcher" joke?  'Cause it's been done to  death.

Seriously, though, who is "pitching homosexuality?" The media? I can't remember the last time I saw a  gay character on TV. Oh, wait, I saw a rerun of Will and Grace the other day. But somehow, I managed to not get turned gay! 

 

ooh, that almost did it!

And I haven't been in a school for quite a while, but I think there would have been quite an uproar if the teachers were giving how to be gay lessons to the kids. Remember the hue and cry over "Heather Has Two Mommies?" Just having a book in the library that acknowledged that some people are gay was too much of an outrage for parents to tolerate. 

 

 Of course, we live in different times.  If the same incident happens to a young girl today, she feels pressured to loosen up, lighten up, and experiment.  This is why polls show that an astounding number of girls from 13 to 21 have had least one lesbian encounter.  

Well, it's hard to argue against that kind of evidence. An astounding number, you say? Why I remember just a few years ago when it was merely a surprising number. Of course, in my day,  only a paltry number of teen girls had "lesbian encounters," so that proves, um, something? I guess? By the way, this is what I found about that "astounding number" using a research method known as "googling it":

(source)

You may have seen this amazing news headline: 1 in 10 Teens Has Had a Same-Sex Partner. The story on AOL Health begins this way:
Nearly one in ten teens has had a same-sex partner — double what previous research has shown, according to a surprising new study. . .
The only problem with this revelation is that it’s false. If the reporter for AOL had taken time to read just the abstract for the Pediatrics article she may have seen the heading “CONCLUSIONS” (in all caps) and noted this summary:

Of sexually active adolescents, 9.3% reported a same-sex partner, a higher estimate than other published rates.

AOL speaks of 1 in 10 teens; the original article concludes 9.3% of sexually active adolescents reported a same-sex partner. There’s a big difference. The survey analyzed data from 17,220 teenagers. Of those, 7,261 (or 42%) reported having had sex. So according this study 58% of teens are not having sex with anyone and 9.3% of those have, had same-sex partners, or 3.9% of the total sample.

Back in my day, it would have been odd for a girl to have a homosexual experience.  These days, the oddballs are the kids who don't give in to peer pressure. 

Um, the kids who don't give in to peer pressure have always been considered the "oddballs."  And by your logic, 94% of today's teens are "oddballs" who don't give in to peer pressure.

And the pressure is not just from other kids.  Television shows, magazine articles, even some teachers shout out the message to indulge in every possible sexual predilection.  Rather than "give peace a chance," the new national vibe is give hedonism a chance!

Yes, that's exactly what's happening. Teachers everywhere are inviting students to orgies and bondage clubs. That's it exactly. That's a totally realistic assumption.
So, anyway, what does your one encounter with someone who may have ogled you in a locker room ahve to do with our nation's military policies?

A couple of years ago, in my leftist days, I would have been a strong proponent of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  But now that I take a few moments to actually think about things, the commingling of out-of-the-closet gays and straights in our military seems like a disaster in the making.

Given the stresses of service -- long stretches away from family, depression, and loneliness, not to mention the adrenaline surge of war -- isn't it a potential problem for so much sexual tension to be circulating in the air? 

You know, it's not prison!
 

They do get shore leave. They do have access to potential sexual partners of whichever gender they prefer.

Frankly, I'm even questioning whether men and women should serve together for long periods of time in such intimate circumstances.  Hasn't that alone led to unintended pregnancies and affairs?

No, serving together for long periods doesn't alone lead to unwanted pregnancies. You see, when a mommy and a daddy really love each other, and they want to make a baby. . . you know what, just ask your mom. 

Personally, I wouldn't like it one bit if I were stuck in a tent -- or a submarine -- with someone like Judy.  

I'm sure it wouldn't be a day at the beach for Judy, either. Of course, part of being in the military is doing things that you don't like one bit, like, say, getting shot at. Why should having to bunk with Judy be any different? "Sarge, I'll go charge that machine-gun nest at the top of the hill through the minefield, but I can't share a tent with Judy, she makes me feel uncomfortable."

Progressive readers will brand me a homophobe for saying what I'm saying.  I'm not homophobic, but I am a realist. 

Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what does. Just like I may be afraid of heights, but I'm not an acrophobe.

  War creates a level of stress that we civilians cannot understand. 

But why should we let that stop us from opining on it?

It's not coincidental that most of the politicians voting to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"  have never served in the military themselves.

Well, I'm pretty sure that Admiral Mike Mullen did. I think General Colin Powell did also. And they both came out in support of the repeal. So did 70% of active duty troops who answered the Pentagon's survey. 
But I guess that doesn't mean a whole lot when stacked up against the fact that you once got ogled by a woman in a locker room. 

