Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Fair advice on DADT

Our buddy Professor Bruce Fleming has an article out in the Baltimore Sun about DADT.

I support repeal of DADT - but the only real reservation I have is that given its history - Big Navy will put the Diversity Bullies in charge of implementing it and as a result, will create more bad blood than needed.

At the end of the article, Professor Fleming finds a middle-ground of truth that, if it is wise, those charged with implementing the repeal will hoist on-board.
Many straight boys simply need to have explained to them that not all gay men want them sexually. There is no evidence that gays are more likely to be rapists than straights are; and everybody can learn not to act on whatever s/he is thinking or feeling during working hours. However, there are situations where sexual orientation would pose a problem, and the military would be wise to acknowledge this.

Advice to the civilians: Lose your exasperation with those in the military who are trying to say why they think integrating openly gay service members will be difficult. Instead, listen to them. We may be able to address some of their concerns; some may simply have to be acknowledged. But even just saying, "Yep, you're right. We'll have to deal with these problems as they arise" is better than saying: "Shut up, you racist, homophobic chauvinist." That's what the military — becoming the enforcer of its civilian masters — will certainly say. Stand by for the drop in morale.
Sadly - I am afraid we will hear the later more than the former. Just look at what happened with Prop8 in CA. The fringe often drowns out the sensible center.

75 comments:

DeltaBravo said...

<span>"Big Navy will put the Diversity Bullies in charge of implementing it and as a result, will create more bad blood than needed."</span>
<span></span>
<span>That one sentence says it ALL.  That's EXACTLY why it won't work well.  As predictable as the sunrise.  And the protected classes will use the Diversity Bullies to jam through their own agenda, which is NOT "live and let live."  My whole problem with it to begin with.</span>
<span></span>
<span></span>

Kingsley Browne said...

Fleming's column is excellent, but he seems to minimize the discomfort of "straight boys" by suggesting that they just need to learn that not all gay men want them sexually. The issue of sexual privacy is a little more complex. We would think it abhorrent to require 80-year-old women to be naked among 20-year-old men even though the likelihood that any of the men would experience sexual desire is close to zero. Moreover, even though not all gay men may want a particular "straight boy" sexually, some very well may, so you may end up with the "kid in the candy store" phenomenon that characterized Eric Massa's alleged behavior while he was in the Navy.

CAPT JAP RET said...

I can see it now!  Seaman Smith come to their division officer and reports Seaman Jones for sexual harassment.  Both Seaman Smith and Jones are of the same sex. Where are the guidelines on how to hancle this? Where is the training for the poor division officer? Where is the training for anyone in the command chain? 

Yep, let us just do away with the evil DADT and "Damn the consequences, Full Speed ahead!".

Does anyone not remember the problems the Navy had when the ships became COED?  It has taken a long time and a lot of anguish and I don't think the Navy has got the COED ship situation under control YET.

Byron said...

I can see it on the electronic sign at the gate of Mayport Naval Station in my mind, some months or years in the future:

HOMOSEXUAL AWARENESS MONTHS....DISCUSSION PANELS IN HALSEY BARRACKS
ALL HANDS MUST ATTEND

Old NFO said...

Not all straight men want the bodies of every woman they see.  Does that mean we will now assign them to common berthing?  

Men are typically more sexually aggressive than women, are homosexuals less sexually aggressive than straight men?  Will they be less sexually aggressive toward the straight men they live and work in close quarters with than straight men are toward women in the same situation?

Exactly how does this increase the combat effectiveness of the military?

Barry said...

I wonder how the PC and Diverity crowd would handle a devout Muslim objecting to serving with a homosexual?

Byron said...

Or Christian....

LT B said...

A lot of stuff about men, what about women?  I know of one case where to lesbian lovers got into a fight and had one put the other's head into the bulkhead.  Additionally, I had a girl/girl harassment issue w/ one of my female enlisted.  Nobody wanted to touch that w/ a 10' pole even though everybody knew female berthing was ripe w/ militant lesbianism.  They quietly gave the O3 LDO Butch a 4.0 and whisked her to Pearl.  You think the Navy can handle this properly?  You are naive, oblivious, or dishonest. 

