PDA

View Full Version : McCain Continues to Disappoint



David G
11-30-2010, 08:47 PM
DADT - what is his problem???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101130/us_yblog_thelookout/after-strong-appeal-from-pentagon-opponents-of-repeal-are-pondering-next-move

After this Pentagon study, there appears to be no hint of a rational reason left to cling to... and yet, cling he does.

john l
11-30-2010, 09:58 PM
he seems to be more vocal lately...wonder if he thinks he can give it another go, this time without
the "wonder woman."

BrianW
11-30-2010, 10:05 PM
Though some troops suggested during the study that there should be separate bath and living facilities for gays, the report recommended against it because it would be a "logistical nightmare, expensive and impossible to administer."

That's the only area where I find fault. Ignore an issue because it's hard.

Glen Longino
11-30-2010, 10:17 PM
That's the only area where I find fault. Ignore an issue because it's hard.

Look, Brian, the homophobes have to face some issues too.
Talk about ignoring issues!
Homophobes must simply grow a pair and protect them!
Don't tell me a Marine can't protect his own sack against the marauding hoards of quee...er, I mean perver....er, I mean homosexuals.;)

Canoeyawl
11-30-2010, 11:50 PM
The amazing thing is that they are afraid ...
a bunch of cry babies.

Glen Longino
11-30-2010, 11:56 PM
The amazing thing is that they are afraid ...
a bunch of cry babies.

Ain't that the truth?
The Big, The Bad, The Marines, are afraid of being overcome by the homos!
Ain't it hilarious?

Keith Wilson
11-30-2010, 11:58 PM
Oh, they'll deal. Two years after it's been repealed, almost everybody will wonder what all the fuss was about.

McCain got scared witless by a serious right-wing challenge in the primary, and has abandoned every principle he ever had. Poor old guy.

Glen Longino
12-01-2010, 12:12 AM
The Marines will be just fine. Don't worry about it, Longino. There won't be much change in their daily lives.

Tell that to McCain.
It ain't me who's scared!;)

Glen Longino
12-01-2010, 12:43 AM
"We consider him to be a hero."

That is certainly your decision.
Some people need a hero, some don't!

Glen Longino
12-01-2010, 01:20 AM
Are all your heroes political heroes?
Is "political" a part of your definition of hero?
Is there any other kind of hero to you than "political hero"?
Examine your heroes and report back to me ASAP!
or not!;)

elf
12-01-2010, 07:34 AM
McCain has never had any ethical basis for his life. He's always done what was convenient and always held a feather up to see which way the wind was blowing and then gone that way.

It amazes me that you guys seem not to understand that the entire reason Palin was invited on to the ticket was because she gave McCain a jolt where he'd not had one for a while.

Poor guy. He's always been a nobody. That's not ever going to change.

McMike
12-01-2010, 08:00 AM
theres some highly disturbed types on this forum - why are so many of them from new england? somethin in the water or lack therof no doubt

Kettle, black . . . . kettle, black . . . . kettle, Black Jack . . . .

BrianW
12-01-2010, 08:05 AM
Look, Brian, the homophobes have to face some issues too.

Yes they do. I'm sure some training will help that issue.


Talk about ignoring issues!

I don't know what you mean by that.


Homophobes must simply grow a pair and protect them!
Don't tell me a Marine can't protect his own sack against the marauding hoards of quee...er, I mean perver....er, I mean homosexuals.;)

Ideally, they would have implemented regulations to help prevent sexual harassment, and the violence you're espousing, in the after-work environment. Just as they do for male and females now. It should be noted they did not say new rules wouldn't be good, they said they would be a "logistical nightmare, expensive and impossible to administer". I stand by my position that those are not good reasons to ignore the problem you have admitted, and of which they are aware.

It is what it is. I'm glad homosexuals will be allowed to openly serve. I'm disappointed the command is not demanding an equal standard when it comes to housing situations only because it's hard.

BrianW
12-01-2010, 08:23 AM
Some people used to think they needed separate drinking fountains for blacks. Turns out that wasn't necessary.

