It's after 3:00 am and I have to get up early for another fun-packed day tomorrow (CPAC FLORIDA!) but I want to put this on the record now about an incident that happened at tonight's Republican debate. It's important that the truth is shared, because I have already seen liberal bloggers and some people on Twitter completely distorting what happened.
The debate included video questions that were submitted on YouTube, and one came from a soldier serving in Iraq who is gay and asked about the candidates' opinions on don't ask don't tell. There was audible booing after his question...however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people.
The debate included video questions that were submitted on YouTube, and one came from a soldier serving in Iraq who is gay and asked about the candidates' opinions on don't ask don't tell. There was audible booing after his question...however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people.
I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back (here's my tweet of the video screen that was right in front of us). The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, "Shhhh!" "No!" "Shut up, you idiot!" etc.
My tweet right after it happened:
FTR that was ONLY 1 or 2 people who booed at the gay soldier's question & LOTS of people shushed at him. #FloridaP5 #gopdebate #sayfie
Sarah Rumpf
rumpfshaker
Sarah Rumpfrumpfshaker
There was a concrete floor beneath all of our chairs. Ever been in a metal shop or warehouse with a concrete floor? Certain sounds can really resonate on that kind of surface.
 |
| Link to my tweet from the debate with this photo |
It's been a long time since my high school AP physics class, but a quick Google search confirmed my memory on how sound waves travel:
As sound waves travel through a medium [like air], they lose energy to the medium and are damped. The molecules in the medium, as they are forced to vibrate back and forth, generate heat. Consequently, a sound wave can only propagate through a limited distance. In general, low frequency waves travel further than high frequency waves because there is less energy transferred to the medium. Hence the use of low frequencies for fog horns.
A loud male voice on a concrete floor will travel well. In this case, the booing echoed and resonated off the floor and carried clearly the approximately 100 yards up to where the cameras and microphones were, while our hissing and shushing did not travel as well.
Tommy Christopher at Mediaite wrote about this incident and I really appreciate him linking to my tweet about what really happened. However, I do take issue with his headline:
Mediaite | Tommy Christopher | Republican Debate Crowd Boos Steven Hill, Gay Soldier Serving in Iraq
A more accurate headline would have been "One or Two Stupid Jerks Out of a Crowd of Thousands Booed a Soldier."
Here is the video from Mediate. Watch and judge for yourself.
Please share this post and link it anywhere you see an article that misstates what happened. This is my state and my Republican Party and I want to fight to protect our reputation. There may be different opinions among Republicans about gays in the military, but booing a soldier is not acceptable, and all but one or two people in a crowd of thousands knew that.
Mediaite | Tommy Christopher | Republican Debate Crowd Boos Steven Hill, Gay Soldier Serving in Iraq
A more accurate headline would have been "One or Two Stupid Jerks Out of a Crowd of Thousands Booed a Soldier."
Here is the video from Mediate. Watch and judge for yourself.
Please share this post and link it anywhere you see an article that misstates what happened. This is my state and my Republican Party and I want to fight to protect our reputation. There may be different opinions among Republicans about gays in the military, but booing a soldier is not acceptable, and all but one or two people in a crowd of thousands knew that.
Thank you. Need. Sleep. Now.
See y'all tomorrow...
Zzzzzzzzzzz....
UPDATE 9/23/11: Wow, this post has gotten a lot of attention. Please see today's post with some additional commentary. Thank you.
I'll be the first to admit what I saw in that video the first time: like, three guys booed. Maybe one or two guys booed multiple times. So saying it was the whole audience is a headline grabber and disingenuous. But some are trying to say that the audience was booing the question and not the guy asking (I know you aren't) and that's an even bigger lie.
ReplyDeleteThe proof is right there in this video. Forget the booing, and set aside the fact that all of the other contenders were too scared to sack-up and defend him until the primaries are over. The real important part of this story is how crazy happy the audience was cheering for Santorum when he answered the question. That's not two or three guys, that's the whole audience and they're practically on their feet. Just listen to it, it happens twice. Fox News is saying this was the biggest applause of the entire night. You were there, what do you think, is that pretty accurate?
I just find it really hard to believe that so many people would get mad at those booers, and turn around 30 seconds later and cheer wildly.
That applause tells you all you need to know about the audience. None of these narratives about how only the fringe thinks that way, or how they were condemning the jerks and the cameras just didn't catch it. None of that could have happened, because the whole crowd going ecstatic is right there in the video.
thank you for posting this! glad you were there to report what you saw
ReplyDeleteNo...not the biggest applause of the night. Not by far. That went to Gary Johnson's line about how his neighbor's dog has created more shovel ready jobs than Obama. :)
ReplyDeleteGovernor Scott got a LOUD standing ovation when he came in and said a few words at the beginning. Over half the people near me were NOT clapping at Santorum's answer. Some openly hissed at him too. There was still some squawking at the moron who had booed.
Good job on the clarification but the lib loonies have their sound bite now & they'll milk it for all they can.
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to add too that there were a number of other moments that got a lot more loud applause than Santorum's answer. Also, there were these boom cameras that swept out over the crowd. I have no idea if there were microphones on those cameras. We were about 100 yards back from the stage, but if they turned on the boom camera microphones as they swept over us, they would have picked up more crowd noise then.
ReplyDeleteFact of the matter is still republicans wrap themselves in the flag at every opportunity and screech about SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS but they don't. They abandon them to their health issues after service and they abandon the mere concept of giving them the same honor they would straight soldiers. Reprehensible.
