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.