And we were too deferential to our most zealous supporters. During election season, Congress sought to placate those on the extreme left and motivate the base — but that meant that our final efforts before the election focused on trying to allow gays in the military, change our immigration system and repeal the George W. Bush-era tax cuts. These are legitimate issues but unlikely to resonate with moderate swing voters in a season of economic discontent. - Evan Bayh

Now that the President has returned from his 200 million dollar a day vacation the pressure will surely intensify for him to move to “the center”. What exactly does that mean? The thing that always gets me is that people say this as if this or any other Democratic President since LBJ has ever been pushing a truly progressive agenda. What these people call left most progressives consider center right. The wing-nuts have succeeded in moving the definition of a liberal to just left of their most conservative member. What this has done is cause the Dems to change their agenda from what was once truly progressive to this watered-down version of Republicanism.

I can’t imagine what the country would look like today if FDR and LBJ had not been pushing real progressive reform during periods when others were telling them to move to the right. The refrain from the right and the wealthy will always be don’t upset the status quo the system will fix itself if left to its own devices. Now you may disagree with some of the components of their agendas but who can argue that these brave men laid the foundation and increased the middle-class in this country. Democrats used to stand for groundbreaking and innovative thought to some of our most difficult challenges. Today, I don’t see that willingness for innovation or the bravery to even offer new ideas and solutions.

Let’s be clear moving to the center has never solved any major problem facing this nation. What moving to the center has done is insured that nothing gets done and this is exactly what the wing-nuts want. But why would so-called Democrats call for a move to the center? The answer is simple the corruptive influence of money in our system has had a negative effect on both parties. There is no longer one party that is willing to address the systemic problems that allow the wealthiest to profit at unprecedented rates while the rest of us are lucky to just break even.

The Bush Tax Cut debate will demonstrate for all to see how this phenomenon has affected our political system. The mere fact that we are having a discussion about whether to borrow money from China to pay for tax-cuts to give to the wealthiest 2% of our population speaks for itself. The mere fact that this President who campaigned vigorously against this very prospect is now considering allowing a compromise that will keep them in place is ludicrous. How could you not fight for this when the majority of Americans are opposed to it? This speaks volumes to what is meant by moving to the center and of where the center is. How is this the center and of what universe?

The time has come for progressives to do what the teabaggers did to the Republicans and that was to give them the balls to stand for what they believed in. When many were telling the Republicans that they would have to move to the center following two disastrous elections the teabaggers and their handlers would have none of that. The teabaggers didn’t come up with any new ideas for the Republicans but they forced them to stand on their principles-as misguided as they were. This is not the time to retreat back to some center-right agenda. The problems facing this country are too large and too important. It was the center-right that came up with a stimulus that was too small and misguided to address the problem it was created to fix. It was the center-right who came up with the debt commission recommendations that will put more burdens on the poor and middle-class to reduce the deficit. It is the center-right who believes that tax breaks and outsourcing are good for American workers and not unions. It is the center-right who wants us to believe that 8-9% unemployment is the new normal and we will just have to get use to it. It was the center-right who came up with a mandated healthcare bill that gave away the store to the same industries that were creating the problems.

After the 1994 midterm, when Democrats lost the House and Senate, Bill Clinton was told to "move to the center." He obliged by hiring the pollster Dick Morris, declaring the "era of big government is over," abandoning much of his original agenda, and making the 1996 general election about nothing more than V-chips in televisions and school uniforms....Oddly, though, after Republicans suffer losses in the first midterms they pay no attention to voices telling them to move to the center. If anything, Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes moved further right. - Robert Reich

Mr. President there comes a time in everyone’s life when despite everyone around them screaming not to do something you have to stand on what you believe in the innermost place of your heart. That time is now. You must not give in to the “voices of reason” because they are not being reasonable they are being accommodating to those who have your failure as their number one goal. How does one negotiate with someone whose sole mission is your destruction? Is it victory if they do it quickly or without pain? Is it better to lose clinging to what you believe in or winning by believing in nothing?

“Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation.” - William Lyon Phelps

The Disputed Truth

“There was an expectation, particularly among African Americans, that the first African-American president would at least be vocal about feeling their pain,” Blow said last week on MSNBC’s Hardball. “I think that has not been the case. The president has given a couple of speeches and he has been very heavy on the stick and not very heavy with the carrot… Just in the inability for him to commiserate with that group of people, people feel a bit deflated… He said he’s not going to focus separately on African-American issues at all. That let a lot of people down.” - Charles Blow

As we begin the second half of President Obama’s first term I think it is important for black Americans to access what having the first black President has meant in terms of their overall well-being. As someone who has stated and understands that President Obama is not the President of black America but of all America I understand the limits of his influence. My concern though is that with the rising tide of the teabaggers and the constant push back provided by Limbaugh and Beck saying the President is racist against white people this President will actually do less for black Americans than a liberal white President would do. Why? Because a white President would not have to defend his support for black issues as some sort of undercover reparations or be afraid to discuss black issues in public.

It’s funny but having the first black President has been a dual edged sword. On the one hand we have been given the boost to our pride of finally achieving the highest office in the land and that black folks have all the skills necessary to overcome centuries of racism and on the other hand we have a President who can barely use the word black in public for fear of agitating the racist who will be agitated no matter what he says. The thing about those who accuse this President or any successful black man of being racist is that no matter what these men do it will be twisted to fit the real racists scenario. It is similar to what I hear all the time when I discuss publicly the subject of how blacks are undermining their own success through black on black violence, absentee fathers, and the lack of education being a priority in our community. There are those that say that the racists will use this as fuel for their already racists views.

But think about that for a minute. These folks are going to misconstrue any information they find to fit their narrative and by us being afraid to discuss these issues it only hurts our credibility not theirs. So by this President not being willing to stand up publicly and do what other white Presidents have been willing to do (namely discuss the disproportionate effect this economy has had on black folks and seek specific remedies) it sort of makes having a black President a liability, not an asset. This is not to say that the President should specifically seek to develop policies that only benefit blacks, but I think it is important for him to at least acknowledge that there are unique differences and issues that affect black communities and black people.

For me one of the biggest criticisms I hear concerning this President by black people is his inability to articulate or even acknowledge these differences. This may be due in large part to the style of this President who is seen as more detached and rational than empathetic and perceptive. When Bill Clinton said, “I feel your pain.” He touched a nerve in the American psyche that could not be reached with cold impersonal data or a logical recitation of the facts. There are times in this country and in a way I suppose every nation that the people want to believe that their leaders understand their personal daily struggles and their uncertainties. I believe that this President has the capacity to do it, but does not have the personality type to do it. I believe that if he tried it would come off as feigned and counterfeit. Somehow this President has to reach out to black folks and let them know that his being the first black President has some real benefit in their daily lives besides this sense of pride. Pride is important and God knows we need all of the positive male role models we can get, but pride only goes so far, it doesn't pay bills or hire people.

At some point we need answers to a criminal justice system that is marginalizing our communities by strapping our young men with felonies in many cases before they are even eligible to vote and sentencing them to a life of poverty. We need answers to an inner city education system that has been allowed to become more impoverished and darker because we have allowed suburban districts to opt out as our cities expanded. We need answers to a shrinking manufacturing base that once created a pathway out of poverty for those who were either unable or unwilling to go to college. We need answers to the redevelopment of our urban neighborhoods that will not just plaster over the decay and condemn these neighborhoods to stay what they are but create new and vibrant neighborhoods that people will want to live in.

The problems we face are huge and no one is expecting this or any President to be able to overcome decades of neglect with some magic wand. However, sometimes it is important to just get an acknowledgment that you are not being taken for granted and someone can identify with your struggles. There is no benefit to having someone in office that looks like you if they are going to ignore you. I understand that this President has given a great deal of access to black folks in the media and has hired a number of blacks to high level positions, but the truth be told I haven’t heard this President use the word black in public since his campaign speech on race. It would be a shame if our first black President were not allowed to speak to the very people who understand him the most for fear of alienating the people who understands him the least.

But unlike previous presidents, Obama doesn’t need to win over the CBC in order to pick up support in the black community. Polls show that 96 percent of black voters view him favorably — a number the CBC members probably can’t match themselves...“I think if you look at the polling, in terms of the attitudes of the African-American community, there’s overwhelming support for what we’ve tried to do,” said Obama. - Politico

The Disputed Truth

[UPDATE: Excerpts from an article from the Nation has been added to the end of this diary. Please read before you defend Big Doggie. Your loyalty on this is sadly misguided.

