Skip to content

Obama States the Obvious

Senator Barack Obama was interviewed recently by Mark Segal, publisher of Philadelphia Gay News. Here’s the part where he talks about Don’t ask, Don’t tell:

PGN: The current President Bush has used signing orders to change military rules and regulations. If White House counsel advised you that you could end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by attaching a signing order to a military appropriations bill, would you?

BO: I would not do it that way. The reason is because I want to make sure that when we reverse “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” it’s gone through a process and we’ve built a consensus or at least a clarity of that, of what my expectations are, so that it works. My first obligation as the president is to make sure that I keep the American people safe and that our military is functioning effectively. Although I have consistently said I would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be. That’s how we were able to integrate the armed services to get women more actively involved in the armed services. At some point, you’ve got to make a decision that that’s the right thing to do, but you always want to make sure that you are doing it in a way that maintains our core mission in our military.

Well, gee whiz, Barack, don’t you think we’ve been working through a process to get rid of DADT already? And exactly what process do you think we need to go through? A lot of work has already been done. There’s a bill in Congress with lots of cosponsors and the services have already considered homosexuality in writing their regulations that deal with sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other topics. I don’t expect Obama to know what the process should be, so I’ll list the steps we need to take here:

1.) Pass the Military Readiness Enhancement Act.

2.) Sign the Military Readiness Enhancement Act into law.

3.) Allow the Secretary of Defense 90 days to revise current regulations to include the term sexual orientation (as it is written in the Military Readiness Enhancement Act).

3.) Allow the services 180 days to revise their respective regulations to include sexual orientation (as it is written in the Military Readiness Enhancement Act).

4.) Allow any former service member who was discharged under Don’t ask, Don’t tell to rejoin the military if he or she is still qualified.

It’s really that simple, people! It amazes me how much people want to complicate their lives unnecessarily. Gay people are already in the military. That’s not going to change. It’s time we give those gay troops the respect they deserve, and one day longer is one day too long.

Posted 19 September 2008 † Pepe § Don't ask, Don't tell § Democrats § Politicians & Political Parties ‡ Comments (1)

From Military.com: Big Changes in Store for Air Force

September 17, 2008

by Colin Clark

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz delivered an hour-long address to the Air Force Association today that will probably be remembered as a landmark in the remaking of the service.

The most enduring comments for the service will probably be those addressing the issue of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) in which Schwartz called for a shift from the fighter pilot-centric service to one that treats unmanned aircraft pilots with equal respect, “not as a leper community.”

In a passionate address, Schwartz also criticized industry for going too far during the tanker competition and criticized former general officers who came out in favor of particular programs. What did the blue suiters think of Schwartz’s speech? They gave him a 35-second standing ovation.

One thing sure to send shudders through the defense industry was the general’s comments about former generals working for industry and touting specific weapons. After the speech he told reporters that “taking public positions in major acquisition programs and indicating you are doing so on the basis of your prior active duty service” was not acceptable. “What I think we need to avoid is having the American public believe is that their military leadership can be bought,” he told us.

Throughout the speech the difficulty of Schwartz’s balancing act between pointing out the flaws of the service when he took it over and the changes he hopes to implement grew more and more obvious. “We find the Air Force is at a critical point,” he said, adding that he needed “everyone’s help, especially the folks who are in this room.”

Just a few sentences later, he veered to admonish those who might feel that the service — beset by the tanker fiasco, the CSAR-X debacle, the nuclear miscues, the firing of the service’s two top leaders — is in a tailspin. “But don’t let anyone see your head hanging in despair,” he said. Then he went on to relate tales of heroism and competence by airmen. Interestingly, the two examples he detailed involved special operations personnel. He did not mention any pilots.

He noted that the service faces “some significant institutional obstacles” in terms of acquisition and, he said, “we must deal with them in short order.” Relations between industry and the service are crucial, he pointed out. But there has been an “unfortunate deterioration of the relationship between the Air Force and the industry that of late manifests hyperbole, insensitivity and a lack of proper communication.”

He asked if acquisition decisions should be “excessively influenced by interests other than military requirements inside and outside of government.” Instead, “we must exercise caution with systems that a particular vendor wishes to build or those programs which satisfy a particular constituency.” This, he said, is “a matter of trust.” How important is this? “The health of Department of Defense acquisition is at stake.”

Schwartz went on at some length during his speech to tell his audience that the fighter mafia was no longer in charge of the Air Force. He announced during his speech that that the service would create a new program training pilots for unmanned aerial systems.

“We are going to transform our culture,” Brig. Gen. Lyn Sherlock, director of air operations for the directorate of operations, told reporters at a briefing held after Schwartz’s speech. The service plans to train up to 1,100 UAS pilots by 2012, starting with a pilot program of 10 pilots, Sherlock said. The program should start in January.