The Navy has not handled COED yet.  We hide the pregnancies, and when  FOGO says he will prosecute, he is shouted down from outside the military.  Well, I guess we get to choose which articles of the UCMJ we will enforce/follow.  Honor, Courage, Commitment unless it relates to USNA football or is politically uncomfortable.  So, as a result, the higher in rank you get the less you have or should be expected to adhere to Navy Core Values.  And yet people wonder where the cynicism comes from.  Set the bar, hold the bar, help Sailors reach the bar.  That is the only way this would work along w/ separate berthing for straight men, gay men, gay women, and straight women.  Bisexuals get stuck w/ the gays.  Have fun w/ that berthing/money issue.

LT B said...

Nobody fears the Christians.  They turn the other cheek.  All the while the gay is checking out both the cheeks. :)  

11B40 said...

Greetings:

1)  Speaking of California, I would be interested on the good Professor's take on San Francisco's "Up Your Alley Fair". 

2)  Does no one remember the Norton Sound?

DeltaBravo said...

Thanks, LtB.  I've tried to bring up the Lesbian aspect before.  Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but multiply that hell by two and you've got some real personnel issues.  Maybe sticking the Lesbian women on ships with straight guys and putting all the women on ships with gay men?  Split the difference.....

Anonymous said...

CoEd hasn't worked because leadership didn't embrace it early and make it work.  We're going to see the same thing happen unless people get on board, and align interests for success.  Military leadership needs to stop dragging their feed, and lead the implementation. Following is part of leadership and the vision has been set.

Anonymous said...

Just like we'd handle a white boy refusing to serve with a black boy:  "Dear white boy, thank you for your service, have a good life."

LT B said...

That's not true.  CoEd didn't work because leadership ignored, and lied about the social aspects of men and women being young, full of hormones, stressed and living in close proximity under said stress.  Additionally, the politicization of what constitutes sexual harassment.  The way men talk to each other builds morale, keeps each other in check, sets an order in the work/play etc.  Introduce one female in there and you have a possible legal issue.  Bringing in women on different standards also bred tension.  Leadership did not embrace...  harumph.  Spoken like a troll that has not had to deal w/ the problems of a deployed coed unit. 

As for the vision being set.  Um, well, if we were honest it has NOT been set.  They were supposed to review how it worked.  Not say that and approach it w/ a forgone conclusion. 

Mr. X said...

The fringe often drowns out the sensible center because the sensible center isn't willing to take a stand for sensibility.

Andrewdb said...

Actually, the staffing direction from the SECDEF is that the Task Force will examine HOW this is implemented, not if.

Andrewdb said...

As I read our host's comments, part of the problem is there is too much training on what to do when SH is reported - I doubt the question will be "what do I do."

Andrewdb said...

Recall the current policy is that closeted gays and lesbians may serve, so it's apparently OK as long as no one knows for sure which one of their collegues might want them?  Misbehavior is misbehavior - gender and orientation isn't all that important compared to conduct.

C-dore 14 said...

11B40, I remember NORTON SOUND and I believe that one of the major reasons for her problems was that her leadership felt that because she was a special ship with a unique mission (non-deploying test platform with a large number of civilian techs aboard) that military discipline and regulations couldn't be applied to her.  After the major scandal and associated PR flap, the Navy fired the CO and XO and assigned individuals who had some understanding of leadership.  Did they solve all the problems...of course not...but they did bring the ship somewhat back into the Navy. 

C-dore 14 said...

LT B, You're right about the lesbians.  One of the problems that led to a major investigation aboard YELLOWSTONE in '88 was a group of lesbians who had taken over one of the female enlisted lounges and were intimidating the straight women.  The CO decided to crack down and although he solved his immediate problem discovered that nobody in the chain of command was ready to thank him for it.  The fact that one of the women involved was the ship's chaplain didn't help matters either.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

If you wrongly equate behaviors with skin color.

Anonymous said...

No, it's exactly the same.  We have rules, and leadership enforces the rules.  We'll find someone that doesn't discriminate.  I'd be happy to show you the door if you refuse to work with someone on the basis of color, sexual orientation, religion etc.  I don't have time to deal with your petty problems, I have a team to maintain and a mission to carry out.  This is exactly the position leadership should take if they want integration of women, or gay people to work.  The military isn't a democracy, you don't like it... goodbye.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

<span>This may come as a shock to you, but very many people disagree with your premise.  And if they do, the rest of your argument comes apart at the seams.  
 