Search and Destroy: Gay-Baiting in the Military Under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Source: The Nation Author(s): Doug Ireland Date: July 10, 2000 ]

Fifteen years ago yesterday, President Clinton in one of the more craven acts of his Presidency--after a storm of protest from the likes of Colin Powell and Sam Nunn--reneged on a promise to let gays serve openly in the military.

Instead he ushered in  a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy whereby the government would no longer ask recruits whether they were gay; and in turn, service members would be able to remain in the military as long as they didn't reveal their sexual orientation.

This policy didn't serve either gays or the military very well.

Since 1993, the military booted 12,300 service members under DADT, including at least 58 valuable Arabic language specialists.

Today, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel held the first congressional hearings on DADT in 15 years--no doubt  because support for repealing the policy  is soaring. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, for example, found that 75 percent of Americans believe:

"Gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military.

This is a a huge jump from the 61 percent who supported it in 2001.

However, no Pentagon officials testified at today's hearings.

Subcommittee chairwoman Susan Davis (D-CA) said that she put in a request to the Defense Department:

But at this particular time...they're really not quite willing to come forward.

Gay rights activists lambasted this no-show. Steve Ralls of Service Memebers Legal Defense Network  declared:

At a time when the military is relaxing every possible standard to attract new recruits...one would hope and expect that Defense Department leaders would be first in line to call on Congress to repeal the law.

 

Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who is gay and was the first U.S. soldier wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom testified today. He recently told the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper:

We're allowing our prejudice to be put into action by allowing this discriminatory policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' to still exist, even in this day and age.

In 2006, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would overturn DADT. The legislation now has 133 co-sponsors, including five Republicans. Chief Kook and gay-hater President Bush, however, has said he will veto it.

Of course, at time when the military is struggling to recruit and retain soldiers the policy is wearing thin. A 2005 study by the Williams Project at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, found that as many as 41,000 new recruits could be found if the ban were repealed. The report said:

This would be enough people to entirely staff half a dozen aircraft carriers.

And it is now common knowledge that gay service members pose no risk to the unity or effectiveness of the armed forces. In fact, there is increasing evidence that many soldiers are already aware of the sexual orientation of other soldiers.

CBS's "60 Minutes" recently did a segment on whether commanders were becoming less strict in enforcing the ban on openly gay servicemembers. During the segment, correspondent Lesley Stahl spoke with Army Sgt. Darren Manzella, who said he was very open about his homosexuality and even introduced his fellow soldiers to his boyfriend.

The Army was forced to open an investigation, but Manzella was eventually cleared to go back to work. He said he was basically told by his commanders:

"I don't care if you're gay or not.

Only after the CBS story was Manzella discharged. He said:

My sexual orientation certainly didn't make a difference when I treated injuries and saved lives in the streets of Baghdad. It shouldn't be a factor in allowing me to continue to serve.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is aware of more than 500 U.S. soldiers who are out to their colleagues and continue to serve.

Calls to repeal DADT are growing, even from the law's original architects and supporters. As chairman of the Armed Forces Committee in the 1990s, then-senator Sam Nunn led a series of hearings that helped undermine Clinton's attempt to lift the ban on gays in the military. But last month, Nunn said:

I think [when] 15 years go by on any personnel policy, it's appropriate to take another look at it.

And last month, Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen  said that the military was ready to accept gay servicemembers if Congress repeals DADT.

A December 2006 survey of servicemembers who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan found 73 percent of those polled were:

comfortable with lesbians and gays.

And a new report by four retired senior military officers and sponsored by the Palm Center in California also calls for a repeal of DADT. This report declared:

This is the first time a Marine Corps general has ever called publicly for an end to the gay ban.

The officers concluded that allowing gays to serve openly:

is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion.

Also in a significant shift, last year, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John M. Shalikashvili said that he no longer supported DADT and said:

If gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces.

This stupid, stupid policy has long been a blot on the Clinton Administration which caved to bigoty and prejudice. It meant that gay service members could not have their loved ones in their military lives.

Of course, their loved ones did appear at their funerals.

