A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
1) I've been hearing this morning from several sources, including this one, that the GOPers are prepared to trade a START treaty and additional unemployment benefits for temporary extension of the Bush tax brackets (I refuse to call them "cuts.") But I should also add that a trusted source told me that others were denying this as an erroneous rumor. One encouraging development is that all 42 Senate Republicans have reportedly signed on to a letter expressing the caucus's intentions to block any legislation until the expiration of the current tax rates is addressed (Hat Tip: NRO's Daniel Foster).
But if the story is true, how can you "trade" national security, not to mention the unending drain on the treasury that unending unemployment benefits is becoming? (I realize some of you don't believe START jeopardizes our security, but presumably the GOPers who have been opposing it disagree with you, and if so, how can they just cave on it now?) For those who believe START is no cause for concern, please read this.
2) Harry Reid is reportedly ready to file for cloture today on the Dream Amnesty Act, which could lead to a vote as early as Thursday. Here's the Center For Individual Freedom's "Ten Things You Need to Know About S.3827 "The Dream Act."
3) A piece from AIP News disputes reports about the Pentagon's polling concerning "Don't Ask Don't Tell." I haven't studied it thoroughly yet and don't purport to vouch for it, but if true, it raises interesting questions. I don't know what the actual facts are, but I do believe that with this issue as well, national security should trump political correctness. And if the poll data is being skewed to understate the national security and troop morale issues, we need to know about it now. I'm not saying it is, but if it is, we've got problems.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
I smell Dick Lugar in this. That pompous old creep never met a strategic arms sellout deal he didn't love.
Enough of this business-as-usual horsetrading. The GOP has sufficient votes to stop any legislation in the Senate. And the Democrats know they have to extend the Bush tax rates.
Oct '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
The DREAM act makes me so furious I am barely coherent. As someone who is still not finished jumping through all the hoops to make me a permanent legal resident -my status is a temporary-permanent legal resident, conditions to be lifted after 2 years as long as I'm still married - the idea that these people just get a free ride makes me sick.
I spent thousands of dollars, waited for years, filled out dozens of forms, had to travel for hours to be interviewed on my own dime, had to wait for 5 months in Canada separated from my wife for them to finish processing everything. I had to have my in-laws submit all their tax information to prove they could afford to support me, because it's illegal for me to go on any government assistance and if I do, the government can sue my in-laws to pay for it.
As an English speaking, US college educated, Canadian who followed ALL the rules, the idea that they want to give high-school dropout, lawbreaking, non-English speaking illegals amnesty is a very personal insult.
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Imho, all three of these represent tests of the seriousness of Sen. Mitch McConnell. He should refuse--refuse--to permit the administration to jam through any of these outrages. He need engage in delaying actions for a mere three weeks. If he wishes to do so, he's more than wily enough to pull it off. And--I admire the man--I'm pretty sure he'll do just that.
But David is exactly right to raise the alarum. We need to keep an eye on these guys--I mean our guys--and scream to high heaven if they start to cave.
As I say, imho.
Jul '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
3) A piece from AIP News disputes reports about the Pentagon's polling concerning "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
Well, David, I haven't seen the original poll results either, but I'm disinclined to trust a polemicist who ends an article thusly (bold in the original):
In summary, the real statistics prove our nation faces a NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER if Don't Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, and open homosexual aggression is forced upon our troops against their will.”
And then goes on to urge readers to sign a petition at www.PrayInJesusName.org.
Jun '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
I hope to meet President Obama someday. I have a gold-tone "Roleks" watch I'd like to sell him for ten grand. It's probably even Russian-made, so I know he'll like it.
May '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
I am all for repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell... and returning to the policy we had before DADT came along.
Funny, isn't it, how this slow creep always takes us further and further in the wrong direction, and we find ourselves defending something we formerly disagreed with? That's why we find Republicans defending Medicare and so on. Abominable.
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Kenneth: Yes, I don't know about "a national security disaster," though I hardly think that should be the threshold here. Interestingly, I just received via email a statement from Elaine Donnelly, of the Center for Military Readiness. Donnelly, admittedly, has been an ardent opponent of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
I can't link to her email, but here's a snippet from it raising more questions about the objective reporting of the polling data.
The CRWG Report does not mention a single beneficial result of repealing the 1993 law, which would strengthen recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer Force. “Instead, Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen let down the troops by demanding involuntary acceptance of unnecessary burdens that disregard the normal human desire for privacy and modesty in sexual matters. Elevating unrealistic theories over practical experience, yesterday’s presenters tried but failed to divert attention from information buried in the report. Page 74, for example, reports that ‘Nearly 60% of respondents in the Marine Corps and in Army combat arms said they believed there would be a negative impact on their unit’s effectiveness in this context; among Marine combat arms the number was 67%.’