Spare me the lecture about what the military is and is not.  Been doing this a while.  Going on 30 years.  You are nobody to show me the door in any fashion, and to presume to think you can and should do so, you show yourself to be far more intolerant than you accuse others of being, and much less well-informed than you try to let on.  
 
You are approaching trolldom at Mach 2, with your assertion that anyone who disagrees with your premise is unfit for service.</span>

Glenn Mark Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET said...

I am so glad that I have been retired for almost 17 years. This bullshit will tear the forces apart, especially the Sea Service. Sorry, but bad enough with girls aboard ship. And that process was very painful and I am still against it. 
Certain things should have been left well enough alone.

Anonymous said...

Okay. Lets apply your logic.  DoD does a 180.  No gays can serve at all, ever. Are you okay with that?

Is it yes sir, three bags full time for you, or is it now a problem?

LT B said...

Talked to a former enlisted girl on a Norfolk gator.  We got into the discussion of women at sea and I expressed my disgust at what goes on.  She says, "I only slept w/ my b/f 3 times onboard."  Okay, say I, 3 UCMJ violations there.  She says, "I'm glad I broke up w/ him as he impregnated that other girl."  I grumble at that one.  I mention the lesbianism and she mentions the "eat me" couch in berthing.  Then the clue bat hits and talks of the case of STDs that swept the ship too.  Yeah, we got this whole COED thing down.  Good times, good times.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Well, I've served since 1982, so DoD HAS done a 180.  Homosexuality was then considered incompatible with military service, like many other behaviors.  So what's your point?

MR T's Haircut said...

I aint gettin on no "Eat me couch" Hannibal.....  PAIN

MR T's Haircut said...

HAHA  nice try Guest... URR has an assigned seat around here...

MR T's Haircut said...

Reminds me of the joke in Stripes... Army Recruiter :  are you a homosexual?  Bill Murray:  Homosexual?, No but willing to learn...

back in the day it was a screening negative and the only way in was to lie for a Gay.

same with a drug user... just sayin

MR T's Haircut said...

I think I am gonna be UA to that Byron!  Go ahead and get the report chit ready!

MR T's Haircut said...

I fear you are right DB.  Some pretty good Sailors will end up on report for missing mandatory Gay Awarness Training, and many many issues for the Div O's and CPO's running Barracks in Training Commands or berhtings on ships... holy mother of god this is  can o worms!

Skippy-san said...

URR, With all due respect-once DADT is repealed it is going to be exactly like serving with women. You'll have your private opinions and you will have find your self saying completely different words at work. Otherwise it will have an impact. Discharged exactly for that? No. But you can be damn sure that more than a couple of folks will run afoul of somebody and be the guy who eats 3 "P's" in a three year tour and it hurts him professionally. It will become the new professional landscape-just like it is with women now.

Wharf Rat said...

What the heck are you talking about?

What does 'get on board mean?'  and 'the vision has been set?'  What vision?  This is liberal doublespeak.  Maybe there is 'dragging their feet' because some people believe that sexual contact between members of the same sex is still wrong, and maybe there is others who think the military shouldn't be a place for social engineering.

As I've said before - just wait till you get a 'transgendered' man who wants to wear a dress 'manning' the rails (no pun intended).

Even though I think it's wrong - what you do in your bedroom you're responsible for.  Your job is to blow things up when ordered, show the flag, and go to sea, not tell me you're gay.

LT B said...

As I get older and slower, I am pondering a transgender announcement to be able to run the PRT at female standards. :)   You say I can't?  I'm getting a lawyer and saying my feelings were hurt!  ;)

Jay said...