It is waaaaay past time for this creepy dead-end compromise to bite the dust.

many thanks for the round up of information here goes to the Progress Report:

http://www.progress@mx3.americanprogress action.org

UPDATE: Search and Destroy: Gay-Baiting in the Military Under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Source: The Nation Author(s): Doug Ireland Date: July 10, 2000 In the wake of Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy's high-profile sexual harassment case against another Army general (who himself had just been put in charge of investigating sexual harassment!), the mainstream media have given a substantial amount of coverage to the appalling rates of sexual harassment of women in the armed forces. But you would be hard pressed to find in these news reports any mention of one of the principal spurs to this harassment: the policy on gays in the military, popularly known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. "You can't separate this policy from sexual harassment," says Michelle Benecke, a former captain of US Army defense artillery--and a Harvard-trained lawyer--who is the co-founder and co-director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "A lot of the perception that women in the services are gay stems from the fact that they're not sleeping with anyone in their unit," Benecke says. "The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy pressures young women into sexual activity with their superiors by making them subject to the threat of discharge as gay." The Defense Department's own discharge figures support Benecke's contention that women are being disproportionately targeted by the policy: Women accounted for 31 percent of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell discharges in 1999, even though they are only 14 percent of the uniformed services. The numbers are most striking in the Army, where women are only 15 percent of the force but 35 percent of the gay discharges; in the Air Force, where they are 18 percent, compared with 37 percent of discharges; and in the Marines, where women are 6 percent of the Corps but account for 21 percent of those discharged. Since lesbian-baiting is the military man's best defense against charges of sexual harassment, these numbers help explain why many women in the military are afraid to report such conduct, let alone tell their superiors about antigay harassment. Nicole B. was 21 when she joined the Navy in 1995 and became a second-class petty officer in the weather-forecasting service. At a Navy forecasting school in Biloxi, Mississippi, her Marine instructor in oceanography "was constantly making antigay jokes. Rumors had circulated that I was gay, and this instructor would make cracks about 'dikes in the water' and turn to me saying, 'Don't get too excited about the word.'" Things got worse when Nicole was sent to a small base in Texas after she told her chief about the antigay harassment of a male sailor friend in her unit, who was constantly being "baited as a 'fag,' 'a woman,' a 'guy who wears makeup.'" Then someone "wrote a message on my car that said, 'You suck dick and eat pussy,'" Nicole says. "I was terrified and fearful for my life. It just got worse, and I cried every day." After Nicole finally reported the harassment to her chief, she says, "He told me, 'I just want to reach over and slap your face.'" Since three superior officers had harassed Nicole, she "didn't feel there was anybody among my chiefs who'd back me up if I was assaulted. I loved the Navy, but it's so difficult when you have to hide, make up a boyfriend, censor your social conversation. Then I got into a relationship, and that's when it became clear to me that I wasn't going to be able to deal with this, that I had to give it up. That was very hard." Nicole got in touch with SLDN, which helped her write a coming-out letter to her commanding officer. She was discharged last year, but says, "I still miss the Navy--I'm encouraging my little nephew to become a Navy pilot." Petty Officer Nicole B.'s experiences typify the ways in which even gays who try to be discreet have been increasingly subject to harassment and expulsion under the current policy. Not only has the policy--its correct name is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass, Don't Pursue"--failed to diminish discharges of gay servicemembers; it has actually increased them, from 617 in 1994 to 1,034 in 1999, at a cost of more than $161 million (based on General Accounting Office figures) in training replacements for those discharged. And the policy has spurred soaring rates of verbal abuse and physical violence, even murder. * * * This disastrous policy was born out of Bill Clinton's refusal to honor his 1992 campaign pledge to let gays serve openly in uniform. In large part because of his own reputation as a draft dodger, Clinton knuckled under to pressure from the generals and admirals and their allies in Congress, thus betraying the principle of civilian control of the military and sending a signal to the Pentagon crowd that he could be rolled (as ever-increasing military-procurement budgets in his two terms have shown). Moreover, Clinton's capitulation forced the gay movement to fight on a battleground not of its own choosing. The 1993 gay-run Campaign for Military Service not only strained the movement's limited resources; the losing effort was also a PR disaster for gay politics that undercut the chance to pass the critically important Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) while Democrats still controlled the Congress. Many left-wing gays were uncomfortable at seeing precious energies squandered in combat for the right to serve in a military they disdained and distrusted. But once the issue was joined, the movement had no choice but to confront the tidal wave of slurs against same-sexers deployed by four-star homophobes like Colin Powell and bigoted politicians like Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sam Nunn. And all the more so because military homophobia is also a class issue: The overwhelming majority of its victims are young recruits who joined up to get an education or career, lured by the bright promises of flashy ad campaigns and aggressive high school recruiting, often before they admit to themselves