Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu
  • It’s a good thing they haven’t been paying attention. Even otherwise far-right individuals are pissed that we’re losing good men because of a Clinton-era policy.

    It didn’t actually deal with any of the issues the Right brought up. Gay servicemen could still be blackmailed about their sexuality – and, in fact, the risks are higher as they now wil not only be embarassed and put at risk, but also discharged. Nor does it deal with the Schindler problem : military men learn to read individuals too well for such a thing. We’re also wasting valuable manhours trying to figure out who has broken the policy’s mandate and who hasn’t.

    There are issues that need to be debated involving predominantly homosexual individuals in the military, such as the possible requirement of seperated showers and allowing individuals to request transfers based on another individual inside the group… but the current policy is the worst of all worlds.

  • Robert Bell

    I would be curious to hear about the “studies”, and in particular, how they purport to establish causality between the introduction of gays and decline in readiness.

  • Statistically speaking, gay males are more likely to commit suicide, more likely to have mental problems (I blame the INAH-3 nerve cluster), and more likely to live riskier lifestyles. It doesn’t mean anything about the individual, these are just shown to be the case in studies of large groups. Some of the 1993 debate witnesses also brought forward evidence suggesting that sexual tension of any kind has resulted in issues such as favoritism, distrust, or violence.

    All of the above could be assumed to result in declined readiness – losing a individual to suicide, mental instability, or accidents reduces the readiness of the whole group; any reason to distrust another member of the group can require restructuring (I doubt a gay male in the Air Force would want a homophobic male flying as wingman, or vice versa).

  • Robert Bell

    gattsuru: hmmm. the question is does it lead to more adverse outcomes – e.g. often new drugs seem to show promising “input” i.e. they seem to have an interesting mechanism which looks like it *should* reduce mortality, but longer term studies often end up showing no different effect, i.e. “output”. In other words, favoritism or whatever could be *assumed* to cause problems, but does it actually do so.

    The best example of this sort of problem is the sexual abstinence classes, where entry and exit surveys show a highly significant change in attitude towards pre-marital sex, but after six months there is no discernible difference in actual pre-marital sex rates. Ditto for these corporate “retreats” where everybody does some “outward bound” type of experience to generate teamwork and the “aha” moment, but there is no measurable change back at the office.

  • “…more likely to live riskier lifestyles.”

    Like enlisting in the military?

    PING:
    TITLE: West Point cadet challenges ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy; wins award; torques off far right
    BLOG NAME: The Gun Toting Liberal
    (H/T to David Schraub of The Moderate Voice)
    This one might be a day or two old, but I believe it’s worthy of mention. We, as a society are beginning to turn a corner when an Army cadet from West Point can be granted an award for a thesis which …

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com