<p><span>The issue isn’t about gay behavior, instead this issue is about all of our behavior -- how we are treating all of our people.  </span><span><span>As ADM Mullen said, it is about their (& our institutional) integrity.<span>  </span>It doesn’t matter what the differences are between you & someone else (gender, race, religious creed, sexual orientation, etc.) – the issue is you & them treating each other in a professional manner and with respect.<span>  </span></span></span>
</p><p><span><span><span></span></span></span><span>I find it interesting, but unsurprising, that some of you bring up the religious canard. </span><span><span>You’d do well to remember this while you serve in the armed forces – your religious convictions/beliefs/practices are to be kept by you (and rightly so – even when sometimes duty/schedule locations make it less than convenient), but more importantly – are also to be kept to yourself.  </span></span><span><span>I am not aware of any restriction in any of the major Christian branches on serving with, living with, working with, and socializing with, (etc.) gay folks.<span>   </span>If I recall from my catholic past – everyone was considered a sinner in some fashion, I suspect it is the same in other sects. <span> </span></span></span><span>If your belief (biblically based or other) leads you to think otherwise – well, then, examine your conscience, and decide if serving in the military is the right job (or career) for you.<span>  </span>It is a volunteer force, your service is appreciated and honored, but it isn’t necessary.</span>
</p><p><span> </span><span>Like it or not, the winds of social change are blowing – and the social mores are becoming more accepting of gays.<span>  </span>The armed forces are reflecting that change in attitude.  </span><span>This is not a leadership challenge that can not be met & successfully carried out by our military. <span> </span>We will be better for it.</span></p>

sobersubmrnr said...

No, goodbye to you. Because we mirror the majority of the folks in the military, who have the right to vote with their feet if this is shoved down their throats. What you'll have is a touchy-feely, gay and girl friendly, 'diverse' military that will be critically undermanned and unable to fulfill its mission.

Jay said...

"Just sayin'"... you forgot to finish it --- "...a ridiculous statement.".

Drug use -- criminal behavior, and detrimental to good order & discipline.

Gay -- not.

Geez Louise...

sobersubmrnr said...

<span>Many straight boys simply need to have explained to them that not all gay men want them sexually.</span>

But many do. Rep. Massa, anyone?

Professor Fleming is right on the money in most of his column, but he underestimates the ease at which this issue could be handled in a 'correct' way. No matter how the military attempts to do this, you can't change biology. Just as biology has prevented the successful integration of women at sea, it will prevent the successful integration of homosexuals. Anything they try will cause an open and festering wound, covered only by a Band-Aid.

Combat NFO said...

Poor leadership is what has caused poor integration of women in the military.  Leadership wasn't aligned, and begrudgingly integrated women, just like blacks.

MR T's Haircut said...

Jay,

when I joined in the 80's you could not:
1. Be a homosexual
2. Have used Drugs

IF a gay has joined before 1995 (DADT), then they certainly LIED on their enlistment contract and I hold that "Integrity" in a questionable light as should you.

they are both behaviors.

MR T's Haircut said...

Gay: Prejudicial to good order and discipline. 

THis is the question that is supposed to be being vetting by the SECDEF... unless it is already a for gone conclusion.

Jay your blinders are slowing your speed down...

MR T's Haircut said...

Bingo SS... AND we will not sell the military to our family members as a noble profession any longer.. and us "breeders" are actually able to reproduce and pass the heritage to our off spring...

sobersubmrnr said...

Apples and oranges, lions and lambs, fire and gasoline....some things just do not mix. Good leadership can only make the best of a bad situation, not make a bad situation good.

sobersubmrnr said...

I agree...let's keep the ban and get rid of Bill Clinton's DADT policy. In other words, go back to what we had before.

Combat NFO said...

Sober,

Well, I disagree.  Evidence that it has been done poorly is not evidence that it can't be, or couldn't have been done exceptionally well.  

I guess you've never worked with great leaders or great teams, that's unfortunate.  I guess if you were/are a submariner, that could explain your situation.

Combat NFO said...

AMH1 it's too bad you couldn't follow and support the policy, it might have drastically improved the implementation.  You could have made a difference.

Anonymous said...

Here's a logic bomb, if people disagree with me, then my argument is unsound?  Hey, I disagree with you, you're argument has now fallen apart.  Thank you for trying.

<span>"This may come as a shock to you, but very many people disagree with your premise.  And if they do, the rest of your argument comes apart at the seams."</span>

Your disagreement with me is irrelevant, the disagreement with the civilian control of the military is dangerous. Subverting the lawful orders of senior military officers is a break down in good order and discipline and subverts their authority.  Here's a leadership primer/parable for you URR, it's a well read tale of leadership and a very valuable lesson for ALL leaders:
http://navaleadership.blogspot.com/2008/12/damn-exec-long-but-worth-it.html

If you can't follow, and carry out the commanders wishes as if they were your own, you're unfit for service and degrade the very fiber that lets the military operate as a cohesive unit.  Disagree in private, carry out the orders with a cheery aye aye in public, or leave..  Spreading seeds of subversion and discontent is what degrades unit cohesion.  I challenge you to lead by example, and have a "Damn Good Ship", instead of Damn Leadership.

sobersubmrnr said...