they're gay. Even the Department of Defense itself has now been forced to admit that harassment of uniformed gays remains widespread. In March the DoD Inspector General released a survey of 71,570 active-duty servicemembers revealing that 80 percent of those who filled out questionnaires reported hearing "offensive" antigay remarks. Nearly 10 percent said they had witnessed physical assault. Significant numbers also reported "offensive or hostile gestures,""threats or intimidation," graffiti, vandalism, "limiting or denying training and/or career opportunities," and "disciplinary actions or punishment" not of the bigots but of their victims ("for example, being punished for something when others were not"). Most telling, of those who said their "cited situation" was witnessed by someone senior to either the person being harassed or the harasser, 73 percent said "the senior person did nothing to immediately stop the harassment." If the Clinton Administration had really been serious about protecting gays in the military, the Pentagon would have conducted such a survey long ago. That it happened at all was due to two things: increased pressure from SLDN, which has documented rising harassment and discrimination in a series of meticulous annual reports for the past six years; and the particularly grisly antigay murder of a soldier at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on July 5, 1999. Pvt. Barry Winchell was only 21 when, after enduring four months of verbal and physical assault, he was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat by a fellow soldier. Winchell, who had been asleep in his cot, was left with his skull shattered "like an eggshell," according to an Army investigator, his eyes black and swollen shut, his brains oozing from his head. Winchell had confided to two friends that he was afraid to report the escalating daily harassment that led to his murder, because he would risk being kicked out of the Army. It was five months after Private Winchell's murder when Defense Secretary William Cohen finally ordered the IG survey of antigay harassment throughout the armed services. But even now, the Army is refusing to release its IG's report on the antigay climate of terror that reigned at Fort Campbell under its commander, Maj. Gen. Robert Clark. "We provided a lot of evidence of antigay harassment there and how it was tolerated by superior officers," says SLDN's Benecke. * * * To take just two examples: Fort Campbell Pvt. Javier Torres gave a sworn statement to SLDN that, just months after Private Winchell was murdered, his unit's staff sergeant led them on a run singing in cadence, "Faggot, faggot, down the street/Shot him, shot him, till he retreats." Another Fort Campbell sergeant, assigned to brief a unit on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, repeatedly called the training session the "fag briefing" and referred to gay soldiers as "fags.""We asked the IG conducting the Fort Campbell investigation, 'How can servicemembers contact you?' and he told us to our faces that he believed that he was obliged to turn in as gay any servicemember who said he was a victim of antigay harassment," says Benecke. Although the IG report on Fort Campbell was due to be released on May 1, the Army has postponed giving the report to the Secretary of the Army until July 1--conveniently after General Clark's June 9 advancement to a prestigious Pentagon post as Vice Director (J3) of Plans and Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Benecke points out, "This is the man who allowed the harassment at Fort Campbell to exist, and to continue even after Private Winchell's murder. As of February 20, twenty soldiers at Fort Campbell have come out because of their fear. Clark deserves to be dismissed." Retaining Clark in uniform--and even rewarding him--sends a clear signal that servicemembers can continue to harass with impunity. That's certainly the impression that Clinton Administration policy has left with many military commanders and their subordinates. Not until March 1997 did the DoD get around to issuing "Guidelines for Investigating Threats Against Service Members Based on Alleged Homosexuality," by Under Secretary of Defense Edwin Dorn, designed to implement the 1993 Don't Harass, Don't Pursue policy. But SLDN forced the Pentagon to admit in April 1998 that it had never distributed the guidelines to the field. And it was not until after Private Winchell's murder fifteen months later that the Dorn report was finally distributed. In the IG harassment survey this past March, 57 percent of respondents said they had received no training on the policy; of the 54 percent who claimed they understood it, only 26 percent were able to answer the three most basic questions about it. * * * "The new policy is worse than the old, much worse," says Professor Janet Halley of Harvard Law School, who last year published Don't: A Reader's Guide to the Military's Anti-Gay Policy (Duke). "Under the old policy, you could be discharged if it was found out you had a 'homosexual orientation.' The new policy says you can be discharged if you have manifested a 'propensity' to engage in homosexual acts. 'Propensity' is judged by 'conduct,' but that can mean anything from having a Melissa Etheridge poster on your wall to wearing short hair and a thick, black watchband to refusing to have sex with a man," she says, citing real examples from discharge cases. Moreover, Halley says, to escape expulsion "you have to prove that you have no propensity, so the only defense is an identity defense, a status defense--you have to prove you're straight." And the judgment about "propensity" is an entirely subjective one, which means treatment of gay military personnel varies greatly from command to command. That was the experience of Petty Officer First Class Larry Glover, who was discharged February 25 from the Navy after fifteen years for being gay: "I went from two commands that were not too bad to one that was pure hell," he says. Like so many others, Glover says he "didn't figure out that I was gay until I'd been in the Navy for three years--I had fought it up until then." For Glover, joining one of the uniformed branches was an escape route from both a stunted economic situation and from "a small town in East Tennessee in