ReplyDeleteNOTE: I am not going to post any nasty, ugly, anti-gay comments. Don't like it? Too darn bad. This is my blog. Go start your own and post all the ugly crap you like on your own website. Leave me out of it.
ReplyDeleteHow ironic. In a post about 1 or 2 jerks out of a crowd booing, I now have 1 or 2 jerks trying to post anonymous hateful comments here.
I don't know how on earth people are chosen to get invited to these debates, but the couple of idiots booing the gay soldier do not speak for me or any conservative I know. Neither does Santorum, for that matter. That soldier deserved respect.
ReplyDeleteThe people badmouthing Republicans here are people who'd be badmouthing them anyway. But while they are overjoyed by the booing, I am appalled by it. But the opposing side should not pretend that it doesn't have its share of crazies. We all know better.
Thanks for your post, Sarah. I saw your tweet during the debate and I'm glad you expounded on it.
Hey anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI'm a Republican. I vote. I support the troops. Presumably you have a beef with the way some Republican somewhere has treated you, but I assure you that most of us are much more compassionate than you think we are/wish us to be.
Well said Accounting Warrior, I couldn't agree more! And for that matter I would venture to say that there are probably far more of us conservatives who actually SERVE or have family serving in the military so statements that we do not support our troops are ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteSarah,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the explanation, but the damage happened in at least four parts:
1) The timing of the boos. - Because the boos were so well into introduction they suggest forethought rather than a visceral reaction.
2) The moderators statement that the questions caused controversy online. - This served only to set the stage for the television audience to expect some sort of controversial reaction.
3) Santorum's answer and his record on this issue - Even if Rick Santorum's answer made sense... and I'm not sure it did (Genie-bottle, Horse-barn)... he suggested a non-workable, unrealistic solution that only sounded as if he was condoning removing a win from a population.
4) This is the crucial one: It's not the boos that were damaging... it was the audience's applause of Santorum. Stick with me: The audience's applause for supporting the troops and giving them what they need to accomplish the mission was mixed in with Santorum's prescription for repealing the repeal of DADT. Hence, one could argue that the audience was supporting Santorum's statement that he would repeal DADT. Which would be a bigoted move.
It's unfortunate. There's no way to parse how many want to support the troops vs. how many want to support the troops by telling the troops that they have to live in fear and secrecy.
Finally, the military before DADT actively investigated whether soldiers were homosexual. Sometimes even going to the lengths of bugging a soldier's quarters. After DADT, they ejected soldiers if the soldier revealed their homosexuality - without regard to the soldier's skills are value to the service. Famously we lost a lot of translators because of this policy. Which policy would President Santorum actually support: a) the pursuit of homosexual soldiers, b) the expulsion of exposed soldiers, or c) the muzzling of active duty troops?
@Anon - you make a few good points but you repeat the lgb lobby's lies. Thruth in advertising, I happen to believe dadt worked. First off, it was very difficult to discharge a gay svc member. The member would (nearly literally) have to go to his/her commanding officer and jump up and down and about being gay before the services took action. They had to flaunt their homosexuality in a manner that would 'prejudice good order and discipline' in other words. And, I'm going to have to say the bugging accusation is an outright lie. Next, we did not 'lose a bunch of translators.' There was only 1 (2?) high profile case that Lastly, I know of what I speak - I'm an active duty sr NCO in the AF (23 yrs) who also used to work as a translator/interpreter. People leave/are discharged for a variety of reasons in all careere fields. We are losing a few folks now because they can't pass the PT test. Quit spreading half_truths.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this blog post Sarah. I found the applause for Santorum more shocking than the few boos from the crowd. How anyone could consider this man a viable candidate is beyond me.
ReplyDelete@Kevlaur87 - Please don't say that others are lying because their version of the truth differs from yours. There were more than 13 000 people discharged from the military under DADT. They weren't "flaunting" anything, and these aren't any lies from any lobby group. I've heard testimony from hundreds of ex-service men and women who were discharged because it was found out that they were gay. Men and women who were trained pilots, medics and linguists, people that our troops desperately need. All they wanted was to serve their country and they were denied that opportunity.
DADT was supposed to allow people from the LGBT community the opportunity to serve without the fear of reprisal. They would no longer have to lie about their orientation on the application which used to ask if they were gay. Unfortunately, after President Clinton left office, DADT was used as a way to discharge these fine young men and women simply because they were gay. This is what happened. This has nothing to do with flaunting or sex. Thousands of lives and careers were destroyed under DADT and I'm glad that we've finally closed this ugly chapter in our history. I appreciate your service and I respect your opinion but, as always, there are two sides to every story.
Do you have an explanation for why everyone on the stage was too cowardly to condemn the booing of a soldier? What happened in the crowd, no matter how few people, was reprehensible, and for everyone on the stage to stand their like dummies and not mention how inappropriate and disrespectful it was speaks very ill of this field of candidates.
ReplyDelete"Any kind of sexual activity has no place in the military." What kind of dream world does this guy live in?
ReplyDeleteI served with men who were known homosexuals in the Army, the members of my unit had no problem with them. Gays in the military have alot more spine than these audience members or the on-stage politicians they adore. Santorum's comments are really disgusting and these idiots clapping for him is a nice preview of where America's headed.