Childish pot shot. Tell us your story before I tell you mine.

Skippy-san said...

I was around when the combat restriction was removed. There was some great leadership and believe me, the key integrators were hand picked. Our CAG was/is one of the finest leaders I have ever worked for-and he knew his way through the political landmines as well as anyone. However the Navy, made it an unlevel playing field between men and women-AND it went back on what it said it was going to do as far as getting men and women to pay the same dues. That's not a problem that squadron/ship leadership can solve. I had command of one of the first mixed gender squadrons and we had a great team. Won the Battle "E".  We also had a whole host of issues that most of us had never dealt with before in large numbers, like pregancy.

Did leadership as a whole want the change? No. But its not correct to say they did not work hard to make it work-because I know we did.

Andrewdb said...

SS - that's also Elaine Donelly's position, I believe).  I disagree with you, but at least you're consistent.  I doubt you're going to see that, however.

sobersubmrnr said...

I doubt I will either. I'm willing to leave well enough alone as long as the other side does. But they won't, so the saga continues.

Combat NFO said...

You told me your story "<span>Good leadership can only make the best of a bad situation, not make a bad situation good."  </span>

<span>Not a belief system that I care to be involved with.  Not a pot shot at all.  Just to clarify, a pot shot would have been: "Don't confuse good leadership with a Nuke Bonus."  I just offered that if you were a submariner that could explain your perspective.   For the record, I know several great inspirational leaders that were submarine officers. They do exist.</span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Jay,

You know good and well that the advocates and the activists want anything but for gays who will serve openly in the military to keep it to themselves.  They and the diversity Nazis will ensure there are quotas, pride events, special preference, more scrutiny of leaders who discipline gays, the whole trappings of the politics of preference. 

You know it.  I know it.  We will be better for it?  We certainly will.  And anyone who says otherwise will have their careers ended.  Because we are all about Mullen's "integrity".

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Skippy,

Of that I have no doubt.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Oh spare me the Freshman ROTC leadership crap and the Title 10 lecture.  When and if there is a repeal, if I can't serve under those conditions, I have a decision to make.  So instead of accusing me of subverting authority and declaring me unfit, why don't you present a case as to why this social engineering and political experiment will make us more combat capable?

I have led Marines in combat.  We did okay.  How 'bout you?  Or do you have an alternative measure of a leader?  Like maybe necessary agreement with Mullen's personal views?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

The shape of things to come....   I sense another "history month" coming on!

MR T's Haircut said...

Jay,

WRONG.. this isnt about my behavior..  I fell pretty damn good about myself at the end of the day and when I look in the mirror.. dont put someone else's life choice as a burden the rest of us must carry... we ain't buying it.

Go hold hands at the kumbaya with someone else...

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Sorry Jay, but the law is not in your favor.  10 U.S.C. § 654 states, in part,

"the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Anonymous said...

If you can't live with your leadership, leave.  If you can't support your leadership, leave.  We don't need subversive leaders in the chain of command, it weakens the chain.  I won't spare you the leadership lesson, it's the lesson you need.  You can either take the attitude that you're a leader in a Profession and excel, or you can whine, complain and subvert.  It's your call, every day.  If you tell your Marines that you don't support the chain of command, you're doing them a disservice by making subversion acceptable through your example.  You're also creating strife between you and your Gay or Lesbian Marines.  Good leaders create unity within the group, without having to demean another group to do it.  Step up your game and take pride in knowing that you can meet the challenges and the expectations of the CJCS and the President.

Skippy-san said...

Guest, give me an "F-ing" break. Now you are just being silly. There is a huge difference between obeying orders and liking them-and I for one have known plenty of people who were obeyed even though people knew that had strong opinions because at the end of the day, those same officers could be relied upon to be fair and do the right thing. Break out the Scotch because I am with URR here-spare me the pep talks. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

sobersubmrnr said...

