Uechi-Ryu.com

Following these issues from the budget balancing thread, page 3:

Jason, cute. It's all about feelings for me. And not about equality under the law, or about the budget balancing and healthcare budget ideas I keep posting about, or supporting charities by effectiveness without regard to religion. Just feelings. Cute. What thread are YOU reading?

Bill, you may believe the government has no role in telling us how to FEEL about each other, but I've never said anything different. I just think there are impermissible BEHAVIORS. One is telling our troops that it's normal to think they can't function with gay people around, another is banning them from service, and I hope you remember our discussions about Rand Paul and how he'd not have passed the civil rights act. YOU may think that's swell, pure libertarianism, but remember you're also always telling me how clever the voters are, and so I cautioned you that Americans overwhelmingly support the Civil Rights Act. You just gloss over that detail, that the large majority of our population supports the government banning private discrimination. These same clever voters now support allowing gays in the military by wide margins, with 50% supporting open service: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm And everyone keeps citing the risk to unit cohesion but the experiment has been done and it's worked fine elsewhere. If we listened to every sensitivity on this matter isntead of hard data, we'd still have white only army units.

To that end: have we any data supporting the idea that unit cohesion would suffer nonnegligibly by ending DADT? I only know that many, many gay people currently serve, with no issues, at many sites. My partner now works at a naval base as do many friends. There are hordes of obviously gay people running around. Their coworkers can't be more aware of them then they are now. And I know this works elsewhere. Who's got substantive data?

And in brief:

1) Bill: your school superintendent apparently got fired for poor results

2) Takes >1 to have a discussion. If you ever don't want a thread evolving, ask or start one at the beginning of the tangent, or don't continue the discussion. Magic!

3) How dismissive is it to say that LGB troops just wanna have sex with their coworkers? Is there some kind of perception or treatment gap here, that the rest of the troops you respect their intentions and professionally and input, and these people are just horny? Respect our troops and vets. All of em.

_________________
--Ian

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/2 ... 87300.html

Pardon the source. Spoke too soon though. Sounds like there may have been a nearly complete cessation of discharges under DADT. This may effectively solve the problem. It's a relatively quiet change that in short order will demonstrate that gay soldiers don't (or do) cause a fuss, as I doubt all of these cases are effectively concealed from their peers. When something, or nothing, happens, the correct course of action will be relatively obvious in short order.

Oh, I learned from my civilian-employee-of-military partner that the government pays a top performing gay solider honorably discharged under DADT HALF what they pay usual separations, including many for misconduct such as illegal drug use on duty. And it's real!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_military_pay_challenge

Would complaining about this be inappropriate? Is getting paid half severance for being an effective soldier rather than abusing drugs fine? Would fighting it inappropriately emphasize "feelings" at a time when there's a recession?

_________________
--Ian

Ian, you were the one who blew off my issues with DADT's repeal as homophobic and fearful feelings, so don't cry about it when I turn it around on you.

I don't think anyone who violates the UCMJ and gets kicked out for it should get any severance whatsoever. How's that for equality?




But remember, it's all homophobia and fearful feelings.

_________________
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.

JR, let me disabuse you of one notion right away: that my feelings are hurt. I have no interest in joining the military, and I also care what you think about me and my views... probably as much as you care what I think of you. Back to your post...

"It's coming, sooner or later. A pragmatist would recognize that the repeal of 'Don't ask, Don't Tell' is a train that's already left the station. Please forgive the length of this post, but I think it's a weighty topic, and I do occasionally get asked what I think about 'the repeal.'"

Great point. It's moot. So why ARE we still arguing instead of just fixing it? There are roughly 26 thousand gay or bi active duty people, many of them running around in what I would call a "glass closet," and the sky hasn't fallen.

"We'll have an annual brow-beating to rival the current Sexual Assault and Rape Prevention training requirements...."

Yeah, our society has gotten a little weird. I have to do harrassment prevention training--3 hours!--every two years as required by California. People whine too much about this dirty look or whatever. Then they sue. I'm not aware, however, that this is a gay thing. I mean, right now the military has all those gay people, and all that risk of harrassment, and what exactly is the crisis that's unfolding? Are we to pretend that they're all super secret, and when the secret is out, they'll be wearing pink and suddenly fights will occur? I just don't see a sea change.