ReplyDeleteI think it's kind of ridiculous that Republicans feel the need to "defend" this happening so much. The fact is that boos were heard. And the bigger fact is that the crowd undeniably cheered at the answer to the soldier.. so either way, it was an anti-gay audience. And Santorum's answer made no sense. Sex shouldn't be an issue in the military? Well okay then.. if it's not an issue, there's no reason to bring back DADT.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the number of people boo-ing, the debate was about the candidates and Rick fumbled answering the question and gave what I feel is a wrong response. I'm waiting for one of them to prove why they should try and defeat Obama or else I'll be voting for Obama just to ensure he can't run again after 2012.
ReplyDeleteI'm more than a bit tired over Santorum's constant, absurd assertion that the very mention (or known existance) of one's family / spouce / parter is somehow tantamount to the explicit mention of sex acts, an act of sexual harassment on anyone who hears about it, the antithesis of liberty (and religious freedom, America, etc.), a sexual behavior in itself, etc. .... if and only if a gay person is involved.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't this guy know that he has made known, and even appeared in public with, his wife? Heck, they have pictures together on his website. What a crazy double standard. "Keep it to yourself whether you are heterosexual or homosexual" my ass.
I just have one question: if the boos were heard so clearly because of the acoustics (the concrete floor, etc.) -- then why weren't the people "who hissed and shushed at him" heard at all? Is there some reason why the acoustics worked so well for one random guying booing, but did NOTHING for all of the people around him?
ReplyDeleteSee, I thought the booing was because the solider openly admitted that he lied in order to join the military. I don't know about you, but I don't want soldiers or officers in the military that have absolutely no compunctions about lying in order to advance a personal agenda.
ReplyDeleteI'm a liberal independent and the media as usual goes into hyper-drive on these inflated headlines.
ReplyDeleteThe insanity wasn't the two numnuts in the audience, but Santorum's rant about not having sex in the military. Does he mean not having sex, or gay sex?
This guy does have a handful of kids.
However, Perry looked awful on that stage and was rambling the entire time. Huntsman by far is the brightest bulb on the state, but won't stand a chance since he's Mormon.
My question is can Romney get through the Christian south?
"why weren't the people "who hissed and shushed at him" heard at all?"
ReplyDeleteYes.
Anyone can hear it was just a couple of people booing. That's fine. But now the unsubstantiated meme of "The booers got booed" has made it as far as resident CNN Teahadist Dana Loesch who gave this excuse and referenced this blog post.
There is no evidence of counter-booing (heh), or calls to "Shush!" or w/e from the debate footage that can be heard as far as I can tell.
You made an (unnecessary) acoustics explanation yet failed to account for this glaring error in your argument.
But, again, it is conceded that the original outburst was clearly only by a handful of people (that we can hear from the original Fox audio anyway). Half a dozen at the absolute max and probably 2-4.
JoAnna,
ReplyDeleteHe didn't say he "lied" in order to join the military. DADT isn't asking you to lie, it's just asking you not to admit you are gay. He said he was living a lie, which is awful. DADT shouldn't force people to have to do that in the army, especially when they are serving our country.
Good post, Sarah. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteWrong,
ReplyDeleteWhat you didn't hear is any cheering for the idiotic idea that sexual desires is somehow the basis of "rights" , not in public life nor the military.
It's NO ONE's business what you do in the privacy of your bedroom. IN fact, in all other jobs if you go around yapping about your sexual desires you'd be sued for sexual harrassment and a hostile work enviroment.
AND when your are in the military, you can not speak out against present or past military policies while you are currently serving.
Why are these homosexual soldiers allowed to do it?
Anonymous@11:57am:
ReplyDeleteActually, you're incorrect. He said,
"QUESTION: In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I'm a gay soldier, and I didn't want to lose my job." (source)
My question is, why on earth did he have to "lie" at all? That's why there was a DON'T ASK in DADT; it was illegal for anyone to ask him about his sexual orientation, and if anyone did the proper response was not to lie about it but to report the breach to the proper authority.
But he did admit lying to advance a personal agenda, and that's conduct unbecoming to any soldier regardless of their sexual proclivities.
Any of the candidates (including Santorum) tell the people booing they were out of line?
ReplyDeleteThought not....
Everyone who booed the soldier should be ashamed. I also think all those who cheered Santorum should really rethink their approval of his words, because it's clear from his response that he never served a single day in the armed forces.
ReplyDeleteI'll be honest. Never have I been so offended while watching a GOP debate. It's usually the Dems who make my blood boil. Not ONE of the people up there had the guts to say anything until afterwards. That includes Huntsman who at least said something about it afterwards, but still, the proper time would have been to insert it in at some point during the rest of the debate.
Sorry, but I couldn't believe it. And you know what makes it bad from a political perspective? This was the Google/YouTube debate where millions of young people were going to be watching. Acting like this is not the way to create a new generation of young Republicans.
Even if you consider homosexuality a sin, why pick it out as the one you use to condemn a group of people? I consider myself center-right, but I support "gay rights" as they may not be making decisions everyone agrees with, but that doesn't qualify them for persecution.
ReplyDeleteAs for the crowd at the debate, you can't tell if they were clapping for his statement that he was going to repeal DADT, or for his stance that he was not going to kick them out of service for coming out, or for any of the other points he made in his response.
The media is so quick to make the assumption that anything out of character, or non-PC, done or said by a conservative is racism,bigotry,evil, or all three. It just fits their narrative. It should be a fun 14 months.....*sigh*
JoAnna,
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure he didn't mean someone flat out asked him if he was gay. Saying "I had to lie about who I was" can mean a lot. It can just mean pretending to be something you're not to fit in. I agree with you though - If someone asked him if he was gay, they should also be out of the military. And if not, DADT is obviously a law that wasn't working.
