I’ve teamed up with a fellow conservative blogger and will now be posting here: www.wrapyourheadaround.com. Be sure to check it out, comment, and refer to your friends! Thanks.

Advertisements

I have a few questions about the implementation of allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military. First and foremost, where will they shower when they’re deployed? When soldiers are downrange, they are provided trailers to shower in – men’s and women’s. Men are not allowed in the women’s and vice versa for obvious reasons. So will the gay men be booted from showering in the men’s shower trailer for the same reasons? And I don’t want to hear, “just because they’re gay doesn’t mean they’re attracted to all the guys in the unit.” I know, just like I wasn’t attracted to all the females in my unit. Just because I’m not attracted to a female doesn’t mean I should hop in the shower with them.

It would make the heterosexual mean feel better if there was a trailer set aside for the gays, but then of course, gay men showering with gay men – the problem is still there. Not to mention screams of “separate but equal.” It wouldn’t work. The only possible fix is to have the gay men shower with the women and the gay women shower with the men – and does that really make any sense at all? No. And we haven’t even gotten on the roommate issue.

Allowing openly gay troops to deploy is not only a logistical nightmare, it defies common sense. And everyone who says that they can implement it without causing a distraction is being willfully ignorant to the truth. It will cause a huge distraction. Because in addition to the plethora of classes troops already have to take – cultural sensitivity, suicide prevention, sexual assault prevention, anti-discriminatory practices, etc. – they will now have to include classes on how to deal with living in close quarters with homosexuals.

“But there are already gays in the military, the same as there always has been.” Yeah, I know. But as long as they weren’t openly gay, troops had the option of being willfully ignorant and there were no problems. Yes, I served with troops that I suspected were gay. But as long as I didn’t know it for a fact, I could pretend that no, they weren’t, and the shower never became an issue. I chose, just as many other troops do, to ignore those sneaking suspicions and avoid any problems. Once openly gay troops are implemented, that option goes away and problems arise.

The survey that was done of the military showing they were okay with gays in the military was a complete joke on two fronts. 1) it was conducted of all military personnel which included a huge majority of people who don’t deploy, don’t fight, and sit in an office all day. They didn’t focus the survey on combat troops and live in close proximity to one another 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. 2) when ask the question, essentially, if you can play nice, then yes, they can play nice. Working side by side with a gay troop is not the issue. I think most of our military can “work” just fine with them. It’s the “living” with them that causes the problems. Maybe the survey should have asked, “would you feel comfortable naked in front of a gay troop, both in the confines of your room as you change clothes and in the shower?” I think the results would have changed a bit.

One last point and I’ll get off my soapbox. Once this is implemented, there will be two types of stories coming out. One type will show the successful mission of a unit that has an openly gay soldier. The other type will show the failure of a mission because of an openly gay soldier. The problem is that the successful missions will include the gay soldier. Whether he was openly gay or not would not have change the outcome or the success. I don’t think there’s any situation where success could only be achieved by having someone that is openly gay. But the failure could be because of an openly gay soldier. Yes, I can see situations of failure that were a direct result of that soldier being openly gay. Nothing good can come from having openly gay soldiers in our military.

Those poor MCCSC widgets

Posted: December 9, 2010 in Uncategorized

Today’s Herald-Times has an article about the school reform that Governor Daniels and Dr. Bennett, Superintendent of Public Instruction, are planning. Aside from an immediate expectation of Governor Bashing in the comments section, there was something else disturbing that came out of the article. The president of the MCCSC school board, Jeannine Butler, made some very telling comments.

First she discussed the plan Daniels and Bennett are working on to help with scholarships and provide incentive to graduate a year early. She is against it because she says, “And as far as graduating early — that ultimately reduces the student population number, which reduces funding. Not a good idea at large.” Later, she says, “We’re trying to produce good human beings, not widgets.”

Good human beings work hard and try to get ahead of the curve – like graduating early if they can. Instead, Butler is concerned about the tax dollars coming in. It sounds to me like, in her world, those students are only there to draw in more tax dollars, essentially making them widgets in the system.

Much to my joy and surprise, many of the commenters actually picked up on it and had the same thoughts I did. Butler should be very concerned, because when HTO commenters delay their Governor bashing to say that you’re a part of the problem, it’s a good indicator you’re really, REALLY, a part of the problem.

She is, of course, also against any voucher programs as well (that would take away tax dollars). Daniels and Bennett both acknowledge that this reform is difficult and probably won’t provide a perfect solution, but that’s no reason not to push forward to help students. It’s sad when the Governor, who is responsible for many other things besides the school system, can say these things, but the school board, who’s only job is the school system, can’t.

On a personal note, by the time my son is school aged, I hope I have enough money to send him to a private institution. Because if he has to go to public school and the system is still operating in the same manner, the school board will cringe every time I walk through the door, and secretary’s hesitate every time the answer the phone for fear of my voice on the other end. My son is not there to bring in more tax dollars, he’s there to learn, period.

Time to oust Lugar

Posted: December 1, 2010 in Uncategorized

I hate doing this, but I have to officially set myself against Richard Lugar in 2012. I’ve met the guy a few times, he’s nice, I like him, enjoyable to talk to, but I’m afraid he’s leading our country in the wrong direction. He’s for the DREAM act, and that’s a big no no, (which by the way, for my teachers union readers, the NEA is in big support of), and he also just voted against the earmarks ban. Lugar seems to be siding with the Democrats and the Progressive agenda more and more these days, and it’s been awhile since I’ve seen him actually do anything in the conservative vein. If we have even a semi-decent conservative in the 2012 primary, I’ll be working to help that campaign and oust Lugar.

Rep. Steve Buyer tells it like it is, and I like it.

Another Blog

Posted: November 30, 2010 in Uncategorized

Here’s a link to another good blog. http://getyourheadaround.wordpress.com/