I disagree with that comparison, at least in part. It's true when it comes to people accepting different people, which is one factor here. But it doesn't compare when discussing separating service members based on sexual preference, which is the current practice with men and women. Now, for homosexuals, that separation is being waived because it's a logistical nightmare. Men and women however, are still being separated. A bit of a double standard.


In the civilian world, we have long since dealt with the problem of shared shower facilities.

In an interesting loophole if you will, contractors share the same shower facilities as the military, yet no one asked if we're gay or straight. Like you say, 99.9% of the time it's no big deal. I do expect some lawsuits in the future, when a straight man claims sexual harassment from a homosexual man in the shower, and claims the Army is has not done enough to prevent it. I think a good lawyer would compare the two standards (male and female separation compared to no separation with homosexuals) and make a decent case.

I leaving Afghanistan in two days. When I get back, maybe that somwhat effeminate Colonel who makes the best damn bake goods in a crock pot will turn out to be gay? I don't care, as long as he still shares them with us.

TomF
12-01-2010, 08:26 AM
I'm disappointed the command is not demanding an equal standard when it comes to housing situations only because it's hard.Help me understand what housing standards might work.

I assume that men and women are currently housed separately to reduce sexual harassment (i.e. unwanted sexual advances etc.), and discourage people from having consensual sexual relationships.

I am unclear how housing homosexual men together, but apart from heterosexual men, would reduce either of those things among homosexual men. One would think that the presence of heterosexual men would actually discourage precisely what you'd want discouraged. One wonders whether the real issue isn't that healthy young heterosexual men don't like being leered at by people they're not attracted to. They should ask a few women how they've dealt with such things forever.

I suppose that one option would be to house homosexual men with heterosexual women. But since sexual orientation, we're told, is somewhat like a spectrum rather than a binary thing, I suspect that might cause some wondering about whether the men were reliably homosexual enough.

Keith Wilson
12-01-2010, 08:27 AM
But it doesn't compare when discussing separating service members based on sexual preference, which is the current practice with men and women.No. Nobody's separated based on sexual preference - DATD, remember? They're separated based on anatomy and whether or not they have a Y chromosome.

A couple of gay folks in the barracks is a long way from the worst folks in the military have to deal with. They can handle it. In a couple of years, everybody will laugh about how silly we were to make a fuss about it.

BrianW
12-01-2010, 08:50 AM
Help me understand what housing standards might work.

Exactly. It would be darn near impossible.


I assume that men and women are currently housed separately to reduce sexual harassment (i.e. unwanted sexual advances etc.), and discourage people from having consensual sexual relationships.

I agree. Some folks don't. See Keiths post above.


I am unclear how housing homosexual men together, but apart from heterosexual men, would reduce either of those things among homosexual men.

Again, exactly correct. I've said that all along.


One would think that the presence of heterosexual men would actually discourage precisely what you'd want discouraged.

I bet you're right.


One wonders whether the real issue isn't that healthy young heterosexual men don't like being leered at by people they're not attracted to. They should ask a few women how they've dealt with such things forever.

Another reason the military separates their living quarters.


...I suspect that might cause some wondering about whether the men were reliably homosexual enough.

A very popular joke, and line of thinking in military circles. :)

S.V. Airlie
12-01-2010, 08:50 AM
I feel sorry for McCain. He is just living in the past. Reminds me of professors who taught education classes. they thought the kids still wore bobbysox

BrianW
12-01-2010, 09:02 AM
No. Nobody's separated based on sexual preference - DATD, remember? They're separated based on anatomy and whether or not they have a Y chromosome.

I disagree.

In the DADT scenario, homosexuality is still against the rules, and therefore the military is safe in assuming it's members are hetrosexual. If they learned different, the member would be discharged. Therefore by separating men and women, they had taken reasonable precautions against sexual harassment. At least enough to stand up in court.

TomF
12-01-2010, 09:04 AM
Given all that, it seems wisest to simply keep people housed as they currently are ... and expect that there will be some attitude adjustments needed both by some of the more, erh, assertive homosexuals, and by some of the more assertive homophobes.

