Month: May 2010

Steinglass sees it among defenders of DADT:

I think proponents of the status quo assume the military is unique in less admirable ways. They believe bigotry is so enmeshed in the bureaucracy as to make DADT's repeal impractical. Few congressmen or pundits put it so bluntly, but their projected homophobia is obvious in their vague warnings about the detrimental effects of repeal. There is no evidence to support casting such broad aspersions on America's soldiers. In fact, it seems likely that many soldiers are already aware of their gay colleagues—they must know they exist—and still manage to carry on with their tasks. Frankly, the argument that the military is unique in its homophobia, to such a degree as to seriously threaten its effectiveness if DADT is repealed, is beginning to look about as silly as this video.

A reader writes:

All these musings about complexities and "trump cards" strike me as akin to debating the number of angels on the head of a pin; no matter the scholarship or "plain truth" or ideological bent, we must each ultimately make our own decision, and will make our own decision, even if that decision is to follow someone else's truth.

That decision, for me, seems the worst decision of all, because giving over your own truth robs you of all the work and responsibility and burden (not to mention the obvious direct benefits) of taking that journey yourself for yourself.  Not just in the end, but all along the way, you will be living someone else's truth and expectations and rules, which inevitably leads to these very strange debates.

Having pursued a master's in religious studies myself, as part of my own journey since age 7, I have taken for myself the wisdom of doing unto others/doing no harm (pretty universal), and recognized that all the great sages and prophets and holy men/women have always reminded us that whatever they are doing, we can do, as well.  And I believe one of them is said to have mentioned that "lest ye see miracles, ye will not believe."  

I don't need miracles (suspicious of them, actually), and I don't need God (the Father restricts me from my spiritual quest), and I don't need God miraculously in the flesh performing miracles until he miraculously vanishes back into God again.  And I sure don't need debates about the manuscripts and scholarly "truth."  I'll take the men – Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama, whomever – and my truth plain and simple, and personal; that was the message I "got" (just reading, nothing miraculous) from those lives and a list of others who took up the quest well.  

And just for the record, this decision has not closed my spiritual life, but opened it up, infinitely.  Abandoning expectations freed my soul.

Julian Sanchez doesn't think being friends with your interlocutors is such a bad thing:

When we’re talking about actual friends, as opposed to folks you might see around now and again, I think there’s probably an effect, but I think it’s almost entirely limited to tone. I disagree in print with real-life friends (and, for that matter, coworkers) pretty much constantly. It’s honestly never occurred to me that it would be a problem to take a hammer to a friend’s argument because, hell that’s what we do. Now, it’s true I’ll probably refrain from really tearing into a good friend. (And I hope that, by the same token, I’d never find myself on the wrong end of the tone Matt Yglesias reserves for Jonah Goldberg, even if I’d written something incredibly dumb.) But is that really a problem? Is our political discourse really plagued by a stultifying reluctance to be vicious and snarky to folks you disagree with? If, as I think, the effect of social ties is mostly to make us a little more charitable in interpretation and a little more respectful in disagreement, well, that’s a feature, not a bug.

A reader writes:

President Obama is not changing his tune on DADT.  This has all been in the works for a long time.  In fact, a reader of your blog predicted almost exactly how this would all come about. (Allow me to gloat for a moment;  that reader was me.)

Another writes:

It seems to me that Obama has done exactly what many of us said he would do from the beginning. 

He allowed the debate to re-emerge in the public consciousness, then stood back (while attending other, equally important issues) and waited for the military leadership to take the initiative.  Like a good manager, he was patient and allowed those who are ultimately responsible for the policy’s execution to assume ownership of the problem, and its resolution.  As with health insurance reform, he didn’t allow the debate to be about him.  He let it play out more-or-less on its own, and now that the opposition is essentially spent, he’s ready to step in and act in his proper executive capacity.  This is how real, lasting change can be affected, when one is not overly concerned with receiving personal credit.

