Is Harry Reid A Pig, Or Is It Just Me?

Mr. Harry Reid has been too busy to assist the repeal of DADT.  And I can see why.


My friend Michael Isikoff writes: Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader from Nevada, is pushing ahead with his efforts to legalize Internet poker before Congress adjourns this year, despite new criticism from state lottery officials, including a former Democratic National Committee chairman, that Reid's plan was an “outrageous” reward for big Las Vegas casino interests that heavily backed his campaign for re-election.


After declining to comment for nearly a week, Reid’s office released his first public statement on the matter late Thursday, saying his proposal would bring in new tax revenue and “protect U.S. consumers” by allowing “reputable operators with proven track records” to offer poker over the Internet to American card players.


But in the last few days, Reid’s efforts have triggered a storm of criticism from state lottery directors, Indians tribes and others who say the Senate majority leader’s last minute effort would freeze them out of the action, while benefiting big Las Vegas casino operators — such as Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts International — that heavily backed Reid in his recent successful campaign for re-election.


As noted by NBC News and others in recent days, two of the biggest potential beneficiaries of the Reid proposal would be MGM Resorts International and Caesars Entertainment (formerly Harrah’s.) Both firms heavily backed Reid’s re-election, spending more than $650,000, including $300,000 that was pumped into Patriot Majority PAC, a so-called “super PAC” set up by a former Reid communications director that ran attack ads against Sharron Angle, Reid’s Republican opponent. Caesars/Harrahs, according to critics, would be particularly well advantaged to move into the online Poker market because the casino already hosts the “World Series of Poker.”
---

A Key Vote On DADT Repeal Falls Short

A key procedural vote on the bill containing a repeal of the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy failed Thursday, likely dealing a final blow to advocates who hoped to overturn the 17-year old ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military during this session of Congress.


Dem H. Reid allegedly walked away from negotiations that would have been vital to completing the plan of action for Democrats for the process of debateing DADT.  His premature actions may have been the cause of a lost vote in the Senate.   SenCollins said that she was "very disappointed" that Reid "walked away from negotiations" and brought the bill up for a vote before an agreement on the process of the debate had been reached and the 60 votes needed to move forward were assured.


Democrats needed 60 votes to advance the Defense Authorization bill for debate on the floor. The vote failed, 57-40.


Ultimately, Majority Leader Harry Reid called for the vote without having reached a procedural agreement with moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who supports repeal but wanted greater openness for the process of amending and passing the bill. Collins voted aye on the measure, but other Republicans who support repeal but had voiced similar procedural concerns -- Sens. Scott Brown and Lisa Murkowski -- voted no.
One Democrat, newly-elected Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, broke with his party to vote no.


The result means that repeal of the ban, enacted in 1993, is unlikely to be changed by Congress anytime soon. The policy is also currently being considered in court proceedings.
Supporters of repeal, including Adm. Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have warned that a failure of congressional action could mean a hasty and disorderly implementation of a change if the courts overturn the policy first.

Opponents of repeal say that a change in policy during wartime could disrupt the effectiveness and safety of troops in combat. A recent survey showed that troops serving in combat and members of the Marine Corps were more likely than other service members to voice concerns about the consequences of repeal.


Why am I not suprised.  Read now has deniability - "Well, I tried!" 
No, you didnt, Mr Reid.

Dont Use Your Last role of TP Yet.

As it ends up, the world ain't ending – at least as painted by conservatives concerning DADT. For years there has been what amounts to a conservative narrative that allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military openly would undermine unit cohesion. In his recent WorldNetDaily column, Less Kinsolving states that the repeal of DADT would prompt a surge in early retirement so large that it requires a return to the draft in order to staff with current numbers. He also states that conservative chaplains would be forced out of military service. A new report received by the pentagon has investigated these concerns, and we might not want to spend our insurance money on vacations or stop paying the bills. It ain't over yet.


The Pentagon report confirms the liberal viewpoint that open service is unlikely to harm unit cohesion or readiness. With reports and responses from the media it seems that the only real obstacle to Gays in the Military serving openly is pride and prejudice.


When asked about the effect of repeal on task cohesion, personal readiness, and unit readiness, majorities of those surveyed said they expected a "positive, mixed, or no effect." From page 64 of the report, emphasis added: “The Service member survey asked a number of questions on Service members' views about the effect of repeal on unit cohesion, including task and social cohesion. Task cohesion is a unit's ability to work together effectively, whereas social cohesion is a unit's ability to get along and trust one another. Overall, 70-76% of Service members said repeal would have a positive, a mixed, or no effect on aspects of task cohesion. Similarly, 67-78% of Service members said repeal would have a positive, mixed, or no effect on aspects of social cohesion.