All three of the boats I was on had "great teams." Four of my five COs at those commands were "great leaders", especially the first one. Two of those five retired with two stars. One went on to command a AS; a mixed-gender, deep draft command. Another became President of Bath Iron Works. I'm familiar with greatness. Lots of it.

I'm also familiar with the opposite, which I saw not only at numerous mixed-gender shore commands, but at sea on board a mixed-gender ship. I had heard about all the sexual misconduct, but riding that ship was a real eye-opener. It was non-stop, out in the open and in my face. The "leadership" (and I use that term loosely), both male and female, did little to stop it. That crew's performance was poor and showed how corrosive lack of discipline can be; a lack of discipline caused in large part by sexual issues. I could write a book about what went on there, plus what I've seen at shore commands. I would love to read excerpts from that book to Congress. Many, many others on this blog and others have had similar experiences.

If females want me to accept them as equals in the ranks, then they need to insist that they be placed and kept on an even footing with men in regards to conduct, EEO and the like. As it is, females are protected, pampered and allowed to get away with things that would hang a man in a heartbeat. Until that changes, I will always oppose females at sea and in combat units of any branch of service. Gays? If there's one special interest group that rivals radical feminists, it's the homosexuals. No way. We already have enough sexual misconduct issues and political correctness damaging the armed forces. No more.

C-dore 14 said...

Guest, Do you mind me asking if you've actually held command at the O-5 level or above and had to implement decisions like these?

Anon said...

How does allowing gays to serve openly "burden" you or anyone else?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Oh Lordy.  Your arrogance knows no bounds.  My favorite part is your pressumption to lecture me about what you think my obligations are as an Officer of Marines, and the advice on how to lead them. 

One thing you are right about, though.  Good leaders don't express their personal opinions about such matters to their juniors.  Make sure you send that memo to Mullen.

MR T's Haircut said...

<span>Anon, 
 
you have NEVER held a division or Department Head position have you? 
 
You have never sat a DRB or done a Command Investigation. 
 
Your inexperience is shown in the ignorance of your question</span>

OnceAMarine said...

Guest,  you are not a Marine, you do not understand our culture or our mission.  You have a right to your opinion and I respect and defend that, but please do not presume to lecture us on our duties.  If you ever actually have to send rounds down range (and receive incoming as well) you will get a new perspective.

Mr. X said...

In other words, you don't have an answer for Anon's question.  I'm a department head right now and I have no idea what the hell you meant.  Maybe you could explain?

Jay said...

"WRONG."  You shouting makes all the difference...lol

Well then...have a great day.

:)

Jay said...

Oh URR...every time you guys use the term Nazis...I just roll my eyes...

Because there really isn't anything intellectually left at that point, is there?

Geez Louise...

Jay said...

The same way any squared away command would handle a "religious objection" to working with any Sailor -- "Noted, now get back to work".

Jay said...

And the law is (over)due to be repealed.

Anthony Mirvish said...

<span>

LT B,

The problems with implementing the coed policy have been made worse by the military's assumption that there are no fundamentally unworkable policies or programs, only a failure to try hard enough to implement them. Together with the assumption (straight out of the 1970s) that gender is nothing more than the arrangement of our plumbing, it leaves one with no choice but an enforcement model because it does not recognize any factors for failure (or for not agreeing) except lack of effort, deliberate ill will or bigotry.

We should remember that there is such a thing as human nature and if the Soviets could not re-make man even with the resources of a totalitarian government at their disposal, lesser efforts won't work any better. This doesn't mean that human nature should become a rationalization for bigotry. Rather, that its reality should be recognized and political systems or policy should try to work with instead of against it.

Incidentally, there is nothing new or unique about the range of attitudes regarding homosexuality that are playing out in our country. The ancient Greeks and Romans held completely opposite views on the moral and legal acceptability of it, and in Roman politics, accusations of it were fighting words. They had no Judeo-Christian morality or social conservatives or interest group politics driving their views.
</span>

Jay said...

Nah, this new comment post system (expanded/contracted posts/replies) is...

Lots of changes since we both joined in the 80s.

Change is hard.  This is for the better.

You'll get used to it.  Perhaps even eventually admit you were wrong.  Or not.

Anonymous said...

OAM, done.  If I do it again, do I get another perspective?
URR, Mullen is supporting the desires of the CINC, and was asked his opinion by the US Congress, when they ask you, feel free to tell them.