The Military just took a Left Turn

Comments Off

From the Washington Post…this makes me so proud…to know that our Military now will be subjected to this. Next will be the colonel that needs his lovetoy German Shepard, or the Gunny Sergeant that wants his rights a a child molester out in the open.  I’m sorry colonels and gunny’s to even use you in the same sentences, but this sick “gay is a right” stuff needs to stop.  This congress, and everyone that keeps pushing this stuff on all of us needs to be flushed down the toilet now.

This story would make you think that almost all of the military is gay.  Well it isn’t, and what part isn’t doesn’t want to know that their foxhole buddy is, no more than I want to share my sex life with my collegues. It’s time to make this an issue again with politicians, stop it, stop it, STOP IT.  God is going to judge us soon enough, we need not take the fast lane there…

Gay troops cautiously optimistic following ‘don’t ask’ repeal
By Ernesto Londono
Washington Post Foreign Service

 

KABUL – The gay Army lieutenant’s heart had been racing all night.

Shuffling between meetings at his outpost in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday night, the 27-year-old officer kept popping his head into the main office to catch a glimpse of Fox News’s coverage of the Senate debate that led to a vote lifting the ban on gay men and lesbians serving in the military openly.

“Don’t cry,” a 21-year-old specialist, one of the lieutenant’s confidants, told his boss jokingly when news broke that 65 senators had voted to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

“I’m completely numb,” was all the lieutenant could mutter.

Across the world, other gay troops whose lives, careers and relationships have been indelibly, if sometimes quietly, shaped by the ban reacted to the news with a mixture of rapture and disbelief.

Many had seethed for weeks as the political debate over the repeal became laden with sexual innuendo and suggestions that openly gay soldiers on the front lines might become life-threatening distractions.

“I was flipping out,” the lieutenant said Saturday night, speaking by phone. “This turned into a [expletive] political fight. We were caught in the middle of it. But the people who it affects the most couldn’t do anything about it. We felt used.”

The stakes were also high for the specialist. His brother is gay and had vowed to join the Air Force if the policy were repealed this year. Their father is also gay, which made attending military events somewhat awkward for the family.

“It just made for a weird situation,” he said.

As the debate intensified in recent months, several service members became emboldened. Many began voicing their positions bluntly and openly through outlets such as Facebook and Twitter.

This summer, active-duty gay troops started an underground lobbying group called Out Serve. Members joined by word of mouth, forming chapters across the country, in war zones and in other countries with large U.S. military contingents.

They called key senators thought to be on the fence, telling them of the toll the policy had taken on their careers and personal lives.

“We are hoping to get this issue taken care of ASAP,” the chapter president of troops stationed in Germany, a 26-year-old Air Force staff sergeant, said in an interview the night before the vote. “We do not want to run out of time with this Congress. We believe this will be a very hard issue to sell to the next Congress.”

Some had become all but hopeless.

“I honestly have closed myself off to relationships, because they were either closeted relationships or there was just too much to hide,” said a 26-year-old helicopter mechanic who recently completed a tour in Afghanistan.

A 31-year-old Army medic deployed in western Iraq said the policy has hurt his career.

“DADT has made me afraid to report discrimination,” the specialist said in an interview over instant messaging. “I feel that I’m passed over [for promotion] because I am gay.”

Cautiously optimistic, the Air Force staff sergeant and a dozen of his gay comrades headed out Saturday night to the Yours Australian Bar, a pub in Frankfurt.

Struggling to hear over the din of bar chatter, rock music and a soccer match, they monitored the hearing on C-SPAN and CNN using iPhones. When the news broke, they roared.

“We cheered like the Germans do for a win during a soccer match,” the staff sergeant said from the bar, using instant messaging to communicate from his cellphone. The other patrons looked bemused as the soldiers toasted the news while they ate burgers and drank Foster’s beer.

Gay service members interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because the “don’t ask” policy will remain in effect until President Obama signs the bill.

For some, the news was bittersweet. That was the case for a 28-year-old West Point Army captain who resigned from active duty this spring after wrestling for years with deprivation, loneliness and half-truths. His boyfriend was sitting next to him.

“Oh God, oh God,” the decorated captain, who served two tours in Iraq, said by phone from Dallas as the vote neared. “My heart was thumping.”

Text messages began pouring in as soon as the tally was announced.

“So when are you back on active duty?” wrote a straight intelligence officer who served with him in Iraq in 2009.

“LOL. I dunno,” the captain responded.

“Let me know so I can get stationed there,” the intelligence officer wrote back. “I work with a lot of morons. It’d be nice to have a battle [buddy] with some common sense and discipline again.”

Some service members wondered how the military will implement the repeal and how straight troops will react to the change, particularly in combat units, which tend to be more conservative.

“The majority of younger, rank-and-file guys will be fine with it,” said Marine Capt. Tom Garnett, who is straight and a reservist at a Virginia law school. “But we are a conservative service, and one angry Marine makes a lot more noise than 30 ambivalent Marines.(You can bank on that!)

At the outpost in eastern Afghanistan, the lieutenant appeared undisturbed about not having all the answers right away as he and the specialist sat in the outpost’s tactical operations center.

“I have no idea how the process is going to be,” he said. “But we know what the end state is. There’s not a whole lot of ambiguity.”

FCC wants the Internet

Comments Off

The last bastion of freedom is being back-doored by the FCC….read this article from the Wall Street Journal:

By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government’s reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called “net neutrality” have been calling for strong regulation of broadband “on-ramps” to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being “data driven” in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

It wasn’t long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet’s privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.

David Klein
mcdowell

mcdowell

Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court’s April 6 rebuke of the commission’s regulatory overreach.

In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.

Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus.

After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a “choice” between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC’s action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of “reasonable” network management for years to come. How’s that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn’t ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter’s night for Internet freedom.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers