Women Discharged Disproportionately Under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

In yet another look at the unequal application of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to women in the Military, the Houston Chronicle has a story that shows just how outrageous the situation truly is. I know in this area, there seems to be a conscious effort to discharge lesbians, particularly careers officers, shortly before retirement so as to wipe out their pension benefits. One close friend lived in constant fear that something would happen before she completed her twenty years. Fortunately, she made it and is now safely retired. All of this demonstrates why this foul, unfair policy needs to go and go soon. The bottom line is that there is NO legitimate reason for the policy other than to pander to the Christianists who strive to maintain discrimination against gays based on religious belief in effect. Something that should be unconstitutional in itself. Here are some highlights:

*

Today marks the 30th anniversary of Houston's Gay Pride Parade. During those three decades the lot of gays and lesbians has improved immeasurably, but the same cannot be said of those serving in the armed forces. In 2007, discharges under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy rose to 627 highly skilled and valuable personnel, up from 612 the year before. More disturbing, Pentagon statistics reveal that almost half of those discharged by the Army (46 percent) and Air Force (49 percent) were women. As only 14 percent of Army troops and 20 percent of Air Force personnel are women, this represents a startling disparity between the sexes.

*
The military did not volunteer these data. They were compiled under a Freedom of Information Act request by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a military advocacy group. The Pentagon had no explanation for the sharp disparity, nor did it seem inclined to pursue the matter. . . . That's unfortunate and irresponsible.

*

Since the start of the Iraq war, the military has lowered its standards drastically. It now offers large cash bonuses at enlistment, has loosened age and weight requirements, and grants "moral waivers" to recruits with criminal pasts, including thousands of felons. Yet it insists on a discriminatory policy that results in the loss of dedicated career personnel with valuable skills.

*

"I wonder about that when I'm in court fighting my discharge," said Stacy Vasquez, an Army recruiter in Dallas in 2003 when she was discharged after someone reported she had been seen kissing a woman in a gay bar. "I have no criminal record, I have a master's degree and 12 years of experience. You'd think the Pentagon would be concerned about this when they have problems recruiting qualified applicants."

*

The logical next step would be for Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," a course favored by many senior former officers. Most European countries, including Great Britain, have lifted their bans on gay soldiers, with no ill effects, and four out of five American soldiers feel comfortable with gay comrades.

Monday Male Beauty

Larry Craig Sponsors Federal Marriage Amendment - Update

What more needs to be said about the hypocrisy of Senator Larry Craig being a sponsor of a re-cast Federal Marriage Amendment than wht is in this "ad." Would that the GOP actually was a party of ideas and vision for the future instead of slavishly pandering to the most lunatic elements of the Christianists.

More Sunday Male Beauty

U. S. Supreme Court at Risk

As I have posted recently in discussing why no LGBT citizen in their right mind should vote for John McCain, a McCain victory could result in long lasting damage to gay rights and the larger issue of individual freedoms. Today's Washington Post looks at what a McCain victory might mean and how the balance on the Supreme Court could be thrown to the Scalia -Roberts side of the scale. While I once admired Scalia's writing style, the man has become increasing unable to separate his own personal religious beliefs from the civil laws. People REALLY need to wake up to this danger. In my opinion, a significant shift to the right could put decisions like Lawrence v. Texas at severe risk since the Christianist truly want to re-criminalize gay sex. Like it or not, that is a reality that EVERY gay American needs to remember come November. Here are some highlights:

*

A victory by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the right.

*

"If there's one thing you can see about this court, it is that it still sits on a knife's edge," said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford University law professor who argued three cases before the justices this year. Each case pitted the court's four consistent conservatives against its four slightly less consistent liberals, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy returning to his role of last term as the deciding vote.

*

But a McCain victory could give the conservative bloc a clear-cut majority for years to come.