I don't think the soldier meant someone specifically asked him if he was gay, Joanna. He meant it figuratively, as in he was living a lie - much like the previous poster said. It's like a kid who is gay and doesn't want to tell their parents.. they are lying about who they are.. not because they want to, but because they are afraid. And if not telling anyone he is gay so that he can fight and defend our country is why.. then I don't blame him one bit.
ReplyDeleteWhy did only a few Republicans have the courage to express what they really felt?
ReplyDeleteThe whole room should have booed this soldier, but they cower in fear of political correctness.
Santorum: "Any type of sexual activity has no place in the military."
ReplyDeleteIs this man insane? The military is composed mainly of people in the prime of life, most of them testosterone-fueled men. If Santorum thinks our soldiers are celibate he's just plain nuts. The US military is NOT an abbey.
This is simply another example of a man saying what he thinks will get him elected. His words bear no relationship to reality. And yet nobody called him on it.
Sarah, thanks for the truth about the booing. Surfing the net this morning I've seen several references to it and almost believed there was widespread outrage at gays demonstrated. Nothing could have been farther from the truth.
I listened to the recording - no shushes - your an idiot etc. audible - which if this explanation was true would have been heard too - and there were several audible booers - not just one. The audience then cheered Santorum's answer, which is pretty consistent with the booers (or boors.)
ReplyDeleteSo what we seem to have here is typically boorish Republican behaviour and a desperate Republican operative peddling unconvincing and insincere spin on what happened.
Enough of this gay crap. It's not a make or break issue on any of our problems. So what if someone booed. BFD! Not everyone has to agree on the gay issues.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous@12:24 - He said, "I had to lie" not "I had to live a lie." PERHAPS he misspoke, but given that it was a video question (presumably rehearsed?) I would imagine that he meant what he said -- that he actively lied. Given that the most obvious interpretation is that he lied, can the boo-ers be blamed for not reading the solider's mind?
ReplyDeleteOnce again, if someone admits that they lied to advance a personal agenda, regardless of the reason, I think it's a "boo-worthy" offense at the very least.
Creeper - why is it insane to expect soldiers to act honorably; to honor marriage vows (if they're married) or to remain celibate (if they're not)? For the record, I support throwing out soldiers who commit adultery, too; that kind of breach of trust of a solemn vow shows a severe deficiency in character.
For those who doubt my description of what happened, note where I say we were 100 yards back from the stage & the cameras/microphones. Go do your own experiment, stand 100 yards from a friend & "shhhh!" at them. Can your friend hear you shushing that far away? Of course not. But you can yell 100 yards & be heard easily. Same with the 1 or 2 jerks who booed.
ReplyDeleteThere was a fourth Booer on the grassy knoll. Seriously, what a lame argument that you even needed to throw in sound physics. So what's wrong with someone booing a soldier? Maybe humans would stop classifying themselves into false titles and just deal with being 'sexual beings'. Then you wouldn't have people booing when they hear "gay".
ReplyDeleteAt the end of your article you say booing sa soldier is unacceptable, booing someone because they are homosexual is unacceptable. Whether he is a soldier or not makes no difference. The couple of people who booed should have been evicted.
ReplyDelete1) I wrote the post at 3 am. Please forgive me, I was sleepy & didn't have time to draft the full treatise on what I think about the debate, the DADT issue, and life in general.
ReplyDelete2) I did write a substantive post on DADT in June 2010. I'm on my blackberry now & can't easily update this post from here, but if you click on the label link at the end of this post "DADT" it will take you to that post. Please read I wrote there. Thank you.
But the shushing really occurred with the question being directed at Rick Santorum, who is being targeted (by Google) for his position / comments on gays.
ReplyDeleteGoogle "Santorum" and 3 of the 4 search results are targeting Santorum for anti-gay comments.
He was also visibly annoyed at getting the question, but I don't blame him.
When you have to "explain" the physics of a sound wave, you've lost. Some portion of the audience booed, loudly...if anyone shhhh'ed they did so inaudibly. the candidates said nothing.
ReplyDeleteThis is strike three - there was the audience cheering loudly when Perry gloated over not giving a second thought to executing 234 inmates (now 235) and there was the "Let him die!" in response to the question to Paul about the in a coma uninsured guy. three ugly outbursts, no response whatsoever from the candidates.
It is unbelievable that morons like the ones who booed, are allowed into these events. But it seems as if there is a steady undercurrent of boorish behavior at these debates. Let's not forget the people cheering at the thought of someone dying with no health insurance.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, what really should have generated the most booing was Santorum's answer to the question. If having homosexuals serving openly in the military is so detrimental to "unit cohesion", and all that other nonesense, how could you allow the currently-enlisted gays to stay? It's nonesensical and he should be called to explain how such irrational decision-making can be allowed from someone running for President.
Soldiers can not speak out against military policy past or present. It's not allowed for anyone.
ReplyDeleteThat alone should get them removed froom service.
TAking your personal life to the public and your work place, as the military is for soldier then demanding you consider it and embrace it is the opposite of logic and reason.
ReplyDeleteIt's no ones elses concern by your own . There is no logical argument you bring that makes your personal life , that no is wants to know about, a foundation for "human rights".