Despite what we've heard a few times about pregnancy rates among women in the Navy, surely the Forces can find a way to address sexual conduct standards; other nations have.

Variations on this aren't precisely a new problem; around Remembrance Day I saw a documentary on WW1 ... apparently the Canadian corps was better paid than many others (!!), and had a much higher STD rate as a result of gents having a bit of money to spend while on leave. Back then, the solution was to stop one's pay while you were undergoing treatment, even if it was being sent back home on your behalf.

BrianW
12-01-2010, 09:09 AM
Alas, the armed services do have a problem with sexual harassment. Most commonly, men raping women.

Correct.


Many have claimed the Army hasn't done nearly enough about it.

Again, correct.

Now the question is, does knowing putting sexually attracted members in the same shower and bedroom help that problem, or will it possibly make it worse?

BrianW
12-01-2010, 09:12 AM
Given all that, it seems wisest to simply keep people housed as they currently are ... and expect that there will be some attitude adjustments needed both by some of the more, erh, assertive homosexuals, and by some of the more assertive homophobes.

Despite what we've heard a few times about pregnancy rates among women in the Navy, surely the Forces can find a way to address sexual conduct standards; other nations have.

Perhaps we will see a complete removal of any housing rules based on sex, or sexual preference? Seems to be the fairest way to address the issue.

S.V. Airlie
12-01-2010, 09:14 AM
Given the " don't ask don't tell" does anyone actually know how many gas are in the service. There may be more than you think and if there are. they seem to be handling it fine

BrianW
12-01-2010, 09:15 AM
Just want to point out, as per the original post... yes, McCain needs to take a different stance. The military command seems to accept this change, let it go.

Ian McColgin
12-01-2010, 09:20 AM
The shower fear bit is such a crock. Yes, one can have sex games in wet places but it's not mandatory. Check out your average nude beach. There are special nude beaches that are a bit like some steam baths on the waterfront, but mostly you just have men, women and children enjoying the sun, not indulging in sex around every human oriface or protrusion.

TomF
12-01-2010, 09:22 AM
Perhaps we will see a complete removal of any housing rules based on sex, or sexual preference? Seems to be the fairest way to address the issue.I couldn't imagine that. Much more rational to maintain the housing structure predicated on the 90-95% of the population which is straight, and actually implement regulations addressing the 5-10% which isn't.

S.V. Airlie
12-01-2010, 09:24 AM
So segregated but equal

BrianW
12-01-2010, 09:27 AM
The shower fear bit is such a crock. Yes, one can have sex games in wet places but it's not mandatory. Check out your average nude beach...

We are discussing small percentages, not 100% man love showers all the time. ;)

We are also not discussing beaches, but rather shower facilities, which are often mostly deserted, such as at 0430 when I shower, and there's maybe one other person there.

Now that I've told you when I shower, if I see any of you guys show up there tomorrow, I'll suspect the worst! :D

TomF
12-01-2010, 09:30 AM
So segregated but equalWhen you've already got problems with heterosexual rape, and apparently with vastly high pregnancy rates among female Navy personnel, it seems silly to eliminate the one element of the current policy which is probably stemming an even bigger tide.

The real issue appears from the outside to be one of organizational culture. It could be addressed, and the incidence rates vastly reduced, through regulation and enforcement.

Gerarddm
12-01-2010, 09:56 AM
It could be addressed, and the incidence rates vastly reduced, through regulation and enforcement.

Training foremost.

Kids these days don't give a damn about it. O sure, they tend to use the word 'gay' in a politically incorrect way, but when it counts they have gay friends, etc etc etc. My 21 yr old daughter thinks anti-gay people and issues are just stupid.

McCain is worse than a dinosaur. He's a cultural Luddite. I fear he has developed creeping dementia.

BrianW
12-01-2010, 11:41 AM
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure you're putting far too much focus on the showering aspect of human sexuality and attraction.

The focus is on the after-work, in the living quarters, area of life. You will note I mentioned the bedroom too. I don't expect there will be a lot of sexual harassment in the mess hall or motor pool. I'm simply using language we all understand.



