As I usually do on Sunday mornings--though much less enthusiastically than I used to--I watched some of the Sunday political shows. Meet the Press with David Gregory was frustrating as usual, because I've never liked Gregory's interviewing style. FOX "News" Sunday was, as always, a train wreck, this time foisting both Dana Perino and Liz Cheney on their viewing audience. By far the most interesting of the shows I watched was This Week with Christianne Amanpour, with much of the show taken up with a discussion on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
The discussion was interesting, but did nothing to convince me that there is any study needed, any implementation necessary or phasing in of a policy change called for. This is rather binary: either end the policy or don't. The "military readiness" claim is malarkey. Gay people exist in virtually every walk of life, and coexist quite well with others. This "homosexual panic" that homophobes like the two on the panel, Lt. Col. Bob McGuinness and Elaine Donnelly (who looks like her entire body is clenched) seem to think straight soldiers suffer from is ridiculous. The argument is basically saying that the gays themselves aren't the problem, it's the straights who will somehow lose the ability to fight if there is a gay person in their ranks. Ludicrous. Anyway, General Wesley Clark and the rest of the "good guys" on the panel presented themselves well.
I'm liking Amampour's show more and more each time I watch it. Her level of intelligence is obvious, and her approach to political news and commentary is several notches above Gregory's or (obviously) Chris Wallace's.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and my feelings about DADT is, it's a damn shame we're forcing good people to become liars just so they can serve in their country's military.
ReplyDeleteThere's a group of us who show up regularly for coffee and conversation at a local restaurant here in a rural, conservative part of Ohio. And recently we had a conversation about this very subject. In the course of the discussion one person brought up the old, "I think homosexuality is a choice argument."
I told him that in my case, I had never had such a hypothetical defining moment. A time when I made a decision about whether I was going to be either straight or gay. I had just, with no thought required, always been attracted to the opposite sex. So when I take into account the only evidence that I can be sure of, my own experiences. Why would I suppose that sexual orientation is not biological for everyone else as well?
I don't know if I actually changed any minds or not, but they all agreed they had never had to make the gay/straight either.
While this may not be conclusive evidence on this subject for some, it works for me.
Needless to say, GNOP, I agree with you, though I've never been in the military. Aside from having "teh gay," I also was born with a lazy eye AND a staggering lack of coordination. If there had ever been a draft when I was eligible, i'd have been stuck in a steno pool or something.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you're correct on the "choice" issue of course. I always put it this way: Imagine yourself on a park bench. A perfectly stunning girl walks by in a bikini. Then a perfectly stunning guy walks by in a Speedo. There would be no "decision" to make in how you reacted to either one. You don't "decide" to swivel your head around to the point of whiplash, it's a natural reaction to whichever one makes your boat float.
There are those of us who could appreciate the one we're not attracted to on an artistic level, but for many people, one of the two people would barely even register.
Our language was corrupted by euphamisms in the early days of the sexual revolution and gay liberation. "Alternative lifestyles" and "sexual preference" are both woefully inaccurate terms for sexual orientation, but we still get them (and variations of them) from both pro- and anti-gay sides. Both make orientation sound like a choice.