Balance

I'm actually happy that Scott Brown was sworn in as Massachusetts Senator today. It has nothing to do with party affiliation as I consider myself an Independent.

No, I may be in the minority, but the reason I am happy is because I don't think either party should have a filibuster-proof super-majority. Whichever party is in power should have to listen to the other party. There should be some consensus required to pass legislation. The last decade or so has seen party politics take an ugly turn to the point where politicians would rather vote against something just to throw a wrench in the other party's legislation than try to work out a compromise.

Like in a marriage, members of a legislative body need to compromise and give a little to gain a lot. While back room deals and pork bribes weigh down bills and laws, having to listen to the other guy should create better laws because more than one side is being considered.

Just remember, if you are mad because the Democrats lost their super-majority, next time the Republicans get 60 votes, they can do whatever they want. Turnabout is fair play and isn't it better to play nice to begin with? As we all should have learned as children, if you are nice when you are on top, you are less likely to be beaten up when you fall. Violent revolutions tend to overthrow repressive regimes, not permissive ones.

Really, there are good and bad arguments on both sides of the aisle. Maybe this will force them to cut the chaff so the wheat can rise to the top.

Just my opinion

Ok, a few things I just don't get:

Politicians get elected on a platform of spending money on schools, educating children, children are our future, invest in education, school reform, etc, etc, etc. As soon as they are in office, they cut school funding. For an interesting study on the topic of education spending and future savings (prisons, crime prevention) read this. Spending on education reduces crime, meaning less spending on prisons, plus generally leads to less spending on welfare.

The military complains that it is tough to recruit, yet they manufacture reasons to keep people out with policies like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which have no bearing on a person's ability to perform the job.

I'm reading the current issue of National Geographic, the cover story of which is about the FLDS. Now, I don't agree with plural marriage and certainly don't understand why someone would do it (I don't share well, that way), but why the witch hunts? It seems as long as something is between consenting adults, can we stay out of people's bedrooms? And let me just state for the record that I get the objections and court cases in regards to teenage girls being forced to marry middle-aged men. There are already laws about that without getting into whether she's a first wife or a fifth wife. And cases where someone marries multiple times where the spouses don't know? That's not consenting.

In conjunction with the above, why do some heterosexual couples feel their marriages are somehow threatened or lessened by people unlike them getting married? But I've already covered this topic recently, so I'll let my previous post speak for itself.

A guest post

A friend of ours, Nicole, wrote a really good essay about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military. I asked if I could share it here and so, with her permission, here it is:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell 

I get nervous on stairs; my heart races dangerously when I feel

someone walking too closely behind me; I'm out of shape and

prone more to dialogue than action. I am no soldier.

I don't have the resolve to put on armor to face not only an 

enemy's bullet, but a citizen's disdain. If that citizen is the 

one on foreign soil, I imagine it's frustrating and confusing; 

if that citizen is one of your countrymen, I imagine it's 

enraging and heart wrenching. My deepest hope is that 

the latter is infrequent because though I may be your 

ideological opposite, I am grateful for your ability and 

willingness to act on behalf of those who will not and cannot.

Just as I am no soldier, I cannot envision a soldier's life. Intense 

training against imaginary opponents leading to life-threatening deployment against real threats. Pepper that with a lot of down 

time where your military company becomes family and your 

ability to get along with and trust your colleagues could mean 

the difference between life and death. When times are quiet, 

you're left to prepare and live in conditions that are, at best, 

not like home and, at worst, hostile and primitive. I imagine 

the lag time is when you build bonds and seek out soldiers 

whose personalities, ideologies and training you trust most 

to keep close and watch your back.

However, there are those in the company, just as with any 

situation, whose behaviors and skills you don't respect as much. 

But, barring anything truly egregious, you move forward because 

you put trust into the training you were given and a soldier's ability 

to put aside differences in times of war. As bullets fly, I assume 

you will fight with and for that soldier as wholeheartedly as your 

best buddy. And then, once that battle is won and your nerves 

restore, you align yourself again with your closest allies to heal 

and de-stress but, possibly, look to that other soldier and his ability 

to serve and survive with more respect.

Again, I'm no soldier and I will never fully understand the 

bonds created and the necessity for company cohesion that 

exists when lives are at stake. But I think civilians look to 

soldiers to uphold a certain sense of decorum and dignity 

just as we would a civil servant like a police officer or 

firefighter. And maybe that's unfair; maybe we should 

acknowledge that soldiers are often young and venturing 

beyond their parent's doorstep for the first time. Maybe we 

should forgive their brashness as a mere symptom of the 

toughness it takes to be in combat. And I get that, I do; I think 

that it takes a certain machismo (both in men and women) 

to risk your own life for such an intangible thing as 'freedom'. 

I think it would take someone or something pushing me to my 

limits for me to take up arms against another person, but even 

with my beliefs I do believe war is sometimes necessary. But 

these men and women enter the service with free will and, 

mostly, under conditions of stateside peace. I respect them 

for that.