Questionable Christmas Songs (2nd Annual)

1. The Little Drummer Boy.



Here's the problem with the Little Drummer Boy:  imagine your friend just had a baby. You go tot he maternity ward to visit. There's the new mother and the new father and the tiny little newborn baby, and you say "Gee, Bill and Susan, I didn't have enough money to get you a proper baby gift (I am a poor boy, too) but here is what I will do. I give you the gift of music." Then bang out a killer drum solo. How popular do you think you would be right then with Bill and Susan?
I don't claim to be any sort of baby expert, but here's what I do know about babies. They sleep. A lot. They really are just the laziest little people you'd ever want to meet. They sleep, they drink, and they pee themselves and cry. They're basically glorified winos. So the one thing that any parent of a newborn does not want is for someone to wake the baby. Because if he ain't sleeping, he's soiling himself and crying and no one wants that. Or he's reachin' for the boobies. Babies are freakin' obsessed with boobies! It's really just unseemly. Get over it babies, they're just boobies! Geez!
Anyway, if this kid came into the stable and started rum-a-tum-tumming on his little drum, Joseph would have thrown him out on his ear. And no way does the baby smile at him. I know he's Jesus, but still, he has his limits.

And baby Jesus is a way better drummer than you, anyway.

Here he is pounding out the solo from "Moby Dick"

2. Walking in a Winter Wonderland.

 

This is not, strictly speaking, a Christmas song at all. There is no mention of Christmas in the lyrics at all. (Why do they hate America?) But it is in heavy rotation around the Holidays, so I'm including it here. In the middle of the song there is this odd verse:

In the meadow we can build a snowman,
Then pretend that he is Parson Brown

He'll say: Are you married?
We'll say: No man,
But you can do the job
When you're in town.

Okay, first of all, what kind of dirty hippies address the parson as "Man?" When the parson asks you a question the answer is "yes, sir" or "No, Reverend"  you don't talk to a man of the cloth like he's one of your crazy beatnik friends. You show some goddamned respect!

Secondly, if you built a snowman and he asks you a question, I'm pretty sure that the proper response is "AIEEEE!!!! A Talking Snowman!!!!!" Then you run. Run like the wind and never look back. And don't stop running until you are home behind a locked door. And let's never speak of this to anyone.

 

3. Baby It's Cold Outside.

Again, not strictly speaking a Christmas song. But I include it here because I want to say something to the male singer in this duet. NO MEANS NO! 

Also, I think at one point, he slips her a mickey. 

The neighbors might think - Baby, it's bad out there
Say, what's in this drink?

That's pretty suspicious. Sounds to me like he might have roofied her. And that's not in keeping with the Holiday spirit. Actually, there isn't any time of year when that would be acceptable. What the hell? Why is there a Christmas song about date rape? That's really horrible.

And on that note,

HAPPY FESTIVUS!

Or Christmas

Or Channukah

Or whatever you  young people celebrate these days.

Damn kids!

 

The AFA's Bryan Fischer May Have Topped Himself

Fischer is usually a crazy little prick, but this time he may have reached a new low (or high, depending on your perspective)

Today he starts out with this:

President Obama likes the “U.N. Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” He says it can “help reaffirm the principles that should guide our future.”   

Now any normal person would read that and say, "Oh, the Prez likes human rights, or at least likes paying lip-service to human rights, that's sorta nice." But Bryan Fischer is not a normal person. Not by a long shot!

This declaration - which carries”considerable moral and political force,” don’t forget - contains this little gem of a paragraph, in Article 26: 

  

“Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired,” and nations “shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources.” 

Okay. That seems fair. But only to a normal person. Because this is the conclusion Bryan Fischer draws:

In other words, President Obama wants to give the entire land mass of the United States of America back to the Indians. He wants Indian tribes to be our new overlords. 

While I, for one, would welcome our new Indian overlords, because really, how much worse could they possibly do?  there is no way Barack Obama would turn over the USA to Native Americans. They're not Muslim!

So maybe Fischer is joking, hmm? Not a chance!

I see no reason why the president, after he leaves office, can’t submit himself to the authority of any Indian tribe he wants to. Perhaps he figures that, as an adopted Crow Indian, he will be the new chief over this revived Indian empire. 

Um, where to begin? First, there never was any "Indian empire" in the land now known as the USA, so such an empire couldn't ever be revived. The Natives in North America were organized into dozens of tribes, some of whom fought against each other and -- fuck! haven't you ever seen a John Ford movie? Now south of the border, sure, you had your Inca empire in Peru and your Aztec and Maya in what is now Mexico, but no "Indian Empire" ever existed up here.

