Saturday, September 24, 2011

Nailed the Trifecta!

Don't Ask Don't TellBefore I write about anything else, I want to mention that somehow, one of my blog entries got added to StumbleUpon. I don’t know if one of my friends did it, or if it was merely random, but let me just say “Thank you!” On the day it happened (I believe it was for my entry about Bachmann and the HPV vaccine), I got almost 1,400 page views. Whoa! I’ve gotten a lot more hits after that (although nothing at that level), and I don’t know if it will continue, but I really appreciate the traffic. Thank you, friend, or anonymous stranger, who liked what I wrote!

Okay, here’s the deal. I’ve been watching the Republican debates when I’ve been able to, and we’ve seen some rather interesting [exaggerated finger quotes] moments. In one, the crowd cheered for Rick Perry’s stellar execution record in Texas. Over 200 executed on his watch! Yeehaw! In the next debate, the crowd cheered at the prospect of letting a 30-year-old without insurance (by his own choice) die rather than the state or federal government financing his poor decision at not obtaining health insurance. Yay, death!

At the most recent debate, we didn’t get cheers from the audience about a particular topic. In a video question, a gay soldier, Stephen Hill, who was finally able to serve openly only this week asked how any of the candidates would deal with the recently repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. In yet another What The Fuck moment, there were people in the crowd who booed. Yes, they booed this soldier who is currently serving in Iraq. See for yourself:

Paul Begala wrote, “I may start a betting pool on what the Republicans will boo in the next debate: puppies? Ronald Reagan? Ronald Reagan’s puppies?” Ha!

I watched someone trying to say that it was only a couple of people in the audience who booed the soldier, and the rest of the people in the audience were booing those people. It sure doesn’t sound like that to me, and knowing how many of these people feel about the repeal of DADT, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if several booed the soldier. And if so many Republicans condemn these people disrespecting this soldier, as many have said (and good for them for speaking up), why didn’t one single person on that stage step up and say, “Whoa, wait a minute there. This guy is serving his country in Iraq right now, so show some goddamn respect! How dare you boo this soldier?!” Instead...crickets.

Rick Santorum answered the question, though.
Hill: “In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I'm a gay soldier, and I didn't want to lose my job. My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?”
Santorum: “Yeah, I — I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to — to — and removing 'don't ask/don't tell' I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.
“We need to give the military, which is all-volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform.”
“And I believe this undermines that ability.”
Moderator Megyn Kelly: “So what — what — what would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill? I mean, he's — now he's out. He's — you know, you saw his face on camera. When he first submitted this video to us, it was without his face on camera. Now he's out. So what would you do as president?”
Santorum: “I think it's — it's — it's — look, what we're doing is playing social experimentation with — with our military right now. And that's tragic.
“I would — I would just say that, going forward, we would — we would reinstitute that policy, if Rick Santorum was president, period.
“That policy would be reinstituted. And as far as people who are in — in — I would not throw them out, because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration, but we would move forward in — in conformity with what was happening in the past, which was, sex is not an issue. It is — it should not be an issue. Leave it alone, keep it — keep it to yourself, whether you're a heterosexual or a homosexual.” (source)
That’s right. Santorum would tell this man, who not only has the courage to serve in the military and serve in a war zone but also has the sheer balls to come out in front of the entire country on national TV, that he is incapable of serving and is not wanted by the U.S. military. And he would tell every other homosexual that they are not acceptable to the U.S. military, simply because of their sexual orientation. He also seems to think that a person’s sexuality should not be mentioned at all, that you need to keep that to yourself, so I presume he would issue a rule stating that no one is to mention their husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, and while we’re at it, no one should mention their kids, either, because that implies that they have had sex. (Believe a former Air Force wife, and based on comments from other friends who have served or been military spouses, if you think there isn’t rampant fuckery going on in the military, you don’t know jack.) Stephen Hill

“Special privilege?” Really? “Inject social policy” into the military? Really? Oh, you mean like Harry Truman issuing an executive order in 1948 that desegregated the U.S. military so that blacks could serve with full benefits and honors? Kind of like that?

For all those people who think those dirty homersexticals shouldn’t be allowed to serve, I wonder why you haven’t gotten riled up about the numerous charges of rape occurring among heterosexual men raping female soldiers? Rapes that either are reported and not prosecuted, or not reported because the women know that it will probably ruin their career if they do. Where is the outrage? I find it infuriating (and humorous in a disgusting sort of way) that some people--both military and non-military--don’t get all that upset about female soldiers being abused, but if there is the slightest possibility that an openly serving gay man will slip up behind them in the shower for a booty call, they scream bloody murder. Like being able to serve openly is a license for getting all rapey and junk. Women have been putting up with such abuse for decades, so pardon me if I don’t have much sympathy for you and your whiny heterosexual ass.

Santorum subsequently came out (so to speak) and said that he did not hear those boos, and if he had, he’d have told those people not to do that, that we should be thanking him for his service. You know what, Ricky? I don’t believe you. I think you heard those boos loud and clear, and you just stood there with all your other lame colleagues and chose not to say anything. Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (it was his first debate in this race) said, “That’s not the Republican party I belong to.” Oh, yes it is, Governor.

And until people like you start stepping up and soundly renouncing such bigoted behavior, doing it at the time rather than after you find out that many Americans were appalled by it, you and your party will continue to own it. It’s really not hard to do. I’ve done it quite a few times. You just step up and say, “You know what? That is wrong of you to say, and I completely disagree with you.” Basically, you have to have courage and stand up for what you think is right.

Kind of like the courage that soldier that you booed displayed.


  1. Oh, yes, Santorum heard the boos. It was clear that the moderators heard the boos. From here on out, I'm not missing a single one of these Republican debates. There's enough material in any one of them to defeat the lot and the teabaggers are showing their true colors for all to see. They can't hide behind their Christianity and their fiscal conservatism when their true colors are there for national viewing.

    My latest soapbox is the devastation that will be done automatically to military retirement pay if the Super Committee fails to produce a plan both houses can agree on. (Envision snowball dribbling away its watery soul in hell.) There are old retirees, like us, and there are new ones who've served multiple tours. There are gay ones who ran the DADT gauntlet undetected and there are those scheduled to retire before December 23rd, the last day before the automatic cutbacks kick in.

    This, I boo.

    (And well-done, sister for your Stumble-Upon. Your glory is deserved!)

  2. Courage is not a quality I've seen much evidence of in these debates.

    Wasn't it Barry Goldwater who said "You don't have to be straight to be in the militry, you just have to shoot straight."

  3. They all heard the boos and did nothing, which just shows how they feel about gays in the military, or gays in the world.
    They disgust me, the lot of them.

  4. Every time the cons and teabaggers get together for a debate, it looks like a Kids In the Hall sketch.

  5. Beth, they want to use us when it is convenient and ignore and demonize us the rest of the time. A hard pattern for them to break. Break it they must. Every disenfranchised group has run this gauntlet and had to demand to be treated honestly, fairly, and with dignity and respect. GLBTQ are no different. Their lack of civility and blatant hear no evil, see no evil tactics at the debates will not serve them well in the end. The fiery proponents of hate they love to embrace behind closed doors, will burn them in the light of day. They can't see that and in many ways I'm glad. It will be their undoing.

    Congrats on the StumbleUpon fortune!


I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you?