Sarah, thanks for the insight from someone who was actually there. For me, it's not so much a few yahoo's acted up in public and disrespected a soldier who is putting his life on the line for his country. It's the fact that not a single candidate did the honorable thing and addressed such disrespect immediately. I don't expect much more from the non-veteran career politicians and lawyers falsely wrapping themselves in the flag and spouting off patriotic one liners for mass consumption, but I did expect more from a veteran like Rick Perry. I was sorely disappointed.
ReplyDelete@Joanna - the soldier "had to lie" about who he was but because of DADT he could join the military as long as he didn't reveal his sexual orientation. Perhaps you don't understand the finer points of this? Before DADT there was a question about sexual orientation on the application forms and then, if a gay person wanted to join the military, they had to lie or else they would not be accepted. To "lie" about who one's true nature is not the same thing as lying about something. Understand? In this case you're wrong and I think that PERHAPS it was you who misspoke, not the brave young soldier.
ReplyDelete@2:02...you got a link for that blanket statement?
ReplyDeleteAnd would you apply your "reasoning" to advocate for the removal of a soldier who said "I am against the repeal of DADT"?
And I care that people booed because...?
ReplyDeleteClearly the guy thinks that he should be informing others as to what his sexual orientation is. As Santorum pointed out, he's keeping his mind on things other than the mission, and that's exactly what we DON'T need.
@ Anonymous Sep 23, 2011 11:22 AM
DeleteJust found this link while doing research and your comment begs for a response.
Do you live in a dark room by yourself? Do you not work with others in an office that's not staffed by robots? You obviously don't know anyone in the military either. It's not 24/7 out in the field like the commercials they use for recruiting. People in the military are human beings and often times have to work in offices or in hangars or different places just like in the civilian world. That means sometimes people ask each other "What are you doing this weekend?" or "What are you doing tonight?". Many people on the Right and the Left think it's ok to lack knowledge of the world they live in but still have their opinion count. You have the right to free speech but you're an incompetent person. Your know-nothing blanket view of gays won't get you into heaven.
Mr. Wonderful - you contradict yourself.
ReplyDelete"To 'lie' about who one's true nature is not the same thing as lying about something."
Actually...yes it is. To lie about his "true nature" implies that he was asked about it in the first place.
Not being permitted to openly discuss and flaunt one's sexual proclivities does not equate to having to lie about them to keep your job.
Understand? If he HAD TO LIE to keep his job, as he stated, it follows that it was because someone else broke the law and ASKED.
Don't people like myself, who don't like the idea of social engineering in our military, have the right to express themselves? Sure I appreciate the homosexual fellow's service to his country, but disagreeing with him or being outraged by his apparent support for policies that put our troops in danger is my (and every American's) right. Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of political correctness is how it disregards the fact that, in a free society, even the opinions of those we detest must be allowed to be expressed, without bloggers/former Senators/media people trying to suppress such expression. What's frightening is how far this stuff has permeated the 'right'.
ReplyDeleteIT HAPPENED! It doesn't matter if it was 1 person. The Republicans reaction or lack there of is the issue. JUST ONE MORE example of how Republicans are wrong on everything. And by their silence and defending this by 1 or 2 people you may as well beat the soldier with a baseball bat. You people just don't get it unless it is greed. And one last thing QUIT LYING ABOUT THE POST OFFICE. It would be fine if BUSH THE REPUBLICANS hadn't forced a pension deposit to pay for people who aren't even employed. You really make me sick.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the "outbursts" at the debates: I agree with the Republicans 100%, we should not judge an entire group of people based on the actions of some. (Yes, I am being sarcastic)
ReplyDelete"All they wanted was to serve their country and they were denied that opportunity."
ReplyDeleteNo, they also wanted to be identified by their sexual behavior. That's the problem. If they had focused on being a soldier instead of being gay, there would be no problem.
Santorum is right.
BTW, I thought the boos were for the very very not-Republican nature of the question. This is a Republican debate. It should be limited to questions the Republican party is interested in, and this is not one of them.
"booing someone because they are homosexual is unacceptable."
ReplyDeleteWhy? What are the particular etiquette rules of booing?
@ Johanna: Can heterosexual soldiers talk about girlfriends and wives? or will they get kicked out if they do? DADT forces gay soldiers to pretend they are single, or asexual, or maybe they have to just hope that no one they serve with ever notices that they don't ever talk about personal stuff like that, even though the people they serve with who are straight can and do.
ReplyDeleteThere is such thing as a lie by omission. You are just trying to distort the meaning of what the soldier said. You understand exactly what he was talking about. BTW---are there any straight soldiers that "seem" gay? what does DADT do to them? if some people have to hide who they are, than no one can be sure who is hiding, or how many there are. THis helps our military how? Explain it to me.
Hope you didn't vote for BUsh, who lied about the details of HIS military service, since lying is what concerns you.
I hate to break it to you, but the 'liberal media' doesn't need to make Republicans look bad. They do a fine job of it themselves.
ReplyDeleteAll you reasonable, moderate Republicans out there, who support limited government, individual responsibility, and upholding the Constitution, feel free any time to take your party back from the religious extremists who think that government shouldn't regulate business, but should weigh in on people's sexual freedoms and women's reproductive rights. As someone currently disgusted with the Democrats, I'd love a reasonable alternative.
JoAnna,
ReplyDeleteYou are being absurd to the extreme. What you are advocating is that if a gay man pretends to be straight to keep his job is lying. Put yourself in the gay mans spot he is not telling people what sex acts he performed merely that he exists as a gay man. If you want to take away "Special Rights" the law should be that no one in the military(including heterosexuals) is ever allowed to mention that they have a wife, husband, girlfriend or boyfriend. Or that they have children, you can't have kids without sex right.