Another:

Perhaps it's just a bone to progressives, to stop us from complaining when he is forced by "pragmatism" to eliminate all the real reform in the Financial Reform bill. Or to distract us from the oil spill. Or the secret prisons. Or the ongoing wars that must be funded so we "have" to cut Social Security.  In any case, don't be surprised if the shiny toy is snatched away at the last second – Public Option, anyone?

Another:

It might have had something something to do with this – Log Cabin Republicans vs. The United States of America, the only contemporary legal challenge to DADT to succeed at the district court level. The trial starts June 14th.  If DADT does not get repealed, or if the Pentagon does not change the policy, then this suit may force the military to treat LGBs equally. Perhaps it may even get us stricter protections approaching Suspect Class. Anyway, if they repeal the statute before or during the trial, I have no doubt that the DOJ will attempt to get the suit thrown out. Hopefully the judge will not buy it, and keep the suit alive until the DADT policy (not just the statute) is off the books.

Those are Obama’s words. Amy Davidson begs the President:

Some political leadership now would be much for the better. It’s not enough to rage and pose for pictures—the Administration has to make sure that the hole is plugged. Many things are worse than politics, and the wanton destruction of a swath of our coastline is one of them. Obama has to do much more than just witness it.

Al Giordano rants:

[A]s a longtime vocal opponent of off shore oil drilling, and proponent of renewable energy, I wish to publicly disassociate myself from all the newly concerned voices screaming at the top of their lungs that the government must “do something” if they don’t come with concrete suggestions for what exactly can be done. They do not represent me and please don’t ever confuse me with them, okay?

David Roberts wonders whether there is no solution:

BP is attempting the “top kill” maneuver — pumping mud into the well. If it doesn’t work, well … then what? Junk shot? Top hat? Loony stuff like nukes? Relief wells will take months to drill and no one’s sure if they’ll work to relieve pressure. It’s entirely possible, even likely, that we’re going to be stuck helplessly watching as this well spews oil into the Gulf for years. Even if the flow were stopped tomorrow, the damage to marshes, coral, and marine life is done. The Gulf of Mexico will become an ecological and economic dead zone. There’s no real way to undo it, no matter who’s in charge.

I’m curious to see how the public’s mood shifts once it becomes clear that we are powerless in the face of this thing. What if there’s just nothing we can do? That’s not a feeling to which Americans are accustomed.

(Image: Bags of oil collected from the beach await pickup May 25, 2010 at Elmer’s Island, Louisiana. Cleanup crews had worked for days to scrub the beach and dispose of the material. By John Moore/Getty Images)

Readers won't let go:

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw your post.  My grandparents were from San Marcos, which is about halfway between San Antonio and Austin, and my family went to Aquarena Springs several times when I was a kid. The pig on the postcard is the famous "Ralph the Swimming Pig". Ralph really swam, and he did a water show several times a day accompanied by – no kidding – underwater mermaids. (They breathed from scuba hoses under the surface. It's kind of hard to explain.) Ralph was most famous for his so-called "swine dive," which is what is pictured on the postcard.

Ah, memories.

Another writes:

My brother and I observed that Ralph was actually Ralphette (the protuberant nipples gave it away).

In my experience with pigs, protuberant nipples are not always a dead cert for being female. Boing Boing a few years ago covered the bulldozing of the park:

Aquarena was the home of the infamous Ralph the Swimming Pig, and his keeper Glurpo, a one-time "nightmarish aquatic clown" turned "underwater witch doctor." There were also "aquamaids" who picnicked & performed ballet underwater, diving ducks, and a sadistic swan named Rufus.

The Beijing Zoo goes great with a side of mashed potatoes:

[T]he zoo's restaurant serves things like the webbed toes of hippopotamus, dishes made with crocodiles, scorpions, kangaroo tail, deer penis, ant soup, shark fin soup, peacock, etc. Until recently, signs on the animals' cages even contained information about which parts were tastiest and which parts could be used to make traditional medicine (aka placebos, for the most part).

Or, if you're on a tight budget, head down to the local Chinese Walmart.

Dan Savage credits Dan Choi et al.

