Nuke a Gay Translator for Jesus!

I see the tide rising now!   Finally some reason begins to dawn in politics with the discussion turning to COMMUNICATION, which is critical while we are at war. Hmmm... a little late in coming, but hey, ya know, the "Wizard of Rove" all that...
So the firing of translators  according to CBS, which still uses past figures, perhaps hurts the war on terror. Oh, and suddenly now it seems that there were more gay translators discharged than were cited. Instead it seems, almost 30 Middle East Language specialists   and at least 800  
 other critical job specialists have been discharged for being gay.

Um... how exactly does is this helping in fighting the War on Terror?

So homophobia is more important than our National Security?
Our military is more afraid of Gays than they are of terrorists?  Has the Republican plan been nothing more than their "Homophobic Agenda" to Nuke Gay translators for Jesus?

And as if that is not bad enough, now calling someone out as being Gay in the military is becoming an act of revenge   and hate  like the Salem witch hunts.  
So back to my "Theme for Victory" in Iraq, in our country, for the Democrats, and for the world.... I think should simply be  RESPECT!
We need to simply respect an individual's rights to the pursuit of happiness!  Respect sexual preferences. Respect individual sovereignty, and Respect the diversity of the Iraqi people and their sovereignty!   How can we know what they want when we don't have leaders willing or able  to COMMUNICATE?  We need leaders willing to sit in a room eye-to-eye with other leaders and show some RESPECT for sovereignty and I think the rest will follow.  There actually IS a clear method of non-violent communication that can be used.  Why it is not observed I can only suspect that officials are too wrapped up in lies and hidden agendas that they mistake  making demands as the only method of diplomacy!  Bolton anyone?
I say first, we gotta respect ourselves and each other or how can we demonstrate it to the world?
Some of Pelosi's  first words after elections reflect the saying: "Let there be peace and let it begin with us."
I think recognizing that Gays are part of the human experience whether or not they are translators is a good place to start... well actually we still owe billions to  Native Americans!
 Let's see how it goes...

•  I remember bumper stickers that said

  "NUKE GAY WHALES FOR JESUS"

  Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

  by InsultComicDog on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:37:54 PM PDT

  •  There was another one

    that said "Nuke a godless, communist, gay baby seal for Christ"

    What is actually on the 'gay agenda' anyway? If it involves coffee and donuts, count me in.

    by Aragorn for America on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:45:11 PM PDT

    •  My favorite version:

      Nuke the unborn gay whales for Jesus!

      Something for everyone, that.

      by homogenius on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:06:39 PM PDT

    •  You asked...

      Thanks to Betty Bowers, homosexuals' sneaky little secrets are now revealed to the godly:
      THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!

      As every Christian knows, there is only one enemy that threatens our entire civilization. And I am, of course, not talking about Satan. I'm talking about those damned homosexuals! Yes, they give otherwise dull hair radiant highlights and our imperfect décor those fabulous flourishes that elude our more predictable heterosexual sensibilities, but at what price? In exchange for a little panache, we allow homosexuals to steal our children and destroy our Christian marriages. And how do they do this? With their secret masterplan...

      The Homosexual Agenda!

      http://www.bettybowers.com/...

      by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:37:58 PM PDT

•  One more reason why we're losing in Iraq

  We fired all the Arabic speakers.  

  Dopes.

  by FlyingToaster on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:40:59 PM PDT

•  you'll find them

  on the group W bench. (Weird! that works in so many ways...)

  by Rudykip on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:46:11 PM PDT

•  I agree 1,000%

  "Our military is more afraid of Gays than they are of terrorists? "

  I always thought it was so weird that our big strong tough manly soldiers are afraid of...gay people?

  bombs and bullets don't make them flinch...but a perfectly nice, normal human being scares them?

  how ridiculous

  by RumsfeldResign on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:52:01 PM PDT

  •  Straight men fear ..

    gay men because they are afraid that gay men will view straight men the way that straight men view females: as a walking place to thrust a penis.

    That's the reason they fear us, they are afraid we will treat them the same as they treat females.