Only 12 percent of those surveyed said that repeal would have a negative effect on their personal readiness, and only 31 percent expected a negative impact on unit readiness. From page 68 of the report, emphasis added:


Service members were asked to assess their current readiness, as well as how repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would affect their personal readiness and their unit's readiness. With regard to personal readiness, 67% of Service members said that repeal would have a positive or no effect; 22% said the effect would be equally positive as negative, and 12% said repeal would have a negative effect. In addition, 58% said repeal would have a positive or no effect on their ability to train well; 21% said the effect would be equally positive as negative; and 21% said repeal would have a negative effect. The responses about effects at the unit level, as opposed to at the personal level, were somewhat more negative. For example, with regard to their unit's ability to train well together, 31% said that repeal would have a negative impact.


Right-wing concerns about recruitment and retention appear to be overblown. From pages 68-69 of the report, emphasis added:


The Services rely on referrals--from family, friends, and current or former Service member-for about a third of new recruits. Overall, nearly one-half (47%) of Service members said that repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would have no effect on their willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend; 6% said that it would have positive effect; 10% said it would have a mixed effect; and 27% said it would have a negative effect.


Overall, more than 60% of Service members told us that their career plans would not change as a result of repeal; 13% said that they would definitely leave sooner than they had otherwise planned; and 11% said they would think about leaving sooner than they had planned.


We look to other countries that have allowed gays and lesbian's to serve, the repeal of bans on openly gay service did not affect recruitment or retention, despite significantly higher percentages of troops stating beforehand that they would respond negatively. In a 1985 survey of male Canadian troops, 45 percent said they would refuse to work with gays. In a 1996 survey of British troops, two-thirds said they would not willingly serve if openly gay and lesbian persons were allowed to serve. Both countries subsequently lifted their bans without suffering the severe circumstances predicted by surveys.


And Kinsolving's concerns for military chaplains? From page 12 of the report, emphasis added:


Special attention should also be given to address the concerns of our community of 3,000 military chaplains. Some of the most intense and sharpest divergence of views about Don't Ask, Don't Tell exists among the chaplain corps. A large number of military chaplains (and their followers) believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and that they are required by God to condemn it as such.


However, the reality is that in today's U.S. military, people of sharply different moral values and religious convictions--including those who believe that abortion is murder and those who do not, and those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who do not--and those who have no religious convictions at all, already co-exist, work, live, and fight together on a daily basis. The other reality is that policies regarding Service members' individual expression and free exercise of religion already exist. Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different views and beliefs.


Within the chaplain community, the solution to this issue can be found in the existing guidance developed by and for our chaplains, which we believe should be reiterated as part of any education and training concerning repeal. Those regulations strike an appropriate balance between protecting a chaplain's First Amendment freedoms and a chaplain's duty to care for all. Existing regulations state that chaplains "will not be required to perform a religious role...in worship services, command ceremonies, or other events, if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith." At the same time, regulations state that "Chaplains care for all Service members, including those who claim no religious faith, facilitate the religious requirements of personnel of all faiths, provide faith-specific ministries, and advise the command."


But perhaps the most telling numbers from the Pentagon survey are that of the 69 percent of those surveyed who report having worked with a service member believed to be gay or lesbian, only 8 percent of respondents report having experienced a resultant negative effect on the unit's "ability to work together." From page 4 of the report, emphasis added:


The reality is that there are gay men and lesbians already serving in today's U.S. military, and most Service members recognize this. As stated before, 69% of the force recognizes that they have at some point served in a unit with a co-worker they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of those who have actually had this experience in their career, 92% stated that the unit's "ability to work together" was "very good," "good," or "neither good nor poor," while only 8% stated it was "poor" or "very poor." Anecdotal,ly we also heard a number of Service members tell us about a leader, co-worker, or fellow Service member they greatly liked, trusted, or admired, who they later learned was gay; and how once that person's sexual orientation was revealed to them, it made little or no difference to the relationship. Both the survey results and our own engagement of the force convinced us that when Service members had the actual experience of serving with someone they believe to be gay, in general unit performance was not affected negatively by this added dimension.