"The military has some serious logistical and personnel issues to consider."

I actually agree, absolutely. Where I'm lost is how not kicking people out if they stop pretending they're straight (however feebly) will change much. The gay people are in the showers, right now. Let's think for a second: imagine you have to shower with the women's rugby team. You think they're mostly lesbians but you know there's a few straight ones. But things are working out just fine at the gym for years. Then, some admit they're straight. Then all heck breaks loose? Why? You knew they were there. I don't have military experience and can't comment on how to integrate openly except to say: why don't we ask the people with experience? Why not ask Israel, for example? They did it, the sky didn't fall, etc. What did the USA do when we integrated blacks into the military? Were there not really uncomfortable white people? Did they stop joining up?

"Homosexuality is usually dealt with by today's media, and with the full support of GLBT organizations, as a gender identity issue."

This is a minor aside, but no, it's not. Transgendered people are really, really rare, and LGB people do not have confusion about their genders. What is said is that homophobia arises from sexism, and I tend to believe this. People who worry about gay people are really concerned about men being denigrated / feminized by same sex activity, and the ones that threatened me or insulted me all through college and med school made this very clear.

"So far we haven't taken into account the demographics of the U.S. military. 53% of the U.S. Military identified themselves as conservative in 2004."

Cool. And now 70% favor LGBs serving in the military.

"The military may have a hard time finding recruits, if most of their current and potential members have a negative view of homosexuality."

I guess. It may also be hard for Coca Cola to recruit as well, because they hire LGBs and support equality. It might be easier to find recruits because now open LGBs are available and the difference favors recruiting. Or the sky might fall. As Carl Sagan said, I don't want to believe, I want to know. Why not pilot the end of DADT in isolated units and see?

"Gays and lesbians, like some other demographic groups, are more likely to be found in urban areas, which are no panacea to military recruiting."

True, so I guess they won't enroll and there won't be an issue.

"Combine this with the high rate of suicide among gay males, and you are facing an epidemic. STDs are another statistic the military is more than familiar with, and with the rise of gay sex in the military, we may see AIDS continue its trend in that community."

Hmm, interesting. How many MORE gay people do you think we'll have? Because the gay people are ALREADY there, just largely silent, so if they're suicide risks, that risk is current, not future. If we enroll MORE, then perhaps their risk will be minimized by equal treatment. This is afterall the point of the recent news about LGB suicides, that negative treatment promotes it. DADT is part of that. The news clip I posted has the soldier mentioning his suicidality after he's booted, not before. Maybe openness will promote clashes and conflict. Possible, but then those soldiers who chose to can keep silent about their orientation and avoid it, just like in the rest of the world. Besides, what is the take home here? That they're going to kill themselves and so they should serve silently as a result? Or that we should keep them out entirely, because that would improve the military suicide rate (but not the overall rate)? I'm confused as to the aim.

As for STDs, the issue is the same. The LGB people are there, and hiding them with DADT is not an effective barrier method against HIV to my knowlege. Are we considering recruiting tons more? Perhaps. I do see this as an issue, in and out of the military, and regret the culture of lack of responsibility for your own and others' HIV infections. I've said many a time here that HIV rates in "my community" are completely unacceptable. Perhaps there's a creative solution with the military, considering that they ban acts such as adultery and drug use. There may be a really good reason for the military to discriminate on the basis of HIV infection (for issues of cost and readiness and blood exposure risks) and so perhaps a screening program and release program could be considered (activists would freak out, but that's their job). But again, this isn't news; check out the important section in Shilt's book from 1993:

http://www.amazon.com/Conduct-Unbecomin ... 0449909174

PS: I also found the CDC claim odd, knowing, for example, that HIV rates are rising elsewhere:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Feb6.html

including as per the same CDC:

"From 2005–2008, the rate of HIV diagnoses among blacks increased from 68/100,000 persons to 74/100,000. This increase reflects the largest increase in rates of HIV diagnoses by race or ethnicity."

_________________
--Ian

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-n ... -worse-psa

I swear I was unaware of this, or it hadn't aired, when I mentioned McCain in the other thread.

_________________
--Ian

Nobody's arguing but you, Ian. Nobody cares to make it an issue or push it except gays and their pressure groups. It's just not an issue for most people.