    I got news for them, I've seen some of them in the shower at the gym, they're not all that.  

    by emsprater on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:02:37 PM PDT

    •  and because they're afraid of themselves....

      Most straight guys have had at least one occasion where their mind wandered into "forbidden" territory, perhaps speculating about how it would feel to receive a Hummer of the variety that doesn't guzzle gasoline.  

      Most of those in turn write it off as just one of those weird things that occasionally happens, and think no more of it.  And it certainly isn't indicative of being gay.   (What's going on here is the intersection of two unrelated streams of thought in the brain.)

      Anyway, straight guys who are secure about their own identities could care less about what gay guys do in bed.  Straight guys who are fighting battles in their own minds & hearts are the ones who tend to freak out about gay this and gay that and the other thing.

      by G2geek on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:23:58 PM PDT

      •  A rec

        simply for the phrase

        to receive a Hummer of the variety that doesn't guzzle gasoline.  

        by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:39:32 PM PDT

      •  Streams of thought

        Most of those in turn write it off as just one of those weird things that occasionally happens, and think no more of it.  And it certainly isn't indicative of being gay.   (What's going on here is the intersection of two unrelated streams of thought in the brain.)

        I think this is actually how a great deal of crackpot ideas and zealotry come about; the brain makes a random connection between two unrelated things and instead of "writing it off" the crank believes that he's discovered Profound Truth.  The human brain is wired to find connections, and favors sensitivity (not missing a real connection) over specificity (not finding a false connection).  That means that when we perceive a connection, we have to subject it to reality testing, or else we're going to go off the deep end.  This reality testing requires mental effort; recent neuroscience research suggests that there are more mental steps involved in rejecting something we suspected was true than in accepting it.

        by ebohlman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:34:37 PM PDT

        •  very interesting; and the check & balance is...

          All other factors equal, humans who keep making false-accept errors should also be more prone to darwinizing themselves as a result.  

          To the degree that agriculture, industry, and high tech produce a society where opportunities for autodarwinization become fewer over time, we can expect to see more people surviving whose false-accept errors would have taken them down in previous times.  

          Thus we can expect over time a growth in the subset of the population that is prone to excessive false-accept errors.  This seems to track with the increase of religious extremism in recent decades, though of course there are other known factors at work there also.  

          by G2geek on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:54:45 PM PDT

          •  Have to disagree here

            Historically, the selective pressure would have favored false acceptance and weeded out false rejection; if you hear wind rushing through the foliage and misidentify it as a saber-toothed tiger creeping up on you, you're merely inconvenienced; if you do the opposite, you're cat food.  The short-term consequences of false rejection were considerably greater, even though the long-term consequences of false acceptance are probably even greater.

            by ebohlman on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:09:24 AM PDT

    •  My understanding

      is that the percentage of women among the troops discharged is disproportionately high, way out of line with the percentage of women in the total troops.  So it's not purely about straight men fearing gay men (and in any case, the standard bigot stereotype is that gay men are always "bottoms" with other adult men--hmmm, that means the "top" isn't really gay, doesn't it; could the phobes be "getting some" on the side?--and only "tops" if someone underage is involved).  I'd say there's an equal component of resentment at "women doing men's jobs" (and come to think of it, that could explain some of the prejudice against gay men, given that phobes think of gayness as a deviation from masculinity).

      Maybe I'm acting as if bigotry ought to follow the rules of logic; in fact, the easiest way to tell that an antipathy is  prejudicial rather than justified is to note that the rationales offered for it contradict each other (e.g. if you're simultaneously objecting to gay sex on the grounds that 1) it's viscerally disgusting and 2) it gives better orgasms, so everyone would turn gay if they could, then you don't have a valid objection).

      by ebohlman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:18:42 PM PDT

      •  You have a valid point in ...

        emphasizing the disparity in the percentage of women who are discharged for sexual orientation in the military.

        My understanding is that the percentage of women among the troops discharged is disproportionately high, way out of line with the percentage of women in the total troops.