As it ends up, the world ain't ending – at least as painted by conservatives concerning DADT. For years there has been what amounts to a conservative narrative that allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military openly would undermine unit cohesion. In his recent WorldNetDaily column, Less Kinsolving states that the repeal of DADT would prompt a surge in early retirement so large that it requires a return to the draft in order to staff with current numbers. He also states that conservative chaplains would be forced out of military service. A new report received by the pentagon has investigated these concerns, and we might not want to spend our insurance money on vacations or stop paying the bills. It ain't over yet.


The Pentagon report confirms the liberal viewpoint that open service is unlikely to harm unit cohesion or readiness. With reports and responses from the media it seems that the only real obstacle to Gays in the Military serving openly is pride and prediguce.





Only 12 percent of those surveyed said that repeal would have a negative effect on their personal readiness, and only 31 percent expected a negative impact on unit readiness. From page 68 of the report, emphasis added:


Service members were asked to assess their current readiness, as well as how repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would affect their personal readiness and their unit's readiness. With regard to personal readiness, 67% of Service members said that repeal would have a positive or no effect; 22% said the effect would be equally positive as negative, and 12% said repeal would have a negative effect. In addition, 58% said repeal would have a positive or no effect on their ability to train well; 21% said the effect would be equally positive as negative; and 21% said repeal would have a negative effect. The responses about effects at the unit level, as opposed to at the personal level, were somewhat more negative. For example, with regard to their unit's ability to train well together, 31% said that repeal would have a negative impact.


Right-wing concerns about recruitment and retention appear to be overblown. From pages 68-69 of the report, emphasis added:


The Services rely on referrals--from family, friends, and current or former Service members--for about a third of new recruits. Overall, nearly one-half (47%) of Service members said that repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would have no effect on their willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend; 6% said that it would have positive effect; 10% said it would have a mixed effect; and 27% said it would have a negative effect.


Overall, more than 60% of Service members told us that their career plans would not change as a result of repeal; 13% said that they would definitely leave sooner than they had otherwise planned; and 11% said they would think about leaving sooner than they had planned.


We look to other countries that have allowed gays and lesbian's to serve, the repeal of bans on openly gay service did not affect recruitment or retention, despite significantly higher percentages of troops stating beforehand that they would respond negatively. In a 1985 survey of male Canadian troops, 45 percent said they would refuse to work with gays. In a 1996 survey of British troops, two-thirds said they would not willingly serve if openly gay and lesbian persons were allowed to serve. Both countries subsequently lifted their bans without suffering the severe circumstances predicted by surveys.


And Kinsolving's concerns for military chaplains? From page 12 of the report, emphasis added:


Special attention should also be given to address the concerns of our community of 3,000 military chaplains. Some of the most intense and sharpest divergence of views about Don't Ask, Don't Tell exists among the chaplain corps. A large number of military chaplains (and their followers) believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and that they are required by God to condemn it as such.


However, the reality is that in today's U.S. military, people of sharply different moral values and religious convictions--including those who believe that abortion is murder and those who do not, and those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who do not--and those who have no religious convictions at all, already co-exist, work, live, and fight together on a daily basis. The other reality is that policies regarding Service members' individual expression and free exercise of religion already exist. Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different views and beliefs.


Within the chaplain community, the solution to this issue can be found in the existing guidance developed by and for our chaplains, which we believe should be reiterated as part of any education and training concerning repeal. Those regulations strike an appropriate balance between protecting a chaplain's First Amendment freedoms and a chaplain's duty to care for all. Existing regulations state that chaplains "will not be required to perform a religious role...in worship services, command ceremonies, or other events, if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith." At the same time, regulations state that "Chaplains care for all Service members, including those who claim no religious faith, facilitate the religious requirements of personnel of all faiths, provide faith-specific ministries, and advise the command."


But perhaps the most telling numbers from the Pentagon survey are that of the 69 percent of those surveyed who report having worked with a service member believed to be gay or lesbian, only 8 percent of respondents report having experienced a resultant negative effect on the unit's "ability to work together." From page 4 of the report, emphasis added:


The reality is that there are gay men and lesbians already serving in today's U.S. military and most Service members recognize this. As stated before, 69% of the force recognizes that they have at some point served in a unit with a co-worker they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of those who have actually had this experience in their career, 92% stated that the unit's "ability to work together" was "very good," "good," or "neither good nor poor," while only 8% stated it was "poor" or "very poor." Anecdotal,ly we also heard a number of Service members tell us about a leader, co-worker, or fellow Service member they greatly liked, trusted, or admired, who they later learned was gay; and how once that person's sexual orientation was revealed to them, it made little or no difference to the relationship. Both the survey results and our own engagement of the force convinced us that when Service members had the actual experience of serving with someone they believe to be gay, in general unit performance was not affected negatively by this added dimension.


