Don't Ask Don't Tell.. Everyone Has an Opinion, But Should They?

In Anthony's blog post he talks about how he believes that gays should be allowed to be in the military without discretion and even states the idea that the feminine ones wouldn't be the ones enlisting.  I ask the question that if it is a man that is as feminine as a woman, then what would keep them from enlisting if women, who also happen to be feminine, are enlisting too.  I would go even further to ask why it is so important for them to have to be flamboyant about their homosexuality, and thrust it upon their peers that work alongside them.  They still don't get all the benefits.  Not all states recognize gay marriage, and if you are from a state that does, just because you're in the military doesn't mean that you and your spouse will receive the same benefits as a straight married couple.Whats more is that even though hazing is "outlawed" in the Marine Corps, it still happens on a daily basis and I can say that from experience.  What is to keep a homosexual from thinking that they are being a victim of a hate crime when they are really just being inducted into the ranks?  Being a former infantry Marine myself, in my own personal opinion, a combat related military occupation generally attracts a hardened individual that generally has little to no regard of personal feelings, and what little they do have is usually stripped from them when they see their closest friends die in combat.  If a homosexual male was attracted to this same military occupation I think that he would most definitely be the victim of a brutal hate crime because he was looked at as being weak.  I know everyone has their own opinion on the matter of the don't ask don't tell policy, which they are entitled to, but I also think that it should ultimately be left up to the troops in the armed forces, particularly in combat operation occupations.  If that means the military will never allow gays, so be it.  The military isn't in existence to make its employees happy, it exists solely to defend our country from all enemies foreign and domestic.  Therefore, in my opinion, Congress should have no say whatsoever in the matter. It should be left up to the military advisors.  Their job exists for a reason too, just like the military.

Congress Says No to Deficit Plan

Today a commission gathered and voted 11-7 against a new plan proposed by Obama to cut the deficit.  I am overwhelmingly glad they decided against this new plan for many reasons.  First off, the new plan involved raising the Social Security age from 65 to 67.  Granted this increase is supposedly over the course of 65 years, what will it be for my kids?  Will they have to work until they are 70?  75?  Another appalling solution in this proposed plan is tax cuts for homeowners.  With the real estate market in the shape it's in from all the foreclosures, homeowners rely on these tax cuts at the end of the year to stay afloat and keep a roof over their family's heads.  I shutter at the thought of taking out a home loan and not getting a chunk of change at the end of tax season to pay off a fraction of my own personal deficit.  The final straw for me would have to be that along with the aforementioned proposals, the plan also included the idea that tax breaks should also be taken away from employers who provide health insurance.  This to me makes the least amount of sense and confuses me a little bit.  If Obama is the one who wanted to make it mandatory for employers to provide health insurance, why is he ultimately bankrupting the small businesses doing so by not giving them tax breaks during tax season to at least cover their expenses?  The answer to cutting the deficit is not bankrupting everybody else.  I am no economist, but the corporation world to me works very similarly to the food chain.  If you take the small businesses out by not giving them tax breaks to stay afloat from the expenses of the mandatory health care they have to provide, then eventually the big corporations they make products for and get products from will see the effects.  If the big corporations go out of businesses, and there are no "small jobs" for the "little guy" then how will people make money to put into the economy to get the nation out of debt?  Like I said, I am no economist, so I claim to give no answers to the problem.  But on the same token, I ask that the people on Capital Hill that have made this whole national problem solving thing a career take the things that I, as a 23 year old young adult with hardly any understanding of politics or economics, can point out into consideration.

Free Speech Is Still Free Speech No Matter the Forum

Hannah argues in her blog "Hey! Try Thinking Before You Speak..or Act.." that by using social media to bully and attack the views and beliefs of others such as the gay community, the right to freedom of speech is largely taken advantage of.  But I would say that freedom of speech can't be abused by someone voicing their opinion because that is exactly what freedom os speech is.  If I don't agree with the war against terror and I decide to speak out against it, I would be completely justified and protected by the First Amendment to do so.  I concede that certain things might be taboo to talk about in an open environment such as Facebook, but that is a judgement call of the person who decides to voice their opinion.

As someone who fought overseas during three deployments and lost a lot of people I knew, I feel if you start limiting the rights that our country fought for during the American Revolution and continue to fight for today, what's the point of being American?  Free speech is one of the great freedoms Americans enjoy and without that right America isn't America.  I fought for that right and many of my friends died for it. Therefore, for anyone to tell me or anyone else to watch what we say in case, god forbid, we offend someone with our own thoughts and opinions out there in cyberspace is ludicrous.

By the way, people don't seem too concerned with negative and nasty comments made to me and my friends about what we did overseas for this country.  So as far as I'm concerned, if they don't have to bite their tongue to spit in the face of my service, why should I hold mine?

Don't Ask Don't Tell; Is It Really Up To D.C.?

Should national government have a say in don’t ask don’t tell?  After repealing anything the policy could do regarding actions taken on individuals that are openly gay, any further debate was quickly filibustered by Sen. John McCain. 

But what do the people who run the capitol really know about the effects of repealing this policy?  Sure, it will allow gay service members to openly gay service members to not have to hide their private lives, but isn’t that why it’s called a private life? 

What about discrimination?  If you don’t know that a person is gay, there are no thoughts about it. But if they happen to be extremely proud of being gay, there might be a tendency to be a little prejudice in your subconscious, even if you don’t particularly dislike the gay community. 

What about combat stressors?  Most everyone would think that would be the last thing on a persons mind in combat operations, but if a group of men (since women aren’t allowed in combat job fields) were unwinding after an extremely hard day, how would the gay individual relate to the other men in conversations about women back home and things of that nature without being put in an uncomfortable setting? 

Which brings me to my last point; the blatant and clear fear of persecution.  This could come in many forms such as being given the tasks that nobody wants to do like clean up a mess in the cafeteria or mop a spill in the bathroom.  Let’s not forget that if a person isn’t looked at in a positive way, it will be exponentially harder to get promoted, and who doesn’t want to be recognized for all the hard work?

Due to the lack of military field experience on the behalf of the officials who want to repeal the don’t ask don’t tell policy, I don’t think that government officials should have any say at all in the matter. 

 In conclusion, I think that the Senators and Congressmen in Washington D.C. should leave it up to the service men and women to either come up with a solution, or leave the policy as it is.

Fundraising Is Just One Battle Between Democrats and the GOP

Midterm elections are just weeks away and news coverage is increasingly leaning towards the battle between Democrats and the GOP to control the House and other key spots.  Fundraising, especially now, is critical because it supports advertising and promotion to help get party members elected.  This blog draws in not just political junkies, but most likely a majority of voters who are anticipating going to the polls on November 2nd.  


Fredreka Schouten publishes many blogs for USA Today.  By the looks of her Twitter page and how many people commented on this particular blog (13), she doesn't seem to draw too many readers.  However, I don't think that speaks to her credibility.  If an established paper such as USA Today employs Schouten to blog for them, then I think it's safe to say that she is a credible author. 


Schouten argues through a series of interviews that Republicans are pushing hard to make more money in order to catch up with Democrats (Republicans raised more than $11 million in September.  Democrats raised nearly $16 million) and Democrats argue Republicans are being bought out by special interest groups that want to have some control in Congress. Schouten ends her blog with a quote from the American Action Network, "The American public is frustrated, angry and perhaps frightened about the direction of the country right now. They are angry about government-run health care, mounting debt, out-of-control spending and stimuluses that spend but don't stimulate jobs."  Essentially, fundraising is just the backdrop of a much larger problem that implies hidden agendas and selling out to special interest groups for money and votes.


I agree that both parties are guilty of buying seats in Congress.  I think politicians say whatever they believe will buy more votes and keep money pouring in for their campaigns.  Do I think it matters which politicians are trusted in Congress with our votes and problems?  Yes, because some politicians are out there to do good while others are career politicians, looking to stay in Congress as long as possible even if it means being bought out.  

Stephen Colbert Shakes Up Congress

Last week, Stephen Colbert made headlines by addressing Congress on the issue of migrant workers.  News organizations, commentators and bloggers jumped on the chance to give their input on the fiasco.

A commentary featured in USA Today talks briefly about this event.  The author's intended audience encompasses a wide spectrum from Colbert fans to those involved in migrant worker issues.  The fact that so many people are interested about Colbert's testimony is a great advantage for this author because it gives him and his opinions greater exposure.

The author's credibility questionable.  His name is Michael Murphy and he's from Cave Creek, Arizona. Although the author lacks credentials, the fact that he's from Arizona makes his opinion on migrant worker issues, even if Colbert's testimony is a bit off base from the subject, noteworthy.

Murphy argues that Colbert's appearance before Congress throws Congress's credibility into question.  He argues that Colbert's "flippancy" made this point especially clear.  In other words, if Congress is held in such high esteem by the public, would Colbert have taken his testimony more seriously?

I agree with Murphy and believe that Congress is in serious trouble if it invites a satirical newscaster, who makes fun of them on a routine basis, to speak out about a serious issue.

New York City Warns U.N. of Safety Risk

U.N. Building in Lower Manhattan

According to an article in Fox News, New York City officials fear another terrorist attack is very possible on the U.N. complex in downtown Manhattan.  This warning comes on the heels of the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that took place not too far from the U.N. building in Lower Manhattan.  

According to the article, top officials such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly "feel frustrated that after years of negotiations and a [nearly $2 billion] U.N. facelift that is now under way, the U.N. is ignoring blunt and dire warnings about the risks faced at the 17-acre complex."  City officials feel that "neither the U.N. nor the State Department...have committed themselves to anywhere near enough protection for the high-profile international target."  Mayor Bloomberg has even written to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about his concerns with the safety issues surrounding the international building.

U.N. officials, however, don't share the city's concerns.  They suggest the city's concerns will never be completely met, in part because "the U.N. is merely renovating the complex, rather than starting from scratch."

Perhaps the most defiant of stances against the city, U.N. Under Secretary General Gregory Starr (according to Fox News), emphasizes that the U.N. is an international organization whose campus is outside U.S. jurisdiction and it doesn't have to please the city or the U.S. government unless it wants to.

This issue could be important to everyone in the country because an attack similar to 9/11 (which is what city officials fear) not only affects the people of New York City, it would affect everyone in the country.  I think even though the U.N. is an international organization, it should adhere to certain security issues proposed by New York City and/or the U.S. government without the option to comply at the U.N.'s leisure.  Although it is an international organization, it doesn't change the fact that the building is not only on American soil, it is close by to the World Trade Center site.  It may only be a matter of time before terrorists target this international organization and the U.S. experiences a horrible deja vu that could have been prevented.