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Chris Deleon: I am all for repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell... and returning to the policy we had before DADT came along.
Funny, isn't it, how this slow creep always takes us further and further in the wrong direction, and we find ourselves defending something we formerly disagreed with? That's why we find Republicans defending Medicare and so on. Abominable. · Dec 1 at 10:27am
Chris: Very profound (and accurate) observation concerning the policy creep. Which is an instructive lesson for us today as many (not Rob, thankfully), to compromise. Compromise with the left always seems to advance the causes of the left.
May '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Kenneth: 3) A piece from AIP News disputes reports about the Pentagon's polling concerning "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
Well, David, I haven't seen the original poll results either, but I'm disinclined to trust a polemicist who ends an article thusly (bold in the original):
In summary, the real statistics prove our nation faces a NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER if Don't Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, and open homosexual aggression is forced upon our troops against their will.”
And then goes on to urge readers to sign a petition at www.PrayInJesusName.org.
Let's not have a knee-jerk rejection of anything that has to do with a religious group.
If you read the link more closely, they are just analyzing (you would probably say "cherry-picking") questions from the original Pentagon survey itself-- they aren't doing their own survey. The answers to the questions do indicate a high level of discomfort with changing the policy. Perhaps they present only one side of the argument, but even so, shouldn't we take a closer look for ourselves rather than buying the talking points and the media's interpretation?
May '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Here are the questions cited in the link above:
"Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact on unit's performance.
Edited on Dec 1, 2010 at 10:40amQ68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust if DADT is repealed.
Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers with homosexuals. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don't know or do "something else".
Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. (500,000 will QUIT the service early)
Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don't know about recommending military service to others.
Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact...9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.
Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about permitting open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 60% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.
Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don't know."
Jul '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Chris Deleon
Kenneth: 3) A piece from AIP News disputes reports about the Pentagon's polling concerning "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
Well, David, I haven't seen the original poll results either, but I'm disinclined to trust a polemicist who ends an article thusly (bold in the original):
In summary, the real statistics prove our nation faces a NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER if Don't Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, and open homosexual aggression is forced upon our troops against their will.”
And then goes on to urge readers to sign a petition at www.PrayInJesusName.org.
Let's not have a knee-jerk rejection of anything that has to do with a religious group.
Perhaps they present only one side of the argument, but even so, shouldn't we take a closer look for ourselves rather than buying the talking points and the media's interpretation? · Dec 1 at 10:34am
So you don't think the phrase "...open homosexual aggression is forced upon our troops against their will..." is a bit, um, over the top?
I read the whole AIP thing. And I also know about lies, statistics and hysteria.
May '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Kenneth
Chris Deleon
Kenneth: ... And then goes on to urge readers to sign a petition at www.PrayInJesusName.org.
Let's not have a knee-jerk rejection of anything that has to do with a religious group.
So you don't think the phrase "...open homosexual aggression is forced upon our troops against their will..." is a bit, um, over the top?
Sure, that phrase is over the top, but your last line was objecting to it based on the "PrayInJesusName" link, as if that automatically discredited any other point they might have made.
Jul '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Chris Deleon
Kenneth
Chris Deleon
Kenneth: ... And then goes on to urge readers to sign a petition at www.PrayInJesusName.org.
Let's not have a knee-jerk rejection of anything that has to do with a religious group.
So you don't think the phrase "...open homosexual aggression is forced upon our troops against their will..." is a bit, um, over the top?
Sure, that phrase is over the top, but your last line was objecting to it based on the "PrayInJesusName" link, as if that automatically discredited any other point they might have made. · Dec 1 at 11:09am
Well, it certainly reveals a lack of objectivity. Suppose someone else had put up a skewed analysis of the data and ended by urging people to visit GOProud's website to sign a petition in favor of repeal?
May '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Kenneth
Chris Deleon: Sure, that phrase is over the top, but your last line was objecting to it based on the "PrayInJesusName" link, as if that automatically discredited any other point they might have made. · Dec 1 at 11:09am
Well, it certainly reveals a lack of objectivity. Suppose someone else had put up a skewed analysis of the data and ended by urging people to visit GOProud's website to sign a petition in favor of repeal? · Dec 1 at 11:12am
Certainly it shows what side they are on with this issue, as you aptly illustrate. I still find that the questions they highlight do throw doubt on the talking points and conclusions being bandied about in the media.
Would you have us reject an entire set of points from someone affiliated with GOProud, just because of the affiliation? It certainly would make one want to take them with a grain of salt, but what I'm objecting to is wholesale knee-jerk rejection.