In his remarks, Schwartz made clear that the Air Force was no longer run by the fighter mafia, saying that being close to the target conferred no special status on someone. After his speech I asked him if he was trying to create an unmanned mafia. His response, sure to be long remembered by fighter pilots everywhere: “I don’t believe in tribes.”

I didn’t serve in the Air Force, so I’m not an expert on AF culture and leadership. Based on the remarks cited here, it seems the new AF chief wants to make his mark. Let’s hope it’s a positive one.

Posted 19 September 2008 † Pepe § US Air Force ‡ Comments (0)

Soldier in Iraq held in deaths of 2 unit members

It’s always disturbing to hear about deaths from friendly fire. In this incident, we can only speculate on what was going through the soldier’s mind when he decided to open fire on his comrades. Here’s the article in it’s entirety:

RUSS BYNUM, Associated Press Writer

A soldier was detained in Iraq after he allegedly opened fire on a superior and another unit member, killing them both, the Army said Wednesday.

The soldier was subdued by other troops, and medics tried unsuccessfully to save the wounded soldiers, said Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, commanding general at Fort Stewart in southern Georgia, where the soldiers’ unit is based.

An Army spokesman said the shooting happened Sunday in Tunnis, Iraq. The slain soldiers and the alleged shooter, whose name was not released, belong to the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division.

The Army identified the slain soldiers as Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson, 24, of Pensacola, Fla., and Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin, 26, of Dallas. Both were assigned to the brigade’s 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment.

“We also know the accused is in custody — in control of military authorities in theater for now — and the investigation is under way,” Cucolo said in a release that gave few other details.

A defense official in Washington, D.C., said the alleged shooter is a sergeant who was in a meeting to discuss his leadership performance with Dawson, who was his squad leader, and Durbin, who was a fellow team leader in the squad. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the incident have not been released.

Fort Stewart spokesman Kevin Larson said he did not know if the soldier in custody had been charged by military authorities.

Dawson’s stepmother, Maxine Mathis, said the Army had told the soldier’s family few details other than that he was killed by a fellow U.S. soldier.

“I can’t say he died for his country, dying like that,” a weeping Mathis said from her home in Pensacola.

Cucolo called the deaths “a tragic and senseless loss of two professional soldiers … who were also husbands and fathers.”

Mathis, whose husband is Dawson’s biological father, said her stepson joined the Army immediately after graduating from high school six years ago. He was serving his third combat tour in Iraq, and had re-enlisted not long before he was killed.

Mathis said he told her, “Momma, I’m not so afraid of the enemy. I’m afraid of our young guys over there, because they’re so jumpy and so quick to shoot.”

A lot of people are going to start pointing their fingers at long deployments and multiple deployments, but I think that’s too simplistic. There is probably something deeper going on and we’ll have to wait and see what comes out during the trial. No matter what, this is a tragedy.

Posted 18 September 2008 † Pepe § US Army ‡ Comments (0)

Libertarians Seek to Remove Democrats and Republicans from Texas Ballot

Atlanta, GA - Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president, has filed a lawsuit in Texas demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline.
 
“The seriousness of this issue is self-evident,” the lawsuit states. “The hubris of the major parties has risen to such a level that they do not believe that the election laws of the State of Texas apply to them.”
 
Texas election code §192.031 requires that the written certification of the party’s nominees be delivered before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before election day. Because neither candidate had been nominated by the official filing deadline, the Barr campaign argues it was impossible for the candidates to file under state law.
“Supreme Court justices should recognize that their responsibility is to apply the law as passed by the Legislature, and the law is clear that the candidates cannot be certified on the ballot if their filings are late,” says Drew Shirley, a local attorney for the Barr campaign, who is also a Libertarian candidate for the Texas Supreme Court.

A 2006 Texas Supreme Court decision ruled that state laws “does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines.”

Orrin Grover, attorney for Bob Barr and Wayne Root, said that he believes that the Texas Secretary of State is bound by Texas law to remove the Republican and Democratic nominees from the November ballot. “Either we have rules and deadlines, or we do not,” Grover said.
The Chairman of the Texas Libertarian Party, Pat Dixon stated, “Libertarian principles require personal responsibility for your acts and failures. Obama and McCain failed to meet the deadlines. They must follow the law like everyone else.”
  
The petition also alleges that the Democratic Party’s late presidential filing falsely claimed under oath that Senator Obama had been nominated hours before the nomination actually occurred.
 