the middle of the Bible Belt--for me, it was a way of getting out to see the world." Glover has earned ten medals--"I rattle when I walk," he chuckles. He even has a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal for having risked his life to save a $77 million plane from going over the side of an aircraft carrier in high seas. In his first two commands, Glover was eventually accepted by the sailors he worked with--"Once I told them, 'Yes, I'm gay, so what?' the issue went away." But on his last shipboard posting, the antigay atmosphere was particularly virulent. Glover found himself having to stand up for younger sailors who were being harassed as gay: "It was my job as a person in a leadership position. I put myself on the line every day. I witnessed spray-painting of the word 'fag,' destruction of private property or of uniforms in lockers--things like filling the lock with glue so sailors couldn't get to their uniforms, which caused them to be late, which got them punished. I witnessed chief petty officers using terms like 'the little fag,' 'the little butt-bandit,' 'ball breath.' One kid had a complete nervous breakdown--I took him off the ship crying." Glover's attempts to protect younger sailors led to his "being threatened" with negative performance evaluations. By this time he was in a relationship, and the effects of harassment and the pressure to be closeted "limits your compatibility with your partner; the job just wasn't worth what I was putting in. A friend high up in the military that I'd met at a gay bar told me about SLDN and gave me their number. They helped me write my coming-out letter to my commander. The day I heard they were going to process my discharge papers, I put a rainbow sticker on my locker." Glover, who had to give up $850,000 in pay and retirement benefits when he chose to stop hiding, now says, "I'm distraught with the Defense Department and government in general," adding, "We've got to fix this policy--we just have to." * * * Most of America's major NATO allies now allow gays to serve openly in the military, including France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada. Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Israel do as well. Britain was forced last fall by the European Court of Human Rights to end its military ban on gays and has now embraced them, even inviting gay soldiers who had been discharged to apply for reinstatement. Dr. David Segal, who directs the University of Maryland's Center for Research on Military Organization--which studies comparative military institutions--says that"there is no evidence from any country we've looked at that lifting the ban on gays impacts negatively on either unit cohesion or performance." He adds, "There's no question that the direction of social change will eventually deal with sexual orientation as irrelevant in terms of the military." The Pentagon's brass hats know this is true. Aaron Belkin, who directs the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, points out that "gay discharges always go down in wartime. During the Korean and Vietnam wars there were about half as many such discharges as in peacetime. In World War II the discharge rate was substantially lower than in the postwar period. In the Persian Gulf War, the military had a 'stop-loss' order that suspended gay expulsions. What the Pentagon is saying is, when unit cohesion is most important and our survival is at stake, we'll keep them in. There is no intellectually honest case to be made that gays undermine cohesion in the military." Quite the reverse: The current US policy saps unit cohesion by subjecting gay servicemembers to career-ending blackmail. The hypocrisy of the Pentagon's attitude is underscored by one of the Army's first African-American generals, Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, who retired in 1989: "Gays have been serving honorably in the military ever since it existed. It's never a problem until the leadership makes it one." Coleman compares the arguments against openly serving gays to those deployed against lifting the ban on racial segregation in the armed forces: "It's the same thing. Close your eyes, sit in a room and listen to the generals' discussions--you hear the same reasons." The right of gay people to serve openly is, Coleman says, "a legitimate civil rights and human rights question. It shouldn't even be an issue." However, given the current conservative composition of our judiciary, it is unlikely that court challenges to the military's antigay policy will prevail in the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court has declined to hear five cases challenging the constitutionality of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and all four of the eleven federal circuit courts in which the policy has so far been challenged have upheld it. That kicks the ball back into the political arena. * * * In the most recent Gallup poll on the question, in January, 41 percent of Americans said gays should be allowed to serve openly; 38 percent--most of whom wrongly believe the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is a tolerant one--said gays should be able to serve under the current policy; while only 17 percent think gays should not be able to serve under any circumstances. The issue flared into the news briefly during the presidential primary campaigns. Bill Bradley, who in 1993 had voted as a senator for outright repeal of the military ban before Clinton signed Don't Ask, Don't Tell into law, reiterated his position in his campaign last September and said he'd expect the military to follow his policy. Until then, Al Gore had said only that he'd implement Don't Ask, Don't Tell with "more compassion." But competing with Bradley for the gay vote, in December Gore finally came out against Don't Ask, Don't Tell and said he would lift the ban entirely and make this a litmus test for his appointees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (after the Republicans jumped on him for that last statement, Gore backpedaled somewhat, saying there would be no "political opinion" test for his military appointees). Even President Clinton got around in December to admitting that the current policy was "out of whack" (an unfortunate locution that led to a spate of raunchy jokes