It's worth recalling that this proposed change will not greatly alter the number of gay men and women in the military. They have always been there, and always will be. What it changes is the intimidation and persecution they must fear from their own government as they risk their lives for the rest of us. What the law could change are some uniquely cruel aspects of life for service-members and their families. A reader writes:

My partner of ten years is on his third deployment. This one’s been the hardest on both of us. I won’t speak for my partner and generally don’t like to go there, for fear it will open a floodgate of anxieties for me. But life on the home front feels neither like a life nor a home at the moment.

When we PCSed (permanent change of station) to the foreign country we call home for the time being, we knew it would be a challenge for me to remain in country with him, since Status of Forces Agreements with host countries don’t acknowledge my situation. After working minimum wage government jobs for the SOFA status alone, I finally found a desk job that pays a fifth of my last salary stateside. Nonetheless, landing the job was a relief because at least I could stay in country with my partner, and a desk job was better than manual labor.

A month after that, my partner came home one afternoon and told me his unit was deploying. Fears for his safety aside, the logistics of this one presented a whole new set of problems. Returning to the States while he’s downrange isn’t a possibility. He’ll have at least another year here when he gets back. I can’t lose my SOFA status, nor would my previous employer want me back if I had to quit again within a year. So I’m staying behind here, alone, in the closet – even to close work friends.

The expat community is small and exclusively military (or tied to it); chances are that someone knows someone who knows my partner. Worse than that, calls come at all hours here, and I dread every one of them, for fear it’s the call intended to wake me up. His family stateside would be the first to know, since I can’t be next of kin.

If we were to get married, it would constitute an admission.

It feels selfish and a bit whiney to be writing any of this. There are family members with far more horrific stories to tell and far bigger challenges to face. But what I’ve learned from the incredibly strong families I’ve met while working in this community is that you stand up for yourself and your loved ones. My partner and I can’t do it publicly so I’ll use this forum to say it: Whether the intent or the effect, my family has endured all of it – the separation, the sacrifice – so your loved ones wouldn’t have to. For that, we deserve your respect, if not a place at the table.

Oh, and about that place at the table? How dare any member of Congress who’s never served a day in uniform tell my partner he should only be allowed to stay in if he can conceal the role his family plays in support of him. Doesn’t Congress, with its dearth of veterans, at the very least understand that families are inseparable from their servicemembers' long-term commitment to country? Those of us living and working in the military community certainly do.

This photograph of a group of young men taunting a Palestinian woman evicted from her home to make way for Israeli settlers rightly disturbed many. A commenter on Jerry Haber's blog disagreed with the Getty caption that describes them merely as Israelis:

An anonymous commenter has said that (at least some of) the men here are students at a well-known yeshiva for Americans in Beit Shemesh. I went to the yeshiva's website — some of my students have studied there — and identified (I think) two of the students.

So these young men could well have been Americans. But Haber insists their orthodox identity is the more troubling issue:

The main source of Jewish hatred and bigotry against Arabs today comes from the orthodox, and especially the modern orthodox. This wasn't always the case. The orthodoxy that sprung from European soil absorbed the best of West civilization, culture, and morality. The earlier generations of religious Zionists, Rav Reines, Rav Kook, Rav Soloveitchik, were European to the core. And the early generation of religious Zionists in America, though fed the prejudiced Zionist line about the Arabs, nevertheless was deeply influenced by liberal American values, and the American rejection of bigotry. Such moderates even convinced themselves that this was the message of the Torah. No more. The Israeli religious Zionism that has produced the settler

movement is unaffected by universal moral values.

I don't need to go into details here. You are familiar with their rabbis, you have read the articles and parsha sheets; you have recoiled at the message. Israeli religious Zionism today is insular, parochial, fundamentalist, and deeply, deeply bigoted. I know many American orthodox Jews who have come on aliyah, Jews with moderate principles, proud of American and universal moral values. They are terribly uncomforable when their children return from the religious Zionist yeshivot and ulpanot as racist bigots who view the Arabs as animals and underlings, “hewers of wood and drawers of water.” Modern orthodox educators in America should have worried less about the color of their children's hats, and more about the color of their hearts.