Try doing 3-4 hours annually. And the addition of gays and lesbians will only make those classes LONGER. And that's in addition to the slew of computer-based training, additions to annual required training, and the briefings we'll have to sit through when this finally breaks loose.



Ian, I really couldn't care less if my co-workers are gay. What I want to know is where the military is going to draw the line where behavior is concerned. Not kicking out gay people does not settle the issues I'll have to deal with as an NCO who has to remember and enforce all the applicable rules and regulations.



I didn't say they were confused about their gender. I said they identify with and are identified by their gender (gay male, lesbian, etc). In colleges around the country as I recall it's referred to as 'gender studies.'

Re: STD and suicide rates: Ian, if you want to argue that an increase in GLBT in the military won't statistically increase suicidal behavior and STD rates within the military, then we're just going to have to disagree. The statistics are against you. As for blacks and gays, that same study indicated that the increase in black males with AIDS was statistically higher among gay black males than among straight black males.



Only a group of activists could act like opposing the repeal of DADT will be equated historically with opposing the abolition of slavery. Wingnuts, all of them.

Ian, I respect your opinions, and I get where you're coming from, but I'm one of those people who are going to have to actually deal with the fall-out from the repeal. It's not going to be 'just another day.'

_________________
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.

"Nobody's arguing but you, Ian. Nobody cares to make it an issue or push it except gays and their pressure groups. It's just not an issue for most people."

Does this make any sense to you? Really? Nobody cares except the people who care. And when in history has it been wise for a group disadvantaged by the larger culture to sit back and wait for equality to magically appear? Your implication is that clashes over rights would go away if LGBs accepted second clash status. I guess that is true.

"And the addition of gays and lesbians will only make those classes LONGER."

Maybe. LGBs are covered in our programs now. This is not a reason not to employ them, anyway. LGBs get harrassed NOW so the programs will not be MORE needed in the future. Further, you could argue that the annoyance of harassment programs means the blacks and muslims and women got to go too. Great. IF these programs are needed it's because people aren't behaving well, so you're also punishing the victim here.

As for regulations, sure write em. Enforce em. Equitably. No problemo.

"Re: STD and suicide rates: Ian, if you want to argue that an increase in GLBT in the military won't statistically increase suicidal behavior and STD rates within the military, then we're just going to have to disagree."

Didn't say it wouldn't; you can also reduce rates by keeping out blacks. Want to do that? Did you know ALL the recruits have high rates? There was a 10% chlamydia rate in one study. Perhaps a larger issue to tackle.

"I'm one of those people who are going to have to actually deal with the fall-out from the repeal. It's not going to be 'just another day.'"

You guys can tackle Iraqi insurgents and when you're told you have to welcome another segment of the hard working honorable dedicated military then it's a crisis. I think the military is more professional than that. I think the example of other countries has shown it's not a big deal. I think we already know many of them and that they're already here and it's not that different. Time will tell. Reconvene in a few years eh?

_________________
--Ian

Oh, so much and yet so little... Happy Thanksgiving, Ian.

This is your issue, not mine, so I leave you to it.

_________________
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.

I know it's not an issue that concerns you. That's why you're strongly opposed, debate it vigorously, and worry about the personal impact of the fallout. Only the other side pushes their position and has feelings to worry about. Gotcha.

_________________
--Ian

I'm not opposed to it. Might as well be opposed to an avalanche you know is coming. Neither does anyone any good. I'm not even arguing against it. But I know you're looking for an argument.

_________________
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.

I can only thank you then. I don't believe in anything for a reason, just to make noise, and while you're not even arguing against it, you're just... arguing against it... to please me. I am honored.

How about this as a minimum: completely revoke the law for any people who aren't in intimate conditions with their fellow employees. We needn't fire a linguist who is one of a few who can manage Arabic and English simultaneously if that person showers at home, right? What would be so hard about allowing this?

_________________
--Ian

I've been spending my Thanksgiving alone making phone calls to family and friends, and building a desk.

No worries about me being fed, by the way. I know how to cook. I don't do take-out because nobody can cook as well as or as healthy as I cook. I had free-range chicken breasts baked in sherry, low sodium soy sauce, cajun spices, and pepper, covered with a no-sugar portabello marinara sauce. And I'm just about done making my desk.