by late-night TV comedians). On the GOP side, George Bush declared in the primary debates that "I'm a Don't Ask, Don't Tell man," while John McCain likewise supported the current policy because it's "working." But, of course, it isn't, as the rising discharge rates and the DoD's own harassment statistics show. Moreover, the Don't Ask and Don't Pursue elements of the current policy are continually violated by commanders, investigating officers and even legal personnel. SLDN, in its March annual report, "Conduct Unbecoming," documented 194 Don't Ask violations from February 1999 to February 2000, a 20 percent increase from the preceding year and the sixth consecutive increase since the policy began. In the same period the SLDN report also detailed 470 Don't Pursue violations, a 34 percent increase. This year, there was an antigay witch hunt at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, which ensnared fourteen enlisted personnel, mostly female. And at the beginning of June, SLDN forced the Navy to admit that for the past two years it has been sending undercover agents into five Washington, DC, gay bars and nightclubs to seek out patrons who are in the military. The Navy claims it's only going after illegal drug use, but SLDN's Benecke calls this "a ruse--our information shows they're only targeting gay establishments." Congressional supporters of lifting entirely the ban on open gays in the military are deeply pessimistic about any positive legislative changes. "This Congress is not going to overhaul this policy," declares Representative Marty Meehan, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the ranking member of its subcommittee on personnel. Meehan says that "there's no way even to have hearings on harassment now--we'd go backward, not forward." On the Senate side, another longtime opponent of the ban, Massachusetts's John Kerry, likewise paints a bleak picture, at least "until we [the Democrats] get a majority." About all he and his like-minded colleagues can do at this point, he says, is "turn up the heat a notch" on the Pentagon and the Administration. Kerry says that "what's missing is the investigative component" to identify those who engage in or tolerate harassment, and he wants Clinton to issue an executive order for an investigation that would root out violations of the Don't Ask, Don't Harass and Don't Pursue sections of the policy and hold military leadership accountable. In May he and Senator Max Cleland, a paraplegic veteran from Georgia, sent a tart letter to Defense Secretary Cohen pointing up the failure to implement antiharassment training in the armed forces in a meaningful way. Even Representative Barney Frank, one of the Administration's most visible defenders, says he is "deeply disappointed with the way Bill Cohen has handled the harassment issue." On June 7 Frank and thirty colleagues (including minority leader Dick Gephardt and two GOPers--Connie Morella and Mark Foley) sent an even stronger letter to Cohen calling the Pentagon's failure to curb harassment "disgraceful"; denouncing the promotion of General Clark, the Fort Campbell commander; attacking the Navy and Air Force for trying to recoup training costs from servicemembers discharged as gay, even though this violates the DoD's own policy; and asking for a White House meeting. To date, neither the Kerry/Cleland nor the Frank et al. letters have received anything more than a "we'll get back to you" acknowledgment. * * * Coming to grips with one's homosexuality when already in uniform is a terrifying experience. The Pentagon has to be forced to take seriously its obligation to provide comprehensive antiharassment training (the training materials are thoroughly confused); to provide a safe way in which victims can report harassment without fear of losing their careers; and to punish not only harassers but those commanders who tolerate harassment (not a single one has been disciplined). Until then, SLDN is the gay servicemembers' only protection. It's amazing how much this small legal-aid group has accomplished already. Founded in 1993 on a shoestring, SLDN--which has already handled 2,300 cases--is today struggling along on a $1.4 million budget and desperately seeking additional funds for more legal staff to handle the soaring number of harassment complaints. Its "Survival Guide" is the only document that tells military gays how to cope with the current policy and what their rights are (the DoD provides no such material). Jeff Cleghorn, a retired major in US Army military intelligence who got a law degree after he left the service in 1996, is one of SLDN's legal-aid intake staff; he says that the organization's clients "are mostly young people concerned about, if not their physical well-being, then their emotional well-being." SLDN counsels active targets of investigation on "what they can do to minimize the risk of those investigations being either initiated or expanded," Cleghorn says. "If there's harassment or physical threats, we contact base commanders and legal officers and remind them of the investigative limits in the current policy." The group has just under 200 open cases at any one time--but the number is growing. And there's no question that SLDN has saved lives. "Just the other day I had a call from a kid at a naval base in Florida who'd been assaulted physically by several sailors," says Cleghorn; "he was in tears and suicidal. I called the Metropolitan Community Church [a gay denomination] in the city he was in to arrange counseling in a safe space, and contacted the chaplain at his base. He survived. We go with what's there--even if it's just someone who'll give 'em a big hug and listen to their problems." Bill Clinton, Bill Cohen, Al Gore and their lame-duck Administration still have six months to do something to protect kids like that sailor in Florida. But will they act? For information or to make a contribution to SLDN: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, PO Box 65301, Washington, DC 20035-5301 (or www.sldn.org). For free, confidential counseling, call (202) 328-3244. Doug Ireland writes frequently on politics for The Nation. Research support was provided by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute. HomeAbout the CenterPress RoomPublicationsResourcesEventsFellowships