Honestly, fact and figures aside, If I was straight, would I want a homo next to be in battle?  Would I be in fear for my ass? 


Yes, I would be ok with sally next to me, and I would hope Sally had put as much time into learning his wepon as I had mine. 

DADT and the Manly Men Marines

Add Don't Get No Manlier

Gen. James F. Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, recently said, "There's risk involved [in repealing "don't ask don't tell"]. This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness." ["The few. The proud. The problem," Outlook, Nov. 21.]


Change never comes easy. During World War II, Gen. George C. Marshall warned, "Experiments within the Army in the solution of social problems are fraught with danger to efficiency, discipline and morale." And, he said, "The Army is not a sociological laboratory."


In 1940, the military, in continuing its policy of segregation, asserted in a War Department decree that segregation "has proven satisfactory over a long period of years." And, "Discrimination and segregation remained the rule in military barracks, churches, swimming pools, libraries and service clubs." This discrimination resulted in the ridiculous fact that German and Italian POW trustees were using the post exchange at Fort Benning, Ga., while black U.S. soldiers could not. This illustrates the absurd consequences of prejudice.


The risk to the Marine Corps is not in the repeal of "don't ask don't tell." The risk, from a historical perspective, is in continuing to oppose its repeal.


Tammy Schultz wrote a thoughtful commentary that proved a near miss is as good as a mile. As a retired Marine Corps aviator, I chuckled at Ms. Schultz's assertion that "ground pounders are more conservative, resistant to change and likely to uphold tradition. This equates to a fear of the unknown - in this case, serving in combat with an openly gay Marine."

One of the highest forms of patriotism, aside from dissent of course, is military service.
As George Orwell said, “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” But in America, if these “rough men” happen to love another man, they’re not allowed to ensure our safety and liberty.
President Obama initially said he planned on having this repealed, but changed his stance to a tentative “we’ll see.” I’m about to say something that may shock some ofyou that may be faint of heart, so make sure you are sitting down. Are you ready for this?
It does not make sense for the military to exclude non-closeted gays from military service. That’s right; I’m “coming out of the closet” against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

More importantly, I agree with Obama on this issue.
Think about it.
Back in 1993, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was created, allowing gays to serve in the military, as long as they didn’t serve “out of the closet.” The military couldn’t investigate soldiers’ sexual orientations, and the soldiers couldn’t be true to themselves.
However, according to an unscientific survey taken by retired Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Vincent Patton III, on behalf of Commander of the U.S. Central Command Gen. John Abizaid and the United Service Organizations, most of the younger enlisted troops really don’t care if their fellow soldiers are gay or straight.
Today, US Central Command David Petraus—hardly a pot-smoking Dennis Kucinich-esque peacenik, by any measure—testified before the Armed Services Committee that, quote:

I believe the time has come to consider a change to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I think it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberative matter that should include the conduct of the review that Secretary Gates has directed that would consider the views in the force on the change of policy. It would include an assessment of the likely effects on recruiting, retention, morale and cohesion, and would include an identification of what policies might be needed in the event of a change and recommend those polices as well.

And really, does it matter if the guy who has your back in the foxhole or “got your six” up in the clouds is sexually attracted to someone of the same gender?  No.
According to a 2006 RAND Corporation study, 72 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans polled said they were “personally comfortable interacting with gays.”
As University of Florida psychologist Bonnie Moradi and Rand Corporation sociologist Laura Miller commented in the report, “the data indicated no associations between knowing a lesbian or gay unit member and ratings of perceived unit cohesion or readiness.
Instead, findings pointed to the importance of leadership and instrumental quality in shaping perceptions of unit cohesion and readiness.” According to that report, war veterans ranked “training quality” and “equipment” as way more important on the battlefield; to compare, “knowing a lesbian/gay unit member” was ranked by ex-soldiers as the least important factor, much less important than the quality of the unit’s non-commissioned officers.
In other words, if the soldiers don’t care about having a gay teammate, and it doesn’t affect the unit’s teamwork, then why bother with it to begin with?  Sheer inertia, that’s what.
Maybe you think that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a liberal position, and that I’ve sold out to “the man.”
Well, you’re wrong. Mister Conservative himself, Barry Goldwater, is famous for saying, “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to shoot straight.”
A strong military is a key to a strong America, that’s something I think that most people can agree on. If the best people for the job are being turned away or discharged because of who they love, then we’re handicapping our defenses, all because of a difference that makes no difference.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be repealed, but not because of civil rights. It should be repealed so that the military can operate with peak performance, not as “heterosexual” and “homosexual” divided, but as Americans united against those who would do us harm.