“The facts of the case are not in dispute,” says Russell Verney, manager of the Barr campaign.  “Republicans and Democrats missed the deadline, but were still allowed on the ballot.  Third parties are not allowed on the ballot for missing deadlines, as was the case for our campaign in West Virginia, yet the Texas secretary of state’s office believes Republicans and Democrats to be above the law.”
Barr will be holding a press conference this Thursday at the Texas Supreme Court at 11:00 a.m. 
Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. 
Lawsuit Contacts:
Pat Dixon
Texas Libertarian Party
Chair@lptexas.org
Drew Shirley, Esq.
Drew Shirley, P.C.
Austin, TX
512-417-6171
Orrin Grover, Esquire
Orrin L. Grover, P.C.
Woodburn, OR
510-872-603
This lawsuit, if successful, will have far-reaching effects reshaping the political landscape in Texas and the entire United States.
For starters, the publicity will introduce more people to Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party. People who have never heard of Mr. Barr or the principles of libertarianism will be interested to learn more and I believe they will like what they see and read. Witness the Ron Paul phenomenon.
It will also call into question the sanctity of the two-party system. No where in our U.S. Constitution does it provide for political parties - they have simply become an accepted way of doing business. And while I don’t want to outlaw political parties altogether, it’s about time the parties and their leaders realize the American political process belongs to the American people - not the interests of the Democratic or Republican elites. (Yes, the Republicans have elites, too!)
And Texans won’t be able to write-in Obama or McCain because Texas requires write-in candidates to be registered ahead of time as well. Talk about a lot of disenfranchised people! Of course the pundits and commentators will try to lay blame at the feet of the Libertarian Party and Bob Barr, but the blame truly belongs to the laws of Texas and the Texas legislators who enacted such laws in the first place - Democrats and Republicans who have sought to keep other political parties and true independents out of power.
Finally I see this as an exposure of the Electoral College. Each state establishes its own laws on how its electors will vote - in some states, all electors are required to vote for the winner of the popular vote, in others they vote proportionally and in some each elector may vote his or her conscience. Texas has no law requiring the electors to vote one way or another, but if Obama and McCain did not appear on the ballot here in the Lone Star State and received zero votes - how can an elector in good conscience make any claim to represent what the people want? Sure, he and his friends may like Obama, but is that who the people would have chosen? Okay, maybe they are McCain fans, but what about the folks who live on the other side of town? With the second-highest number of electors in the country - 34, after California’s 55 - can you imagine the results of all those votes going to the Libertarian candidate? Wow!
Posted 17 September 2008 † Pepe § Republicans § Texas § Libertarians § Democrats § Politicians & Political Parties ‡ Comments (0)

Free Speech: Italy vs. the United States

One of the difficulties of living a truly free society is that people get to say and do stupid things and we can’t stop them. I think it’s kind of ignorant and insulting to burn the American flag, but the Supreme Court ruled it was an act of “speech” and that our Bill of Rights protected such an act, no matter how terrible we think it is. Well, if we lived in Italy that could be a different matter. Check out this story and see if you would really like for America to follow the lead of other nations and start restricting our freedom of speech.

Comedian Sabina Guzzanti Insulted Pope In Poofter Devils Gag

after warning everyone that within 20 years Italian teachers would be vetted and chosen by the Vatican, she got to the punchline: “But then, within 20 years the Pope will be where he ought to be — in Hell, tormented by great big poofter devils, and very active ones, not passive ones.”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Giovanni Ferrara, the Rome prosecutor, is invoking the 1929 Lateran Treaty between Italy and the Vatican, which stipulates that an insult to the Pope carries the same penalty as an insult to the Italian President.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The move to prosecute her over her anti-papal remarks was praised by some on the centre Right, including Luca Volonte, a Christian Democrat, who said that “gratuitous insults must be punished”.

However, many people were strongly critical. Paolo Guzzanti, Ms Guzzanti’s father and a centre Right MP, said the move was “a return to the Middle Ages”.

“Perhaps my daughter should be submitted to the judgement of God by being made to walk on hot coals,” he added.

Antonio Di Pietro, a senator and former anti-corruption magistrate, who organised the rally, said that Ms Guzzanti had only “exercised her constitutional right to freedom of thought.

“You can agree or not agree with what she said — and personally I didn’t — but to put people in prison for what they think is reminiscent of a time when those who thought differently had castor oil poured down their throats” — a reference to the Fascist era, when the Laterna Treaty was enacted.

Dario Fo, the Nobel prize-winning playwright, said that applying the treaty more widely would even have led to the prosecution of Dante, since “he put a Pope in the Inferno as well, namely Boniface VIII”. Marco Travaglio, a left-wing writer who also addressed the July rally, said: “At this rate Aristophanes and Rabelais would have ended up in prison for being satirists.”

Even certain sections of the Church are unimpressed. Father Bartolomeo Sorge, a Jesuit scholar, told La Repubblica the move to prosecute Ms Guzzanzi was incomprehensible. “We Christians put up with many insults, it is part of being a Christian, as is forgiveness. I feel sure the Pope has already forgiven those who insulted him on Piazza Navona.”

While it is a shame the Italians still have this law on the books, it’s great to see that many Italians understand what free speech is and are willing to discuss it. Just like Americans, they have laws on the books that say this-or-that, but we all understand what freedom means.

 

Posted 12 September 2008 † Pepe § Integrity § Political Ideas & Theories ‡ Comments (0)