AIM is a conservative media watchdog. I never thought I would be writing a post defending George Will against AIM. But since I wrote a post essentially accepting the concept of gays openly serving in the military, I felt it was only fair to respond to the recent critical AIM post, "George Will Sells Out". I'm sure that George Will, who has to comment across a table from adversarial progressives on ABC's This Week, probably is used to being attacked and probably doesn't care that he got singled out by AIM.
But let me talk a little bit about my perspective: First, Cliff Kinkaid really isn't satisfied with the status quo of gay military members being discreet about their private life (i.e., don't ask, don't tell). He's engaging in some fear-mongering based on HIV on the battlefield or contaminating blood supplies. Anyone engaging in promiscuous, unprotected sexual activity, including straight soldiers, is susceptible to sexually-transmitted diseases, including HIV. I am fairly certain that the military is aware of the need to screen applicants based on general health concerns and that service members get regular health checks, particularly under combat conditions. The point is, general health maintenance is neutral in terms of sexual orientation. I have no problem with a military guideline suggesting prudent sexual behavior consistent with one's moral and religious beliefs.
Second, it's not really a "sell out" to politically correct standard against "homophobia". There are a variety of issues here, including the fact that even when I served in the military years ago, most of us knew members whom were gay, but it never entered the picture as military professionals. On the other hand, before leaving the service, I served at a JAG office. One of the things I learned about, mostly from conversations with others, was that a few discontented enlisted Navy personnel didn't care the lifestyle of weeks or months at sea and would conspire with other straight malcontents to get caught in homosexual acts. (During Officer of the Day training, I remember going through one of the barracks used to house detained personnel and will never forget the stench of vomit.)
As a conservative with certain libertarian leanings, I don't believe in actions others do which violate my religious or moral beliefs; for example, I've known husbands whom have cheated on their wives and others whom have paid prostitutes. I've heard another business partner lying to the client that they had upgraded a computer application. I was in a cubicle next to a Wisconsin county employee whom used unprofessional, obscene language in talking to and about a vendor. In America, we have the freedom to do things, including the right to make mistakes or to use bad judgment. We don't need Big Nanny telling us because some people abuse alcohol, nobody can drink alcohol, even in moderation.
For me, the issue of "don't ask, don't tell" versus openly serving dealt essentially with what I regard as prudent behavior (not discussing one's sex life with others, except in one's relationship). The deciding point was--does the service member have the right to speak about his sex life? Assuming military discipline is not at stake (e.g., a general command to be silent), I decided that we need to respect people's First Amendment rights. Mr. Kinkaid confuses tolerance with capitulation to the gay lobby. I myself maintain socially conservative beliefs. But I don't believe in a prohibition of others serving their country, in many cases due to a naturally occurring sexual orientation. I don't agree with Mr. Kinkaid's opinion, but I respect his right to deliver it.
Voting for TARP Was a Profile in Political Courage? Hardly...
The Washington Post in an editorial today notes that the Dems are pushing up the sunset of TARP 3 months ahead of schedule, mostly so the Dems can free up about $11B for other spending (of course). They note that the net cost (after bank-related returns) is $105B out of an originally authorized $700B, the principal utilizers which were AIG, the GSE's and the automakers. The editorial blasts Republican voters whom it feels blocked the renomination of certain TARP-approving incumbents in Utah and South Carolina.
In fact, some $200B of allocated financing was never tapped, and much of what was lent to banks was essentially forced upon them. What the editorial doesn't point out is that "greedy Wall Street" isn't in that $105B, the whipping boy Obama has used to justify his financial regulatory
Things That Make You Go 'Hmmmm'
With reference to our tax code, 2000-plus page health care and financial reform bills:
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow. - Federalist No. 62
Political Cartoon
Scott Stantis should really have senators prompt SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan on what she makes of anyone concluding from these hearings that they were little more than "a vapid and hollow charade...repetition of platitudes [replacing] discussion of viewpoints...with little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government."
Quote of the Day
A great pilot can sail even when his canvas is torn.
Seneca
Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1985
John Parr, "St Elmos Fire (Man in Motion)"
Survivor, "The Search is Over"
Wham!/George Michael, "Careless Whisper"
Paul McCartney, "No More Lonely Nights"
Foreigner, "I Want To Know What Love Is" (one of the greatest songs ever!)