Church Responds to HRC Petition

Church Responds to HRC Petition

Business As Usual

On September 19, ninety-ish members of the Oakland, California stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints met with Elder Marlin K. Jensen, a general authority often thought of as somewhat liberal (comparatively speaking). President Dean Criddle of the Stake had invited Jensen to attend the meeting held during the stake conference weekend. 

In this meeting, several Mormons/SGAttracted individuals were given the opportunity to speak from the microphone. Many expressed their love for their religion, as well as pain they feel was caused by the LDS Church and it's attitude toward homosexuals.  From the pulpit, these church members spoke of years of prayers and fasting as well as attempts at heterosexual marriages they thought would be a “cure” them of homosexual desires.

Elder Jensen was visually emotional, shedding tears as he listened. At the conclusion of the meeting, he stood and apologized for the pain he was witnessing.  According to one in attendance, Elder Jensen stated “To the full extent of my capacity, I say that I am sorry... I know that many very good people have been deeply hurt, and I know that the Lord expects better of us.”

It was neither an apology for the recent California Proposition 8, nor was it indicative of any policy change for the Mormon church.  What it was was kind and caring. 

Carol Lynn Pearson (yes, that CLP), the Mormon advocate in attendance at the Oakland meeting, observes:  "I think the people who didn’t see [Proposition 8] as a problem then are now in two groups: those who still don’t see it as a problem, and those who say, ‘Wait a minute. What did we just do? Why did we do it? Why is my neighbor so cold to me? Why am I still looked at differently at work? I thought this would just blow over. Is there something here I haven’t thought about?’ And those who experienced it as a significant problem two years ago still experience it as a significant problem. A problem that to many is even exacerbated because the church wants to just do Business As Usual. I know plenty of LDS people who are in no mood to do Business As Usual."

So what is the business we as Mormons are in?  What does the world perceive our business as usual stance to be?  Are we considered to be judgmental and standoff-ish? Even more important than perception, are we actually judgemental and stand-off-ish? 

Regardless of political stance, our business should be to take care of people.  That is what we as members of the church have always done - regardless of others politics, social stances or status, or financial contributions.  Caring, giving, loving is what the Church does best.

Now we are being asked to do more.  It is no longer sufficient to simply sign the checks and spend time at the cannery.  We are being asked to live as Christ would.  To treat people as people and not votes or outsiders.

Can we do this and support the General Authorities and policies and procedures?  Are the policies and procedures conducive to Christianity?

Regardless of the answer, we have work to do.

Original News Article

The Day After The World Blew Up

Elder Packer asked the same question this last Sunday in conference that I have asked myself. Where he asked it from a pulpit, I have asked it from on my knees - time and time again. “Why would Heavenly Father do that to anyone?”. More specifically when I ask the Lord, it is "why would’st thou do this to me?

I figured that I did some fence sitting in the pre-existence. Isn't that why the blacks weren't given the priesthood until Spencer W asked the Lord? I hear now that that line of thought was mistaken, but is there a splinter of truth from the plank that was used to beat them up with?

Maybe I was used for a bet - like Heavenly Father and the devil used Job for. If that is the case, who is going to lose a Franklin because I either pull out of it alive or succumbed.  Almost sounds like Zeus and whoever he was arguing with -probably Poseidon. in  petty argument. 

Maybe my grandfather upset some cosmic Carma Coffer and he was rude to her so she laid a little spell on him right there on his first grandchild that he would be a happy hairdresser.

I don’t think anyone wanted to be straight more than I did growing up. I was entranced by men and older boys. I caught sight of my well endowed cousin while he was life-guarding a pool, and I thought I had seen god. That is what a real man looked like,and I so wanted to be a real man. I followed him around most of the summer hopping that some small bit of him would rub off on me. At night he sat on his bed in his whites and I thought I owned the world.

For me it was always guys. It was never girls. And I figured out that I was wrong.

Why the Lord would do this to anyone is certainly the right question to be asking ourselves. There is a better question, however. Along the lines of, why would we treat anyone differently because of sexuality – perceived or otherwise? If I follow the same commandments everyone else is required to follow, Don't I get the same blessings and everyone else?