So I have Airplane! playing in the background while I'm trying to figure out if I have the right tool to get this dowel in the boards that meet at a seam. I take a break and read this thread. Yep... it's as funny and as absurd as the movie going on in the background.

It starts with Ian's characterization of my point of view. Sorry, Ian, but sifting through your description of MY views reminds me of advising my number 1 son how to deal with his mom's verbal barrage after making what should be a simple request. So much heat; so little light. So much personal; so little factual.

Remind me some time to tell you a story about "Hurricane Marla", Ian.

I understand Jason's points, but I don't agree with all his concerns. I think many of them are unfounded, and many we just don't know about.

And not all of Ian's come-backs are founded either. I find it funny that I'm constantly lecturing my wife and my oldest son (not number 2 son) how not to use the N word, not to disparage people because they're of a different color, not to use the F word, etc., etc. Do we think there's a generational change in how GLTB and minorities are thought of? Yes and no. Go figure that I'm lecturing my son rather than the other way around. (He smokes as well, which goes to show how stupidity can be an insidious disease.)

As for the training... Yep, we do it yearly, and I just completed mine this year well before the November 30 deadline. It took me two (2) DAYS going through the online training, and then the subsequent screen after screen after screen of "Yes I agree" electronic signatures promising that I wouldn't dis my neighbor, steal from the company, or tell the world that Johnny has Cooties (ICD-9 098.6).

There were some golden moments in this discussion though. I feel it important to highlight them.

Go figure!

Would this change if GLBT were completely accepted? I don't know. And I think it's unscientific prematurely to suggest otherwise, Ian. Intriguing? Yes. Evidence-based? Not so much.

The brain is a fascinating piece of work. Human behavior never ceases to amaze me. And the human psyche never fails to baffle the most scientifically minded researchers. If you only knew how much work we people who design medical classification systems (last job) do when it comes to the mental health branch. And the work has more to do with labeling than it does with effective treatment or behavior modification.

There's an expression I want you to meditate on, Ian. I hear it often in business when discussing many good ideas but having to deal with a limited budget and shareholders whose wishes must be respected.

Meditate on opportunity costs.

I also urge you to look at the down side of dramatic change. Check out what happened to AOL when they decided that they would no longer charge their customers by the minute to surf online. (A fantastic idea, but...) Check out what happened to the south at the end of the Civil War, or Germany after the end of World War I. I could go on and on and on.

Steady state and transients were two entirely different lines of study in my undergraduate electrical engineering. And society is no different. If you don't know the consequences of changing a system from one state to another on a dime, then I suggest you study up on system responses to step functions. Or... You can study up on fuzzy logic.

But I wax theoretical. My bad...

NOW you're talking!

- Bill

Sorry, but I did have to engage Ian on this one comment. It just struck me as really funny.

Bill Clinton got impeached because he lied to Congress about his sex life.

Al Capone was thrown in prison because of income tax evasion.

Well... it is true, right?

I love you like a brother, Ian, and you're intellectually sharper than I am. But sometimes I wonder when you miss something if it's because you don't want to listen or because you're that socially blind. (FWIW, I give you the credit and assume it's the former.)

If you need more clues, I addressed that in the other thread.

- Bill

Short story:

BS aside, you think incremental phase out of DADT is ok? I never demanded anything else.

Long story:

Bill, I'm glad your holiday is going well and also glad that you (and Jason) continue to consider me willfully blind and yourselves clear of bias while we disagree on things. No matter how many times I state and repeat positions that distinguish me from a left wingnut, I get repeatedly attacked as one. You for one can't even take me at my word half the time, insisting that I must be secretly reading salon or something, when I get my news from a source that considers Obama a statist. Oh well. Then I'm the guy with personal issues.

As for substantive issues, your reply to my noting that discharges have at least temporarily ceased is "go figure!" This may be deliberately vague, but there is no reason why anyone should have expected DADT to slow like this; we've had it a long long time. Also, if you are implying nothing now needs to be done, well, there's a difference between not getting expelled and not having to worry about a dual standard and privacy since you can still be investigated, and a difference betwen staying on and being able to enlist honestly. It's a nice first step and as I mentioned, if they keep the policy around but don't enforce it it may make a nice transition to repeal once it's clear there are no big problems. Maybe there will be big problems, and we'll get to see where. Time will tell.