There's more...

Let's discuss race (Blacks and Whites, in this case), President William Jefferson Clinton and why we are all so...well, Democrats. Those very severe pro-Obama or pro-Clinton supporters may not like this, but I feel it needs to be said. THis follows a three hour conversation with a friend of mine - a brother, really - who moved back to Jacksonville Florida after living next door for over 50 years.

He's African American. His grandparents were slaves in Alabama for a good part of their lives, then they were given 800 acres of land that they lived off of and sharecropped with about 100 other families that were mostly Native Americans and Africans. Very hard work, but male or female you were well schooled with no excuses. He's the wisest and sanest man I have ever known, and he can cut through bs to the truth better than anyone.

There is no disputing that the Black community showed itself to be an extremely loyal and understanding group to Bill Clinton when even other Democrats were caught up in the moral outrage .

There's more...

Just over a month ago, I published a diary titled "Note to the DNC: Apply the rules equally & fairly" in which I argued that the Democratic National Committee had not applied the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention equally and fairly to all states who were in violation of Rule 11.A.; the " Timing of the Delegate Selection Process" rule.

According to Rule 11.A., Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were all given specific dates on which to conduct their primaries and caucuses.  When those three states moved their "first determining stage" caucuses and primaries to January 3rd (IA), January 8th (NH), and January 26th (SC), they were all in violation of Rule 11.A. along with Florida and Michigan.

Yesterday, while speaking to the West Side (Indiana) Democratic Club, President Clinton rightly said that "Democrats let New Hampshire go out of turn," [Source:  3/24/2008 National Journal/Hotline On Call blog "WJC: NH Voted "Out Of Turn"].   As I said last month, Florida and Michigan were not the only states who broke the rules, but they were the only states that were punished.  And I'm proud to see that President Clinton has brought an heightened awareness to this very important fact.

This past Sunday, as I announced my candidacy for Democratic National Convention delegate from Georgia's 13th Congressional district, I was quoted in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution as saying that if elected, I would indeed vote to restore the voting rights of the two states that were punished for breaking the rules  [Source:  3/23/2008 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article "Choice of Democratic nominee may rest with panel"].  What wasn't included in the article, however, were my comments on the subject of this diary; the fact that five states broke the rules but only two states were punished.  I firmly believe that all five states -- Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina --   should all be punished equally and fairly or they shouldn't be punished at all.  

I don't believe you can pick and choose which states are penalized and which ones are not because that flies in the face of what I believe to be one of the Democratic Party's most cherished philosophies; that philosophy being that we're the Party of those who work hard and play by the rules.

That being said, it would be foolhardy for me to think that the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee would go back and retroactively hand down sanctions to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina for breaking the same rules that Florida and Michigan broke.  So, the only choice at this point is , barring a re-vote in those two states, to fully restore the voting rights of the Sunshine State and the Wolverine State at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August.

There's more...