Jul '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Chris Deleon
Kenneth
Chris Deleon: Sure, that phrase is over the top, but your last line was objecting to it based on the "PrayInJesusName" link, as if that automatically discredited any other point they might have made. · Dec 1 at 11:09am
Well, it certainly reveals a lack of objectivity. Suppose someone else had put up a skewed analysis of the data and ended by urging people to visit GOProud's website to sign a petition in favor of repeal? · Dec 1 at 11:12am
Certainly it shows what side they are on with this issue, as you aptly illustrate. I still find that the questions they highlight do throw doubt on the talking points and conclusions being bandied about in the media.
Would you have us reject an entire set of points from someone affiliated with GOProud, just because of the affiliation? It certainly would make one want to take them with a grain of salt, but what I'm objecting to is wholesale knee-jerk rejection. · Dec 1 at 11:39am
I'm simply saying that we should look at the original survey to draw our own conclusions. AIP is clearly not an objective interlocutor.
May '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Yes we should. I'm just pointing out that AIP highlighted (perhaps, "cherry-picked," yes) some questions from the survey that clearly contradict the talking points. Even if some of the other questions seem to support the talking points, these questions throw doubt on what's being more widely reported. That point can be made independent of the over-the-top stuff that AIP added.
May '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Here's the link to the report itself, and you can find the questions the AIP highlighted for yourself in section VII. For many questions, about 20-30% (sometimes up to 44%) seem to think the change will be negative, and another 30% or so feel there will be both negative and positive ("mixed") effects. That is still a significant level of opposition.
Also note that troops with combat deployment experience are significantly more negative and significantly less positive on the change than those without combat experience (see Table 4).
The kicker for me is Table 9: a total of 13% would "definitely" leave the service early, and 11% more would think about it. Only about 3% think the change would make them stay longer. How can anyone claim that the effect would be minimal, with these statistics? How are the armed forces going to offset those losses, especially in the light of Table 8, where 27% would be less likely (and only 6% more likely) to recommend the service to a friend or family?
Edited on Dec 1, 2010 at 12:14pmMay '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
With statistics, people can combine things in different ways to support their points. The report itself, in its prose (not tables) typically lumps "positive + neutral/mixed" numbers together, and reports "negative" numbers by themselves. By this you can easily see that their bias is towards repeal.
In contrast, the AIP lumps "neutral/mixed + negative" numbers and reports "positive" numbers by themselves. You can obviously see the bias here.
A more objective way to interpret it is to remove all the people who don't think they will be affected (the "neutrals," and perhaps the "mixed" results). They effectively don't care either way and won't affect the outcome.
Then, compare the upsides to the downsides of changing the policy (the "positives" vs. the "negatives"). Looking at it this way, in almost every question the negatives clearly outweigh the positives.
The armed forces should not be used as a laboratory for social experimentation. They should do what is best for the defense of our country. If a clearly larger number of members see repeal of DADT negatively than positively, then a change in the policy is detrimental to the armed forces and to our national defense, and should be rejected.
Edited on Dec 1, 2010 at 12:22pmJul '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Chris Deleon:
The kicker for me is Table 9: a total of 13% would "definitely" leave the service early, and 11% more would think about it. Only about 3% think the change would make them stay longer. How can anyone claim that the effect would be minimal, with these statistics? How are the armed forces going to offset those losses, especially in the light of Table 8, where 27% would be less likely (and only 6% more likely) to recommend the service to a friend or family? · Dec 1 at 12:12pm
Edited on Dec 01 at 12:14 pm
It would be interesting to know what white soldiers thought about integration of the military back in the day - and how many of them claimed they would leave if blacks were allowed to serve.
I cannot think of a single American institution where racial harmony is more pronounced than in our military.
People adjust to change. Perhaps some troops would leave. But I suspect others will be available to take their place.
May '10
Re: A Few Things to Stir the Blood this Morning
Kenneth
It would be interesting to know what white soldiers thought about integration of the military back in the day - and how many of them claimed they would leave if blacks were allowed to serve.
I cannot think of a single American institution where racial harmony is more pronounced than in our military.
People adjust to change. Perhaps some troops would leave. But I suspect others will be available to take their place.
1. Race is entirely different from sexual orentation because of the nature of sexuality and the potential sexual and relational tensions it can introduce in combat situations. It strikes a lot closer to home than the color of someone's skin. We still segregate males from females in many situations, for good reasons; while we don't segregate whites from blacks. Remember, women's rights movement came before the civil rights movement, too. Thus, the comparison between gay rights and civil rights, especially in the military, is not valid.
2. Even assuming the comparison were valid, you'd have to have some actual data, rather than speculation, to back it up.
Edited on Dec 1, 2010 at 12:44pm