The Terror Card

In my view, it borders on the obscene that Charles Black, one of John McCain's (or McSenile to be more accurate) top advisors made a statement last week that sounded almost as if he'd welcome a terror attack on the USA between now and election day. Anything to win, I guess, but do we really want this kind of mindset again in the White House? I most surely do not and, if the GOP is doing such a supposedly wonderful job, why do we even need to still be concerned with potential terror attacks? Could it be because the delusional Chimperator took his eye off the ball - i.e., Al-Queada - and went off on a fool's errand in Iraq? A venture that McSenile supports, by the way. It is also interesting to note that the other pillar of the GOP fear mongering is that of us scary gays. Why is it that Obama and the Democrats offers a message of hope and improvements, while the GOP seems to only be able to summon up a message of fear as a reason to vote for them? Here are some highlights from Frank Rich's column in today's New York Times that properly take Mr. Black and the GOP to task:

*

DON’T fault Charles Black, the John McCain adviser, for publicly stating his honest belief that a domestic terrorist attack would be “a big advantage” for their campaign and that Benazir Bhutto’s assassination had “helped” Mr. McCain win the New Hampshire primary. His real sin is that he didn’t come completely clean on his strategic thinking. . . . Would the attack be most useful if it took place in a red state, blue state or swing state? How much would it “help” if the next assassinated foreign leader had a higher name recognition in American households than Benazir Bhutto?

*
Unlike Hillary Clinton’s rumination about the Bobby Kennedy assassination or Barack Obama’s soliloquy about voters clinging to guns and faith, Mr. Black’s remarks were not an improvisational mishap. He gave his quotes on the record to Fortune magazine. He did so without thinking twice because he was merely saying what much of Washington believes.

*

That equation was the creation of Karl Rove. Among the only durable legacies of the Bush presidency are the twin fears that Mr. Rove relentlessly pushed on his client’s behalf: fear of terrorism and fear of gays. But these pillars are disintegrating too. They’re propped up mainly by political operatives like Mr. Black and their journalistic camp followers — the last Washington insiders who are still in Mr. Rove’s sway and are still refighting the last political war.

*

If a terrorist bomb did detonate in an American city before Election Day, would that automatically be to the Republican ticket’s benefit? Not necessarily. Some might instead ask why the Bush White House didn’t replace Michael Chertoff as secretary of homeland security after a House report condemned his bungling of Katrina. The man didn’t know what was happening in the New Orleans Convention Center even when it was broadcast on national television.

*

Next, voters might take a hard look at the antiterrorism warriors of the McCain campaign (and of a potential McCain administration). . . . Take — please! — the McCain foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann. He was the executive director of the so-called Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, formed in 2002 (with Mr. McCain on board) to gin up the war that diverted American resources from fighting those who attacked us on 9/11 to invading a nation that did not. Thanks to that strategic blunder, a 2008 Qaeda attack could well originate from Pakistan or Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden’s progeny, liberated by our liberation of Iraq, have been regrouping ever since.

*

Then there is the McCain camp’s star fearmonger, Rudy Giuliani, who has lately taken to railing about Mr. Obama’s supposed failure to learn the lessons of the first twin towers bombing. The lesson America’s Mayor took away from that 1993 attack was to insist that New York City’s emergency command center be located in the World Trade Center. No less an authority than John Lehman, a 9/11 commission member who also serves on the McCain team, has mocked New York’s pre-9/11 emergency plans as “not worthy of the Boy Scouts.”

*

But you can’t blame the McCain campaign for clinging to terrorism as a political crutch. The other Rove fear card is even more tattered. In the wake of Larry Craig and Mark Foley, it’s a double-edged sword for the G.O.P. to trot out gay blades cavorting in pride parades in homosexual-panic ads. Some on the right still hold out hope otherwise. After the California Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage, The Weekly Standard suggested that a brewing backlash could put that state’s “electoral votes in play.” But few others believe so, including the state’s Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger who has vowed to enforce the law and opposes a ballot initiative to overturn it. Even Bill O’Reilly recently chastised a family-values advocate for mounting politically ineffectual arguments against same-sex marriage.

Sunday Male Beauty

Big Wave surfer, Malik Joyeux, who drowned an the North Shore in December, 2005. Surfing is an amazing sport, but has many dangers as I know from a near drowning experience myself, not to mention being sliced badly by the fin on my board some years back. May Malik rest in peace.

McSenile - McCain Four Years Delinquent on Condo Real Estate Taxes

The late Ann Richards made fun of the Chimperator's dad and the silver spoon he had been born with sticking out of his mouth. Well, it looks like John McCain is equally out of touch with reality. Poor John and Cindy have so many homes, I guess they just cannot keep track of them all or make sure the property taxes get paid on all of them. It seems that the McCains's beach front condo in La Jolla just got lost in the shuffle of so many homes. One would think with her $100 million fortune, Cindy could hire someone to keep track of her property tax obligations. Is it just me, or do we really want another Chimperator clone for president, or isn't it time for a president who has some remote clue as to how most of us live in the country? Sadly, many people live a pretty much hand to mouth existence, while John and Cindy cannot even keep track of all their properties (they own at least seven properties according to Newsweek). It's not so much the amount of the unpaid taxes as it is the excessiveness of having seven or more homes. I think I'd notice if I did not receive my property tax bill for four years. Here are some highlights:

*

When you're poor, it can be hard to pay the bills. When you're rich, it's hard to keep track of all the bills that need paying. It's a lesson Cindy McCain learned the hard way when NEWSWEEK raised questions about an overdue property-tax bill on a La Jolla, Calif., property owned by a trust that she oversees. Mrs. McCain is a beer heiress with an estimated $100 million fortune and, along with her husband, she owns at least seven properties, including condos in California and Arizona.

*

San Diego County officials, it turns out, have been sending out tax notices on the La Jolla property, an oceanfront condo, for four years without receiving a response. County records show the bills, which were mailed to a Phoenix address associated with Mrs. McCain's trust, were returned by the post office. According to a McCain campaign aide, who requested anonymity when discussing a private matter, an elderly aunt of Mrs. McCain's lives in the condo, and the bank that manages the trust has not been receiving tax bills on the property.

*

Dan McAllister, treasurer- tax collector for San Diego County, said . . . ."Under the law, the property owner is responsible for keeping the address current. We're only as good as the information we are given."

Appalachian Trail - 6/29/08 Update

My son continues to make quick progress on his adventure. In three months he has hiked from Georgia into Connecticut. As he moves ultimately into New Hampshire and Maine, the daily rate traveled will drop since the terrain and difficulty of the hike will be more challenging. The photo above is a view as he crossed the Hudson River. As I have said before, I sort of envy him and I am glad that he is doing this trip while he is young and able to do so. It will certainly be a feat that he will always remember and will put him in an elite group of hikers when he completes his journey. And yes, I am very, very proud of him. :)

Mortgage Debt Is Snowballing

Several commentators have argued that the Democrats need to do more to tie the home mortgage debacle sweeping the country to the GOP and its policies of decreasing regulation, apparently believing that the fox would properly police the hen house. I believe they are correct and someone needs to get the blame for this disaster which is dragging down the entire economy and pushing more and more businesses to the brink financially. As this New York Times story indicates, the problem of loan defaults and plummeting home values is getting worse - much worse. It is becoming a downward spiral that keeps going as values fall and more homeowners find themselves owing more on their mortgages than their homes are now worth. Also note, that it is the Republicans who are opposing legislation to try to help the very bad situation. It their view, it is fine to bail out the fat cats on Wall Street, but to Hell with regular Americans (Senators DeMint and Bunning from the South probably think the borrowers in distress are members of minorities, so why help them. Only white evangelicals count). Here are some highlights:

*

When Congress started fashioning a sweeping rescue package for struggling homeowners earlier this year, 2.6 million loans were in trouble. But the problem has grown considerably in just six months and is continuing to worsen. More than three million borrowers are in distress, and analysts are forecasting a couple of million more will fall behind on their payments in the coming year as home prices fall further and the economy weakens.

*

Those stark numbers not only illustrate the challenges for the lawmakers trying to provide some relief to their constituents but also hint at what the next administration will be facing after the election. While the proposed program would help some homeowners, analysts say it would touch only a small fraction of those in trouble — the Congressional Budget Office estimates it would be used by 400,000 borrowers — and would do little to bolster the housing market.

*
“It’s not enough, even in the best of circumstances,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com. The number of people who will be helped “is going to be overwhelmed by the three million that are headed toward default.” The bill would let lenders and borrowers refinance troubled mortgages into more affordable 30-year fixed-rate loans that are backed by the government. Democratic leaders say Congress could send something to the president next month. The White House, which initially threatened to veto the measure, has indicated that it is open to supporting the bill if certain provisions are removed.

*

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and a central force behind the legislation, said on Friday that recent reports about falling home prices have rallied support for the plan. But he acknowledged that the plan may not do enough to help homeowners or the housing market. Mr. Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that even after a bill like this, “you may need more.”

*

But not everyone supports government interventions. Some Republicans, like Senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Jim Bunning of Kentucky, say the proposal would use government subsidies to bail out reckless lenders and borrowers. They suggest that the housing market will correct itself more quickly if Congress does not intervene.

*

[O]thers forecast that two million to three million mortgages will default — beyond the three million in trouble now — and economists at Lehman Brothers say home prices nationally may drop 15 percent by the end of 2009. That may force policy makers to consider further interventions.