I respect each and every one of them for that; black and white, 

male and female, younger and older, Christian and Muslim, 

gay and straight. Each and every one of them has left their 

homes and their families in search of careers, stability, honor, 

service and love of country. But, we are currently at a crossroads 

within our military with Obama's promise to repeal Don't Ask, 

Don't Tell and there are those that fear this decision will change 

the entire makeup of the U.S. military. To them I want to ask...

and explain...so very much.

I want to understand how they think a person's sexuality affects 

their pride in their country; if anything, a gay citizen might be 

forgiven by many for having lost respect in the U.S. as a beacon 

of freedom and hope. But the gay soldier is still willing to 

serve a country that does not always serve him.

I want to understand how they believe a person's sexual 

orientation itself could cause commotion in the barracks; if 

anything, it is the miseducation and fear-mongering surrounding homosexuality that would lead to incidents rather than the 

gay soldier's actions. I've read today comparisons between

homosexuality and pedophilia; I've read today that the 

straight soldiers should fear gay men in the shower; I've read 

today that if gay men are allowed to share quarters with 

straight men then they should just mix the genders because 

it'd be like having a woman in there anyway.

When you read such things, it's so disturbing and deflating to 

all the supposed progress our community has made in the 

past few decades. In 2010, we're still comparing two adults 

engaging in consensual sex or enjoying loving relationships 

to an adult preying on children. In 2010, there is still a 

pervasive idea that gay men are attracted to each and every

man or that lesbian women will be after you merely because 

you're a woman. There is no furthered understanding that our

preferences are not tied to gender, but that gender is tied to 

our preferences.

And in 2010, there is an undercurrent of belief that homosexuals 

are hedonistic and immoral people who have no self-control 

over their sexual impulses. As if any soldier, gay or straight, 

trained to use high- powered weaponry to defend his country 

couldn't keep control over his hard-on. Every soldier faces 

the most extreme factions on foreign soil; they are our defenders, 

but also our diplomats and I expect them to act with a sense of 

understanding that they are the symbol of our nation to people 

that have potentially heard nothing good. I expect that of our

soldiers and if, under those circumstances they can remain 

calm and rational, I definitely expect the same should a gay 

soldier offer to take them out for dinner.

When women were finally allowed to serve in combat, some 

of these same arguments were given. The male soldiers wouldn't 

be able to stay focused if female pheromones were in the air; 

that the masculine bonding that occurs when women aren't present 

would be disrupted and lives would be lost; that the women 

wouldn't be safe on long deployments and how could the men 

be expected to control their impulses.

And, granted, there have been too many instances of sexual 

assault in the military and gender biases are still prevalent but, 

overall, the integration has been successful for one reason: 

there are bigger issues at hand than libido and your own 

personal ideology. I think, implemented carefully, the repeal 

of DADT will be a positive change for our military for the

same reason. And should any soldier not hold themselves to 

that expected sense of decorum and dignity, gay or straight, 

may they incur the legal and civil punishment given by a 

court of law. When you're called to serve, you are chosen 

for your ability to complete a mission. You are called because 

you have the appropriate weapons training or linguistic education 

or science background and, should the world work how it is 

supposed to, the most talented in these areas will be chosen 

for those skills alone.

But, of course, the process will be slow. Soldiers acknowledge, 

and take pride, that military foundations are built on tradition 

and conservative values. There are codes of conduct that 

exist in the books and ones that remain unspoken but adhered 

to as if written in blood. It will take brave soldiers to step 

forward and lead the way for the gay and lesbian soldiers

that wait for calmer seas; it will take top Brass, , both active 

and retired, stepping forward and claiming their sexuality; it 

will take strong straight allies who educate and advocate on 

behalf of their gay brothers and sisters in arms. It will take years.

For those that feel the 'gay agenda' is being pushed down their 

throats, I ask you to step outside your own beliefs for a short 

period and look up heterosexual privilege. Just like white 

privilege or male privilege, it explores the unspoken advantages 

that a majority enjoys without even considering them to be 

advantages. You've heard so many in other civil rights discussions; 

the ability to walk down the street at night without being fearful 

(male privilege), the ability to walk through a department store 

without being watched more closely (white privilege) and the

ability to talk about your partner in your workplace (heterosexual

privilege).

I'm far from the most P.C. person you'll ever meet; I have my 

biases and discriminations that I feed and I fight but when 

pushed I always come back to the thought "even if that person 

really wasn't being discriminated against, they 'felt' they were 

and that has to have a huge impact on their psyche". That's just 

my way of keeping myself in check when I want to rail against 

someone's call of misogyny or racism or homophobia (yes, I

get mad about this one too). But, step outside yourself and try 

to feel, truly feel, what it would feel like to be judged for 

something over which you have no control (and I'm not getting 

into 'choice' discussions here re: homosexuality).

Now, try to imagine what that would feel like with bullets 

whizzing by and 'freedom' on the line.