Anonymous@3:15 -
ReplyDelete"Can heterosexual soldiers talk about girlfriends and wives?"
If anyone is openly discussing their sexual activities, regardless with whom they engage in those activities, that's just damn creepy.
"There is such thing as a lie by omission."
Sure there is, but in this case the definition does't fit. From Wiki: "One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Also known as a continuing misrepresentation. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service."
Given that a servicemember's sexual activities are in no way relevant to his/her service in the military, there was no lie by omission (ESPECIALLY because the law specifically prohibited anyone from asking about one's sexual orientation).
"You are just trying to distort the meaning of what the soldier said. You understand exactly what he was talking about."
I hope you use your magical powers of mind-reading for good and not evil!
"BTW---are there any straight soldiers that "seem" gay? what does DADT do to them? if some people have to hide who they are, than no one can be sure who is hiding, or how many there are. THis helps our military how? Explain it to me."
First you'd have to explain what the hell you said above, because I can't make sense out of it.
"Hope you didn't vote for BUsh, who lied about the details of HIS military service, since lying is what concerns you."
It's irrelevant to the topic at hand, but as a matter of fact I didn't vote for Bush either election.
Since lying doesn't concern you, I assume that means you did vote for him?
Anonymous@3:49:
ReplyDelete"What you are advocating is that if a gay man pretends to be straight to keep his job is lying."
He should not be in the position of "pretending to be straight" in the first place, because no one should be discussing their sexual acts in the workplace, period.
"Put yourself in the gay mans spot he is not telling people what sex acts he performed merely that he exists as a gay man."
And how is that relevant in his occupation as a soldier in the military?
"If you want to take away 'Special Rights' the law should be that no one in the military (including heterosexuals) is ever allowed to mention that they have a wife, husband, girlfriend or boyfriend. Or that they have children, you can't have kids without sex right."
I guess you've never heard of adoption or IVF...
JoAnna,
ReplyDeleteYou are no great intellect. You keep arguing that DADT was fine because no one should talk about sex in the military, but every time a person talk about his or her wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend they are stating their sexual preference. If you truly believe in DADT then NO ONE should be allowed to state or infer the sexual orientation. But people like you believe that need only apply to gays.
Oh and thank you for your comment:
"And how is that relevant in his occupation as a soldier in the military?", you made my point for me. The fact that a soldier is gay is in no way relevant to his occupation so he should be allowed to serve.
I have never served in the military, but it is and always has been disgusting to me that brave men and women who risk their lives to protect the rest of us have to, even for a second and even in the slightest way, hide something that is a fundamental part of being a human being. Trying to pretend that DADT is OK under the guise of "sexuality should have no place in the military" and that the policy isn't massively discriminatory is preposterous. How many heart warming videos have we seen of soldiers making it home into the embrace of their loved ones, be it a wife, a husband, a boyfriend or a girlfriend? How much footage have we seen of wives', girlfriends', husbands' or boyfriends' photographs taped by soldiers in important places? Why do you think all this is the case? It's because that loved one, in many cases more than anything else, is the biggest thing that sustains a soldier and helps him or her go on in what is often as difficult a situation as any human can imagine. Heterosexuals, as they should, engage in these reunions and keep constant reminders of their partners. Who wouldn't do what they do mostly for the one they love? Why again, even for a microsecond or even in the slightest way, should a homosexual have to think twice about the same comfort and complete openness for the one he or she loves. All this parsing about this or that, who boo'd who, the physics of a room, levels of discrimination is a bunch of noise. We need to stop any discrimination against gays. Period. Gay soldiers deserve exactly the same thanks for their service and exactly the same opportunity to find comfort in those they love that a heterosexual soldier does.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous@4:31 -
ReplyDelete"You are no great intellect."
Flattery will get you nowhere.
"You keep arguing that DADT was fine..."
Actually, I haven't been arguing that at all. What I've been arguing is that (a) lying to advance a personal agenda is conduct unbecoming to a solider, and thus the booing might not have been altogether unjustified, if that was the statement being booed, and (b) the soldier had no reason to lie at all given that he should not have been asked about his sexual orientation at any point, either before or after entering the military, so the fact that he did, apparently, lie means that someone breached DADT and he didn't report it (and now he's, apparently, blaming the GOP for that?). Or it means that he is lying about lying, in which case, see (a).
I don't think that anyone's sexual activities, gay or straight, are relevant for discussion in one's workplace (unless, I suppose, one works in a legal brothel in Nevada, or similar).
