Why DADT Is Different, Ctd

A reader writes:

DiA is absolutely wrong.  If Obama stopped DADT by executive order, it would cause complete chaos and a political upheaval.  The military has a rule for everything.  It has a rule for how you are supposed to brush your teeth and tie your shoes. It has a rule for how the various types of soldiers can entertain themselves when off duty.  It has a rule (actually a whole bunch) for how male and female soldiers may express affection for each other.  To simply stop the process of expelling service members for violating DADT without any of the rules to govern how gay soldiers should behave and how they should be treated would invite harassment, chaos and a complete breakdown in protocol.

Step back for a moment and look at the chess pieces that are being arrayed on the board.  John McHugh, a former Republican Congressman who wants to abolish DADT, has been appointed Secretary of the Army.  West Point has invited Lt. David Choi to speak to the cadets about being gay in the military.  An analyst under Joint Chief Chairman Mullen’s command has published an extensive article in Joint Forces Quarterly talking about how about how abolishing DADT will enhance the military’s ability to carry out its mission.  The most hawkish democrat on the Hill, Joe Lieberman, is working on the bipartisan bill to repeal the policy.  Do you see the pattern?
 
Sometime within the next 6-12 months (not 2017), the Joint Chiefs and Secretary Gates will propose a method to abolish DADT along with new rules governing conduct by and towards homosexual members of the service (similar to the rules that govern heterosexual activity between those in uniform).  Lieberman and his bipartisan team will propose whatever legislative changes are needed to make that plan a reality, and the hard right opponents will be checkmated before the game even begins.  It will be another beep-beep moment.  Please have a little faith.

The reader has many valid points, and he may be right in the end. But remember that Truman did not wait for Congress. And even with his executive order, it took several years to integrate the military:

In the wake of Truman's order, the air force and navy announced they would take further steps to integrate. However, army officials said they interpreted the order as not mandating desegregation, only equal treatment; as long as black units were treated the same as white units, they could remain segregated.

The army claimed that full integration of the military could only occur once society at large had been integrated. In testimony before the President's Committee, which began meeting in January 1949, Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall declared that the army "was not an instrument for social evolution."

In May 1949, Defense Secretary Louis Johnson approved the air force's integration plan; he approved the navy's plan in June. However, the army's plan came in for much debate and revision. The army continued to insist on maintaining segregation as well as a 10% quota on African Americans in its ranks. After rejecting several interim plans, Johnson in September approved the army's final plan, although it still maintained a policy of segregation and a 10% quota.

Upon hearing that Johnson had approved the army's plan, the Fahy Committee threatened to reject it. Finally, after lengthy negotiations, the Fahy Committee also approved the integration plan, which was officially issued on January 16, 1950.

In its plan, the army agreed to integration, although at a gradual pace. It also agreed to end the 10% quota, though on the condition that it could reinstate the quota if that was deemed necessary. However, while the army had approved an integration policy, it would be another year before it was implemented, during the Korean War (1950-53).

(From the subscription-only database, "Issues And Controversies In American History.")

In Defense Of Anger

A reader writes:

I'm a 62-year-old straight woman in rural Pennsylvania whose (very straight) husband happened to walk in when I was listening to you — and I'll just repeat his response:

"He's absolutely right."

Do not — repeat, DO NOT — in any way apologise for what you said.  You guys have been betrayed for years by yet another group of placeholders interested only in themselves.  Hey, it's the way 99.99% of all Democrats work.  Unfortunately.  For all of us.

p.s.  Your delivery was fine also — the depths of your outrage seemed well under control.  So I wouldn't worry about that, either.

Why Health Insurance Is Not Like Buying A TV

And why a public option is therefore compatible with free markets:

Something like televisions exist in a free market because consumers, if they don't like any of the new TVs on the market, can simply keep their old one. If they really don't like the market, they can even forgo owning one altogether; it will make you unpopular on game day, but it won't risk your life. Insurance is different. Anyone with a sense of basic self-preservation has no choice but to buy health insurance every single month. You cannot opt out, there are few options to choose from, and it's difficult to know how to price your future risk of injury. So health insurance companies have distorted incentives to innovate or provide a more cost-effective product.

A public option would, crazy as it might sound, make health

insurance a free market.

If there exists a government-run plan, which by all accounts would be basic and geared towards affordability, consumers will have the ability to opt out of the private insurance market. Private providers would finally have real incentives to provide a better product and innovate by building an insurance plan stronger than public insurance. Fears that a public option might decree certain treatments "not cost-effective," which are not as outlandish as some liberals think, should delight free-market conservatives because it would be an opportunity for private insurers to step in. Worried you might develop a condition requiring $60,000 medication that no public option would ever include? Buy a blinged-out private plan that, for an increased premium, will.

Makes sense to me. Or the private sector can also compete for the best discount insurance plan – kinda like Sprint airways for your body.

When Insurers Attack

Nate Silver looks at their motivation:

Weighted for market capitalization, these insurance stocks have lost 11 percent of their value since Labor Day, wiping out about $10 billion in value. And that's understating the case since the major indices have gained 5-8 percent over the same period — the insurance industry stocks are underperforming the market by just shy of 20 percent.

Dissent Of The Day

A reader writes:

Geez, you’re a princess. Gay people account for what? 9% of the population? That much?

Heterosexual sex is the ability to replicate consciousness. All wonders of the universe are created by the union of sperm and egg. The sperm and the egg have created everything.

I don’t feel that homosexuality is a choice. Why would anyone choose it? I feel that homosexuality is unfortunate, that you drew the short straw. Your love can never reproduce a universe. It can only ever be a ghostly comparison of heterosexual love. Be a conservative, recognize your limitations. Accept your cross, and bear it with dignity.

Obama is up to his eyeballs in serious problems that affect much much much more than a measly 9% of the American population. You’re such a baby. I want you to explain in detail how Obama is going to change DADT and not cause significant problems in a doubly engaged military that he and the rest of the world are depending on. You think that this change will be a smooth transition. Guess again.

Are you prepared to accept responsibility for the chaos this might cause – and all ripples that radiate outward into other areas of the world. Your impatience and blindness on this whole matter is embarrassing.

Go suck a dick, and suck it up, sweetheart.

Iranian Bloggers Souring On Obama?

Tehran Bureau relays some reaction to the Nobel announcement:

Most Iranians appeared to favor improved relations with the world prior to June's tainted election. But judging from an exhaustive reading of the Iranian blogosphere in reaction to President Obama's win, the mood has shifted. After facing off with Iran's hardline government in mass protests, and witnessing scores of their compatriots killed or arrested, tortured and raped in detention, refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Iran's current government was the minimum support many Iranians looked to from other countries. Out of 155 comments posted on Mir Hossein Mousavi's official Facebook page in response to the subject of Obama's Nobel, the majority of views were negative, given Obama's stance on events in Iran and his engagement policy with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Interestingly, Iranian officials did not voice serious reactions to the news, contrary to custom. Only foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki noted that the honor may have come "too early" for Obama. In other words, if Obama continues along the line he is currently treading with the Ahmadinejad administration, Iran's government is likely to champion him as meriting the prize.

Readers know the DIsh's heart is with the Iranian opposition. But Obama is president, and that means grappling with the reality of power – and its always alloyed moral nature. The burden is on him – morally, psychologically and culturally – to absorb these cross currents and be a statesman. I don't envy him; but I do think he's up to it, in the complicated and morally unsatisfying world we actually live in.