Thursday, December 9, 2010

Doesn't Belong


I was just reading some of Lori Heine's blog post on David Horowitz' NewsReal Blog (h/t Bubba), and I've been following the public debate over DADT between the military brass, the Pentagon, and Congress.  Plus, I've read the sources that I've come to trust most regarding anything to do with the US Armed Forces: the very astute preachings over at BLACKFIVE, where I subscribe more toward Grim's sentiments, than Uncle Jimbo's.  That's unusual, because I'm almost always in agreement with the Uncle.

On the other hand, I do seem to always agree with Miss Coulter, who helps to remind us that there are reasonable limits to the concept of "tolerance."  Miss Ann submits:

We've heard 1 billion times about the Army translator who just wanted to serve his country, but was cashiered because of whom he loved.

I'll see your Army translator and raise you one Bradley Manning. According to Bradley's online chats, he was in "an awkward place" both "emotionally and psychologically." So in a snit, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.

Isn't that in the Army Code of Conduct? You must follow orders at all times. Exceptions will be made for servicemen in an awkward place. Now, who wants a hug? Waitress! Three more apple-tinis!"
Lori Heine would have you subscribe to the notion that gays in the military are only dangerous in that "well, they have guns."  Combat soldiers have guns, dipshit...not your Army translators.  If they'd have all been armed at Ft. Hood, I'll bet Maj. Hassan (terrorist, muslim) would have either A) not killed as many real soldiers or B) never hatched such a scheme in the first place.

And the point Ann Coulter makes is that a soldier's duty exists regardless of his/her frame of mind.  A person's fitness to serve takes into account (or certainly should) the general state of that person's mind, and anyone whose sexuality is that screwed up so as to prefer that which is unnatural, ought to at least raise some skepticism on the fitness report, much like any Army Major who spends his free time hanging with sharia-loving disciples of that reknowned pedophile Mohammed.

Let me remind you, homosexuality is a perversion, and no less of one than beastiality, necrophilia, or pedophilia.  If you and I are repulsed at that behavior, it's safe to assume that most soldiers (and sailors and airmen) are similarly disgusted.  If you aren't repulsed, fine.  But don't go around making up labels like "homophobia" to make me feel guilty for my intolerance.  And don't ascribe terms like that to a soldier's level of tolerance or lack thereof.


I'd delayed publishing this to let it stew a bit...

This morning, I read another essay by Ann Coulter on the subject.  Just as I had been thinking (that's the way it goes--I'm busy thinking it, and she says it), there's no reason we shouldn't just dedicate a special branch of the military just for those pillow-biters who "want to serve their country."  I put the quotation marks around the previous phrase because I don't believe for a minute that they're serving anything other than their own whimsy.

I was unaware that today's military employs "sensitivity training facillitators" or why such should ever, ever be necessary.  It's the Marine Corps, you dipshits, fuck a bunch of sensitivity.

Again, Miss Coulter:

Why can't the Army and Marines have their own rules? Why does everything have to be the same? Whatever happened to "diversity"?

Maybe we could have an all-gay service! They'd be allowed to wear camouflage neckerchiefs (a la Paul Lynde) and camo capri pants. To avoid any sexual harassment claims, they'd have to have their own barrack, which we could outfit with a dance club, a cosmo bar and a counseling center called "The Awkward Place." Their band would mostly play show tunes, and soldiers captured by the enemy would be taught to reveal only their name, rank and seasonal color analysis ("I am Private First Class Jeffrey Smith and I'm a 'winter.'")

They wouldn't be allowed in combat, however, for the same reason women aren't –- it takes them too long to get ready.
If you were a soldier, you'd strive to be the best soldier in the best outfit, and there would be no place for weakness in your squad.  A little bit of cowardice or distraction puts everyone at risk, and you'd be right (as it should be within your rights) to employ some considered discrimination.  A soldier's life is too big a price to pay for social engineering.

No comments:

Post a Comment