Joanna-
ReplyDeleteRepealing DADT doesn't implement a policy of Do Ask and Do Tell. It's not asking people to proclaim their sexual orientation. Homosexuals aren't now required to bedazzle their uniforms, pierce their right ear, nor does it give them special license to share sexually explicit information in their place of work. The military has sexual harassment and code of conduct policies to safeguard against that. What DADT barred was the openly gay from serving in the military, i.e. an individual who "attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts. That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex". To that extent, how is repealing DADT a special privilege for homosexuals? Especially in light of the openly heterosexual, who, as some other posters have brought up, discuss their relationships, marriages, or have children. It's not even about verbal discussion, perhaps it's a picture of your family or loved ones on your wall. As for the "lying" involved. I doubt that the serviceman involved was proactively disseminating false information as opposed to obfuscating his identity. In the end, our sexuality is something inherently private and also inherently personal and implicit. It's a part of who we are as people - as evidenced by our relationships and our children. I understand the argument that DADT at some point was implemented to protect the homosexual community from discrimination and retribution, but in the end it's a paternalistic policy. The same argument was used for advancing segregation. In the end, DADT is just a smokescreen for bigotry and homophobia - at least on Santorum's part. His argument that repealing DADT is implementing social policy is hypocrisy in the worst way. This is coming from the man who views homosexuality as akin to bestiality and pedophilia. How is that not a social view - it certainly isn't an objectively legal one. Since when is being homosexual or heterosexual for that matter detrimental from one being a good soldier? Gays circumvent the military's ability to defend our country - Seriously? Tell that to all of the closeted service members who've done more than their fair share for our country. Perhaps people like Joanna are willing to oust these soldiers and sacrifice themselves on the battle lines in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The fact that you even have to provide an explanation for the booing of a U.S. soldier serving his country overseas says everything I need to know about the GOP. Amazingly sad that the conservative movement in this country has become so hateful.
ReplyDeleteOf course the audience shushed them, because the bigoted positions of the bastard children of libertarian/christian conformity are fringe positions in America. Poor Santorum looks like he is going to vomit when he has to talk about these issues because of the bile he has for every group that doesn't conform to the white bread view of social conservatives.
ReplyDeleteIt's clear after the last debate's shouting debacle that confirmed the lack of societal compassion always present with the "i have mine" crowd is severely out of step with most of America. So, please stop booing the right for gays to openly serve in the military, it lets people know how we really feel about these issues!!!
Anonymous@4:59pm -
ReplyDelete"As for the 'lying' involved. I doubt that the serviceman involved was proactively disseminating false information as opposed to obfuscating his identity."
Let me repeat, once again, the soldier's exact words:
"QUESTION: In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I'm a gay soldier, and I didn't want to lose my job."
He had to lie in order to keep his job. This implies his job was in jeopardy at some point because of his sexual orientation. How? Why was a lie necessary? Had he done something to breach DADT, which was in effect at that time, and then he lied to cover his butt?
If so, he's complaining he had to lie in order to cover up the fact that he violated military regulations and put his own job in jeopardy. Once again, conduct unbecoming.
If not, then someone ELSE breached DADT and he failed to report the breach, in which case it is not true that he "had to lie to keep his job". So at best he's being disingenuous to advance a political agenda; at worst he's lying about lying for the same reason. Conduct unbecoming.
JoAnna,
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear: you would ban any pictures of wives, husbands, girlfriends, or boyfriends in the military? And ban anyone, straight or gay who had the audacity to mention they have a spouse or loved one at home?
At least then, you would be consistent.
Oh, and like Santorum, would you require chastity as a condition of military service?
Why was a lie necessary? Because the military required him to lie! And yet you condemn the lie and not the military for requiring it?
ReplyDeleteThat, with respect, is a bit like condemning a Jew for lying and claiming to be a non-Jew in Nazi Germany rather than condemning the Nazis for forcing a Jew to lie about his identity at all.
OK, it's not as evil as that, but you get the idea.
#GodwinsLaw (look it up on Wikipedia)
ReplyDelete@ Johanna: "Since lying doesn't concern you, I assume that means you did vote for him?"
ReplyDeleteI never said lying doesn't concern me. Once again, you are taking something someone said, choosing to interpret it in a way that lets you argue about a tangential issue.
as for explaining my other comment, here goes: if some people have to hide who they are around the people they serve with, then there will always be a few people who seem that they might be gay, based on how they act or look. My wife is a gymnast and has well developed arm muscles and a short haircut. Care to guess how many people have assumed she must be a lesbian because of this? Now, put that scenario into a military situation. Either that causes problems with unit cohesion or it doesn't. If it does, well DADT doesn't really address that, it arguably makes it worse. If such a thing doesn't cause problems, then why do we need DADT? The pro-DADT side always frames this a matter of unit cohesion, so please, since you are obviously smart, explain to me the logic of this policy.
I don't think one needs to be a mindreader to understand the point the soldier was making. I didn't need to run to Wiki, nor did most other people on this thread. In fact, I think someone as articulate as you did understand the point, don't agree with it, and are arguing about syntax instead of the actual point made.
If everyone in your unit is free to mention they have a wife or girlfriend, but you are not because you have a same sex partner, then you are forced into a lie by omission. One doesn't need to be asked a direct question.
Running to Wiki to cut and paste a definition is a sign of intellectual weakness. As are cheap insults and snide remarks. But, be my guest. You are not winning me over with that, but this is conservative blog so...I'm sure you'll hear a few cheers coming your way, what with this concrete floor and all.
PS no longer anon...do you love it?
The pattern of boorishness at the Republican debates has been rather disturbing, and the frantic backpedaling trying to patch over these horrible things that are being celebrated is frankly disgusting.
ReplyDelete1. Yes, In a large room with a concrete floor that is empty will have a nice echo/amplification. Objects in the room that have soft textures like fabric deadens the echos a great deal, which works wonders when you hang a tapestry on a wall. Pity that there were no other people in the room wearing clothing that would deaden the sounds, especially pants or dresses near the ground that would catch some of the sound waves bouncing off of the floor.
2. Pity that nobody on stage condemned the booing at all of an active duty soldier serving our country. I guess we only support troops that are heterosexual.
3. What is the standard line whenever a candidate takes a question from a serviceman? "First of all, I want to thank X for serving our country" Santorum didn't thank him, and nobody called him on it.