Second, if there was some new "Indian Empire" why would they put a non-Indian in charge? He knows nothing of their ways!

And third, fuck you!

You know, there was a time when someone like Bryan Fischer would have been relegated to standing on a milk crate on a street corner with a battery-powered bullhorn, but now this nutso gets taken seriously.

Happy Secession Day!

Actually, it was yesterday, but why quibble? This is the time of year when all real Americans come together to celebrate the folks who went to war against the United States largely to preserve the institution of slavery!


Charleston, SC is the hub of secession celebrating activity. Oh, wait, did I say celebrating? No, of course they aren't really celebrating!

(from the Charleston Post & Courier)
The organizers of the South Carolina Secession Gala — the biggest event of the day — said they were merely remembering history, not celebrating the controversial aspects of the Civil War and the role of slavery in the conflict.

Right, because everyone knows that there is nothing celebratory about a gala! I still tear up a little when I remember my grandfather's funeral gala. Oh, the dancing, the music, the ball gowns. . . so somber.

Although, this account from the Guardian of London seems to indicate that maybe there might have been just a teensy bit of celebration:

More than 600,000 men lost their lives during four years of carnage. In South Carolina, almost a quarter of the men who fought died.

For the 300 or so who assembled for the "secession ball", the tone was one of pride and resilience rather than regret. The guests were exclusively white; the only black people present were security guards wearing uniforms in navy blue, the colour of the union army.

The evening began with a theatrical re-enactment of the signing that culminated in a rousing oration. Those southerners who died did so, the narrator said "not to preserve the institution of slavery, not for glory or riches or honour, but for freedom alone. The spirit of the south still stands!"

"Yeah!" "All right!" came shouts from the audience. Then the auditorium stood in unison to sing Dixie, the anthem of the south. "Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land."

Michael Givens, commander in chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said the Secession Gala honored the bravery and resolve of people willing to defend their homes, The (Charleston) Post and Courier reported.
"These people are to be honored, whether you agree with their politics or not," Givens said. "We're very happy that there's no slavery today. If there's one thing we can celebrate, we can celebrate the demise of that dark part of our history -- that there is no slavery in America."

Yes, let's celebrate that. Let's celebrate the end of slavery in America, on this the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation!  Oh, but wait! This isn't that anniversary! This is the anniversary of secession! The day that the people of the Confederate States decided to risk their lives, limbs and fortunes in order to KEEP slavery! I got a little mixed up there. If there's one thing we can celebrate, it's that there is no more slavery. If there are two things, I would think we could celebrate the end of slavery and, um, slavery!

. . . one spokesman called the secession movement in S.C. “a demonstration of freedom” and denied that secession had anything to do with slavery. 

          (CL)
Just like the World Series has nothing to do with baseball.
Of course, the Declarations of Secession would seem to disagree with that.

From South Carolina's:

. . . an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations
. . .the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals
. . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. 

 From Georgia's:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
 . . . We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation

 From Mississippi's:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. . . and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union

 And of course, Texas:

In all the non-slave-holding States. . . the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

Because when there's a who can be the biggest ass contest, always bet on Texas! ( I know there are many wonderful Texans - Jim Hightower, The late great Molly Ivins, Blueberry, etc.)

Aaaaaanyway, the driving force behind the treason day parties seems to be the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who are just a swell bunch of guys. Really, just, what a fun group!



 

The citizen-soldiers who fought for the Confederacy personified the best qualities of America. The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to fight the Second American Revolution. 

Liberty, freedom, slavery. . . hmmm. One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Come on, you know the words, sing along!

Today, the Sons of Confederate Veterans is preserving the history and legacy of these heroes, so future generations can understand the motives that animated the Southern Cause.

If by "heroes" you mean "traitors" and by "understand the motives"  you mean "pretend that slavery had nothing to do with it," then yeah. 

If you are interested in perpetuating the ideals that motivated your Confederate ancestor,[racism] the SCV needs you. The memory and reputation of the Confederate soldier, as well as the motives for his suffering and sacrifice, are being consciously distorted by some [mainly us] in an attempt to alter history. 

 
Let's give one of these fine gentlemen the last word:

Mark Simpson, commander of the South Carolina branch of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which sponsored the ball, said the line that the war was fought over slavery was spin, used by detractors of the south to discredit them. "Slavery was an issue, yes, but only because it was the economic lifeblood of the south."

Wow. Just, wow.

Scary Quote of the Day

"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks,"

What makes this quote scary rather than merely nutty? It's from the man who will soon be in charge of the House Banking committee. 

Alabama Republican Spencer Bachus.





 Who, coincidentally, looks like Mr. Humphries from "Are You Being Served?"