Nailed the Trifecta!

Before 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Hill, who was finally able to serve openly only this week asked how any of the candidates would deal with the recently repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.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?”
(BOOING)
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.”
(APPLAUSE)
“And I believe this undermines that ability.”
(APPLAUSE)
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 me...as 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.)

“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.

Gayroller 2000

Hey, before I forget, you might recall that a while back, I wrote about people treating you shabbily and then asking for money. I neglected to mention in my latest entry that the people hating and hoping for a slow, painful death are also some of the people asking for money. That's right: Give me money and then fucking die! Die slowly, painfully, and alone!

Isn't that just dandy? I really can't help but laugh about it. Someone has much to learn about how the real world works, and someone has a hard lesson ahead of them. Someone is seriously lacking in negotiation skills. Someone should never be an ambassador. Hello, World War III! Do you hear that dry, crinkly sound? That's the sound of the money tree slowly and inevitably withering and dying. Reality bites, life's a bitch, and oh yeah, life goes on. Just ask Jack and Diane.

I briefly mentioned the repeal of the discriminatory DADT policy, but it's worth a little more time and space. Obviously, I'm quite happy about this. I feel it is a civil rights issue, and the policy was discriminatory and wrong. It's been amusing to see some of the arguments against it. The usual...disruptive to our troops, especially in life during wartime (I got some groceries...some peanut butter...should last a couple of days. Jeez, everything is reminding me of songs at the moment!), showering with gays, blahbitty blah blay blue. I hear all this stuff and I wonder why those opposed weren't more vocal when we started hearing about the culture of rape and sexual assault against women in the military, and the failure of the military to fully address that issue? I guess if it's women getting raped, it's not that big of a deal, but even the mere thought of gays getting all rapey and junk with *gasp* other men is enough to send them into apoplectic fits and result in a terminal case of the vapors. Give me a break.

Senator John McCrankypants was the biggest foe, getting all thrombo on the Senate floor and on the verge of blowing out a vein. I honestly don't think he realizes what a complete and utter joke he's become with his endless opposition to the repeal. It was initially "Sure, I'll go along with it if the military brass says it's time." The brass said it's time. Then it was "Well, it needs to be studied." Study conducted. Then it was "This study is flawed." Why didn't he just propose something more preposterous, like "I'll support this when the moon turns red."

D'oh!

I even saw someone comment that what really galled them was that the man repealing this was someone who had never served in the military and has no idea of the culture there. Two things: President Obama repeals nothing; Congress does. Also, the man who initially put this flawed and discriminatory law into place also never served in the military. Your argument is invalid, jerkwad.

I'm so tired of hearing the same old argument about how homosexuality is a choice, and that it is morally wrong because the Bible says so. Here is a newsflash: we don't legislate according to your religious text, no matter who you are. You do not get to dictate how the rest of the country behaves, and you do not get to decide what is morally wrong or right based on your religious dogma. Some people just don't seem to get that. This is a civil rights issue, every bit as much as blacks, Jews, and women serving in the military, which also met with opposition before things were set right. (I guarantee that scripture was quoted in the arguments concerning those groups serving.) That's not even an issue here, because the majority of both military and civilians say that it is the right thing to do. I guess McCain only wants to listen to his constituents when it fits with his own prejudices and biases. Man, that guy needs to retire.

The title of this entry and the picture I included comes from one of my favorite online comics, The Oatmeal. The Gayroller appeared in his strip about how to properly use the word 'literally', and it's one of my favorites. I'll wait here while you read it. tap tap tap See, wasn't that funny? I love it. I even ordered a Gayroller T-shirt when The Oatmeal was having a holiday sale. (I also ordered this one. LOL!)

So get used to it, all you haters. The Gayroller 2000 is coming to get you! But they don't want to squish you or even convert you. They just want you to accept them. Heck, I think they wouldn't even care if you don't accept them...just as long as you give them the rights that are afforded to them under the Constitution. It belongs to them, too, you know.