"Would this [suicide rate] change if GLBT were completely accepted? I don't know. And I think it's unscientific prematurely to suggest otherwise, Ian. Intriguing? Yes. Evidence-based? Not so much."

Are you writing in to agree with me? I'ver already stated Didn't say it wouldn't. I merely posted reasons why I thought it shouldn't change.

As for the consequences of changing a system on a dime, perhaps you've made too many assumptions. The first is that this represents a huge change. As is already clear, many soldiers are gay right now and the sky hasn't fallen. Many of them are known, too. As time goes on, more people NOT expelled under DADT add to this list. This indicates that straight and gay soldiers can work together, even here in the USA, not just in other countries.

Also, I don't recall ever discussing exactly how this process should take place. Over what time frame, for example. I could wax theoretical for a long time about quality improvement, too. One of the concepts there is pilot pilot pilot. If I were asked to write the new policy or change plan, I wouldn't propose just flipping a switch. I would get a lot of input from people in the military. I would trial a change and see how it went. I would continue with the suspension of discharges and see how that went. I would start to equalize treatment of soldiers and suspend investigations. I would have strict policies on behavior with real penalties for unprofessional acts or comments--from anyone, straight and other. After hearing about the slew of behavioral nonsense from military psych people, I'd think about more screening pre enrollment. I'd definitely consider any ideas people had for reducing health risks in the military, knowing how common, for example, alcohol, tobacco, iv drug and other substances are abused; I'd do the same with sexual risk too (do they test regularly and at enrollment for HIV and others?). Within a relatively short period of time we'd be in a position to fully integrate (I wager). Contrast this from the plan to not do anything for as long as possible no matter what, the way McCain is changing the targets needed for integration to be wise.

Would you like proof that I can think this way? Well, I've run a number of projects here at work that did the same stuff. When I arrived I realized the hospital needed a systemt o help the RNs find the MDs faster. It took me 3-4 years to get it up and running. I pleaded at committees, I used stopgap measures in the meantime, I piloted the system on medicine wards, then expanded to surgery and then we made it hospital wide and mandatory. I've done the same with other safety programs, and an alcohol withdrawal protocol. All include studies of the pre and post status and requests for feedback. With regard to other projects I am ALWAYS the guy who reminds everyone culture change will take longer than they think, even when the culture is failing to give an evidence based therapy which should switch instantly.

Let's draw a parallel here. You posted that a school superintendant was fired for busing programs, but in your paragraph, you concluded noting the SCORES HAD DROPPED. I rashly opined he probably got fired for that. I may have been wrong there, although we later learned the busing wasn't a brand new thing as it seemed from your post. Here, your issues with my DADT opinions are possibly that I was wrong to think suicides wouldn't go up, but that's not what I wrote, and I explained so as well. It would be premature to assume in either direction. Otherwise you're worried I'm going to change the army too fast but that was because of an erroneous assumption on your part. Is this really that different? Both sides make asumptions and have biases, but to hear you and Jason speak, only the people on the left and me are crippled by their inability to see your obvious logic, nevermind how many nonleft opinions I hold or whether I critique the wings of both parties or any of that. You were slamming me for my wacko bias when I was doing nothing more than posting meaningful external comments on our debt from a source that shares much of your mindset, for example, and proposing we slash entitlements, which I still think is our only chance.

Maybe if you don't want to be misunderstood you can write something clear rather than "go figure!" and I can write "Gosh Bill, you mentioned the scores dropped, do you think it could have been from that instead?"

Also, this conversation could have gone like this:

Me: I think DADT should be ended
you or JR: Well it's unfair but military business comes first, so let's trial a small change first.
Me: Oh, that sounds eminently reasonable.

Instead I'm nailed as a psycho only concerned about my feelings not the imminent collapse of our armed forces, and assumed not to know that you don't change organizational culture overnight. Hey, if the other side is so darned reasonable and I am not, why did I propose an incremental change first?

_________________
--Ian

I never called you crazy. No one is saying the military will collapse, much less imminently. So where is all this emotion-laden language coming from?

_________________
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.