As an aside: which do you think is the greater risk: gays harassing and raping straight guys, or straight guys beating the heck out of gay guys?

Both are bad, and likely to increase. By sheer numbers, I would expect the latter.

S.V. Airlie
12-01-2010, 11:52 AM
Based on some web sites, Gay rape doesn't take place often in the house but in secluded areas. Nor is it a sexual attack but based on anger frustration and direct nonsexual reasons. In some cases it was a "power " thing and not due to the sex of the individual.

TomF
12-01-2010, 12:26 PM
Based on some web sites, Gay rape doesn't take place often in the house but in secluded areas. Nor is it a sexual attack but based on anger frustration and direct nonsexual reasons. In some cases it was a "power " thing and not due to the sex of the individual.From what I understand, that dynamic is by no means unique to gay rape.

S.V. Airlie
12-01-2010, 12:31 PM
Tom F. Tanks ny point is taken. They don't have to have separate living quarters.

Seneca
12-01-2010, 05:31 PM
I can see it now; marauding homosexuals in search of straight gays. Hasn't anyone been to summer camp? Shared living quarters? Had college roomates? Did anyone bother checking the orientation of the others? I can't imagine so, nor could I imagine that very many on the other side of the fence would advertise the fact in the barracks or anywhere else. Why would they anymore than they do now? The real issue is that they would no longer face automatic dismissal for simply being something vice acting on them inappropriately.

Bobby of Tulsa
12-01-2010, 05:36 PM
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure you're putting far too much focus on the showering aspect of human sexuality and attraction.

Sharing a shower with your object of attraction can be fun, but it's really a superficial part of the whole experience.

================================================== ========================

As an aside: which do you think is the greater risk: gays harassing and raping straight guys, or straight guys beating the heck out of gay guys?
Dont drop your soap. I can see you have never been there.

Seneca
12-01-2010, 06:09 PM
This isn't prison where dropping soap could cause an issue.

Chris Coose
12-01-2010, 06:21 PM
McCain has never disappointed me. He's always been a flop.
I kinda liked his initial stand on dubbya torture and as expected, he came through like a fart in an elevator.
His best political move was to fall head over heals for Sarah Palin.

Bobby of Tulsa
12-01-2010, 06:21 PM
That's an old cliché. You don't mean to suggest that's really a legitimate concern, do you?

Do you really think gay guys are waiting in the showers for you to fumble the Irish Spring and then they're going to jump out and grab you?
No, I know that there are some straight guys??? Waiting for them, Kinda like here you go is this what you're lookin for. Its kinda like soldiers raping 6 or 7 year old girls, Why?

BrianW
12-01-2010, 08:25 PM
I can see it now; marauding homosexuals in search of straight gays. Hasn't anyone been to summer camp? Shared living quarters? Had college roomates?

We've already discussed those points.

Meli
12-01-2010, 08:33 PM
Um, I'm sure you didn't actually mean that to sound the way one could interpret it?:eek:

Vernon
12-01-2010, 08:59 PM
.....
Poor guy. He's always been a nobody. That's not ever going to change.

Regarded by millions, myself included, to be an American Hero.
A few terms in the House, a few decades in the Senate.
Presidential Nominee.

He might be a bit behind the times and I can think of a lot of reasons to disagree with John McCain, but he's never 'been a nobody'

Vern

Vince Brennan
12-01-2010, 09:02 PM
If we put LBJ5 and Black Jack in a blender, would we then have enough material for two semi-reasonable people?

TomF
12-02-2010, 09:35 AM
Dont drop your soap. I can see you have never been there.Let's call an end to that story right now.

I sang in the Opera Chorus in Vancouver for a few years, and never have I met such a uniformly utterly outrageously flaming group of guys. We straights were definitely in the minority, as was clear by the conversation all around us.

We changed in the same dressing room! Despite that, nobody was busily nailing anybody sprawled over the dressing tables, or clutching at the costume racks. Willing or unwilling.

The gay men in the chorus thought it was ridiculous that straights worried that they'd try to force themselves on anyone. Why bother, they said - the sex would be horrible! If we rejected gay sex as seeming somehow repulsive ... well, in their opinion it was our loss. They weren't about to lose sleep over it.

IMO, it's probably the straights here who need to get over themselves. As others have said earlier, a great many in the current generation have already - it's older folks who've still got a bigger issue.

Seneca
12-02-2010, 10:49 AM
Which operas?

TomF
12-02-2010, 11:22 AM
Which operas?It would be ironic to say "Daughter of the Regiment," no? :D

My first in Vancouver was Alcina (Handel), but also sang Turandot, Macbeth, Rigoletto, Boheme, Lucia, Barber of Seville, Il Trovatore, Pearl Fishers .... cripes, I can't remember what all. I think we did at least one Carmen in Vancouver, maybe 2. I know I've missed some, and may be muddled about which I sang where ... as there was a lot of crossover between the Vancouver repertoire and what I did prior in Victoria, and after in Edmonton.

elf
12-02-2010, 12:21 PM
What do you sing when you're not in a chorus, TomF

callsign222
12-02-2010, 02:04 PM
Admiral Mullen defends himself quite eloquently.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101202/ts_yblog_thelookout/mullen-fires-back-at-mccains-dont-ask-criticism

TomF
12-02-2010, 02:22 PM
What do you sing when you're not in a chorus, TomFOh, these days not so much. I'm the chauffeur to my youngest when I'm not working or playing in this place, though I do find time to play in a jazz trio with my two boys, and sing in a decent church choir. We have a great director - a former musicology and choral conducting professor, who has a wonderful grasp of the repertoire.

What I always had the most fun singing was concert repertoire in regional performances. Messiah, Creation, St. John Passion, Faure and Durufle Requiems, even Stainer's Crucifixion. And I did a few recitals - loved singing Mussorgsky's Songs and Dances of Death (though only ever in English), Brahms' Four Serious Songs, a variety of Schubert and Schumann lieder, of course. Samuel Barber's I Hear an Army is also a wonderful, big song to sing. And a few of the better known arias for bass-baritone (from Simon Boccenegra, Boheme, Macbeth etc.). I used to sing the Sarastro tunes from Magic Flute, but I dunno if my low E would project well enough anymore, at least without a bunch of time in the practice room. Strangely, my range seems to have shifted up with age, rather than down.

I don't sing that stuff in public these days even when I do (like last year) sing recitals again - I shared one last Spring with a really good soprano. But the audience here in small-town Fredericton mostly wants lighter stuff - operetta, show tunes etc. Doesn't matter much what you want to sing, if you can't get folks turning out to listen to it.

Seneca
12-02-2010, 06:28 PM
The fellow who is doing major repairs to my poor boat is an opera buff, as I found out when I appeared unexpectedly in the shop. I had him pegged as a Johnny Cash guy, but was surprised! Ever sing (part of) The Ring? Ride of the Valkyrie? Siegfried? Ah...the good old days heading to Valhalla!

TomF
12-03-2010, 07:58 AM
The fellow who is doing major repairs to my poor boat is an opera buff, as I found out when I appeared unexpectedly in the shop. I had him pegged as a Johnny Cash guy, but was surprised! Ever sing (part of) The Ring? Ride of the Valkyrie? Siegfried? Ah...the good old days heading to Valhalla!Nope, never sang Wagner. Back when I was singing regularly I wasn't old enough yet (bass-baritone voices mature late) to have enough size, darkness, and "presence" to do the solo Wagner repertoire. I did try bits of King Mark's stuff (from Tristan) as a student; even though it was in my range, it really didn't work out too well :D. The opera companies I sang with didn't mount a Ring cycle (it's fiendishly expensive, and a niche audience), though I think Vancouver did the Dutchman once or twice when I wasn't singing with them.

I've got this love/hate thing with Wagner - you really have to jump into his musical world completely, complete immersion, at which point it makes sense. But I have such a hard time separating the music from what I know of the man ... and the way his music was used by others ... that the whole thing feels tainted for me unless it's an astonishingly good production.