        The only thing is, women didn't "make" the rules.  Men did. Men who made the rules based on their fear of homosexuals for the reason I cited above.  Otherwise, the idea of lesbianism in the military would simply be fodder for the masturbatory fantasies of the good "straight" male troops, just like it is in the rest of society.  It's still all about the "male" objectifying the female as nothing more than for sexual use, and fear of being placed in that role themselves.

        by emsprater on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:21:34 PM PDT

        •  Err...

          Of course it's men who are making the rules, but I think you'll find that most straight men, especially of the uptight kind, are going to react quite differently to being around flesh-and-blood lesbians than to their own fantasies.  They won't feel as threatened as they are by gay men, but there will still be a sense of threat (possibly of the "what's wrong with me if I can't "turn" her?" sort).

          by ebohlman on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:15:14 AM PDT

  •  most warriors could care less

    Most of today's warriors could care less about who someone sleeps with.

    The attitude, so I'm told by a friend over there, is "that's your business; what matters is how you do your job."  

    Practical and common-sense.  And in the officer corps, same thing.   In some units, the interpretation of "don't tell" is "don't tell explicit stories, but merely saying you're gay is no big deal."  

    When these young warriors rise through the ranks, the old homophobia is going to melt like an ice cube in the Iraqi desert.  It's already happening.

    by G2geek on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:26:47 PM PDT

•  Revenge?

  Accusing someone of being gay in the military for revenge is nothing new. In fact, it's the standard retaliation against women reporting sexual harrassment.

  "Well, of course she's a lesbo--only a man-hating dyke would turn down what I'm offering."

  by homogenius on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:05:50 PM PDT

•  Behavior is the Truth!

  That's what my daddy says. He's a retired Army Master Sgt., Airborne/Rangers WWII & Korea. In combat all he cared about was that the guy did his job and had his buddy's back. Gay, straight, black, white ... didn't matter to him or the men he served with.

  So it's not so much those serving, as the politicians that control them, they keep these horrible policies in place.

  by crowgirl on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:08:54 PM PDT

  •  exactly.

    As I said above, the attitude is "we don't care who you sleep with, it's how you do your job that matters."

    There may or may not be an occasional atheist in a foxhole, but there are few homophobes in a firefight.  

    by G2geek on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:28:10 PM PDT

•  linguist/translators; the NSA standard

  Those fired for being gay should go apply to NSA on the civilian side.  The policy there is, "do tell the truth, don't discriminate."   Anyone having any personal secrets that could be used by a hostile foreign agent as the basis of an extortion threat, has to disclose to family and close friends.  After that, they don't care who you sleep with, what matters is how you do your job.

  That policy has worked since the early 1970s, in a place where every piece of paper is classified except for the bathroom hand towels, and everyone including the custodians holds a TS clearance.

  If it works there, it can work in the regular military.  

  by G2geek on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:32:22 PM PDT

•  the 10% solution....

  Here's the practical proposal:

  Repeal "don't ask questions, don't tell the truth," and replace with the NSA policy, "do tell the truth, don't discriminate."  

  Then open the door to gay recruits and put back the recruitment standards that existed before they were recently lowered.  No more enlistees without highschool credentials or with criminal records.  

  This is the solution to our soldier shortage.  This is how it should be put across:  we need soldiers, times have changed, we're going to integrate, case closed.  REcruitment will increase by 5 - 10% immediately, as gay folks who have wanted to serve but couldn't live a lie, sign up in large numbers.  Particularly after the 2008 elections, when the present crop of deserters and evaders are out, and someone who has actually served is in (Gore/Clark 08!).

  And you can be sure that the first crop of gay warriors, officers and enlisted, are going to hold themselves to a high standard and turn in an exemplary record, just as did black soldiers in the early days of racial integration in the military.  They will come in recognizing they are under scrutiny, and will rise to the challenge and set a standard for those who follow.  

  Any remaining homophobes still around will freak out for a short while and then get used to the situation.  "My buddy here, I still think he's a sinner but he saved my life under enemy fire..."    I think we can live with that.

  by G2geek on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:40:23 PM PDT