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.