Add to the other lovely debate audience reactions, the one in Tampa makes me disgusted that some of these thugs are my neighbors. When Dr. Paul was asked what should happen to someone who gets sick and doesn't have insurance, one thug screams out "Let him die!" and immediately was cheered by the other nitwits in the audience.
I'm an independent voter who has concerns on both sides of the political aisle, but with the direction that the republican party is heading now, I wouldn't vote for them ever again.
While both sides of the aisle has their loonies, the left minimizes them, the right has been trying to elect them.
Defend it all you want you bigoted witch of the far right. The GOP is a party of liars, crooks and hypocrites that slander the name of Jesus Christ by turning Him into some far-flung bigot. Spare us the excuses. You subscribe to a party of hatred and bigotry that has sold our nation out to the Chinese in name of profit and personal fortune. You should all hang your heads and pray that the real God will have mercy on all the evil you do.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the entire audience loudly applauded Santorum's anti-gay response speaks volumes.
ReplyDeleteThe whole country saw what Republicans are all about, and it certainly ISN'T "freedom for all."
I wish there was a home for me in the Republican party. Obviously, there is not. It ain't even about the booing. It's about the policy positions/platform and statements from the candidates themselves. How is the mother of a gay son supposed to feel at home with this bunch?
ReplyDelete@Johanna, while he did say "I had to lie" it is clear from the context that he was speaking figuratively and not literally. The fact that you keep saying "here is the literal words" in response to others pointing out that circumstances indicate that he was speaking figuratively is either extremely unsophisticated or in bad faith--evaluating whether a sentence or two is meant literally or figuratively necessarily entails looking at the context in which it was said. Assuming he was speaking in a figuratively is the only reasonable conclusion because:
ReplyDelete1- Under most circumstances asking someone directly if he was gay would violate DADT, and any evidence obtained in response would be inadmissible. Ergo, he would not have to lie in order to keep his job.
2- Under the circumstances in which the military could launch an official investigation, lying would be a serious offence, equivalent to perjury or obstruction of justice. Repeal of DADT would not absolve him of that, so he would have no expectation of continuing to serve.
3- Even if you aren't convinced by these points, do you honestly believe that there was no vetting by the moderator. Why would they use what is actually a highly fact-specific and unusual situation to present a straightforward policy question?
At best, you taking an arguably ambiguous statement and then making a lot of bizarre assumption to conclude that the question is asking something that no one else thinks it is asking.
I hate how someone who doesn't see your exact, exact, point of view is a "liberal". How pathetically childish is that? Grow up and get a backbone. People are going to disagree with us so you're going to need to back up what you say with facts and not names kiddo.
ReplyDelete@JoAnna: What an amazing display of mental gymnastics. Really. Bravo.
ReplyDeleteIf a group of soldiers are talking about their girlfriends back home and one asked this soldier if he has one, he would have to say no under DADT. This is a lie by omission which you so kindly posted the definition for above. If this outlandish scenario ever happened to this soldier, he is justified in saying "I had to lie to keep my job."
There are thousands of other similar questions (many of them non sexual) that could reveal someone's sexuality. "Why are you always singing showtunes in the shower?"
Therefore, if the booers booed for this reason you suggest, they are even bigger idiots than if they just booed because they are moronic bigots.
This has got to be the most ridiculous explanation I have ever heard. That horsesh*t may fly with the FOX News faithful, but the rest of America is not buying it. Concrete floors. Ha! I can't believe you even posted a picture. Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteJohanna, all closeted gay people have to lie, all day, every day. For example. Say this solider went to a fancy dinner with his boyfriend over the weekend. On Monday, another solider says, "what did you do this weekend?" The gay solider must either lie or refuse to answer the question, which would make him look like a lunatic. Or say he saw a gay themed movie or read a gay themed book, and someone asked him what's the last movie he saw. Or what celebrity he has a crush on. People "ask" you your sexual orientation all day, every day in casual conversation, that is never a point-blank "are you gay?" You just don't notice it because you're straight.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be deliberately conflating gay sex acts with merely existing as a gay person. And you keep saying the solider lied to advance a "personal agenda", without ever defining what that agenda supposedly was.
Then someone asked, "Can heterosexual soldiers talk about girlfriends and wives?"
And you responded, "If anyone is openly discussing their sexual activities, regardless with whom they engage in those activities, that's just damn creepy."
But that wasn't the question. Is saying "I went to the movies with my wife last night" damn creepy? Should the solider making that statement be discharged from service?
Why is it that homophobes think a man discussing his wife is just having a conversation but a man discussing his husband is "flaunt(ing) one's sexual proclivities"?
Uh....the problem wasn't that a bunch of you people were booing.
ReplyDeleteThe PROBLEM was that all the candidates up there were apparently JUST FINE WITH IT. Not one of them told you people to stop booing. Not one of them thanked that soldier for his service. NOT ONE of them stood up for his courage.
You can make all the excuses you want, throw around all the technical acoustic jargon you want (which is bullplop - concrete won't echo with thousands of people SITTING ON IT DUH!!!!!) but you can't change the fact that NOT ONE of your candidates told you people to stop booing.
I couldn't care less about the idiot doing the booing or even the crowd's reactions. Some of those onstage claimed to have heard it (not Santorum), and I was apalled that NO ONE who wants to lead said shut up to the guy.
ReplyDeleteNone of them showed they were leaders.
Totalitarianism begins with dehumanizing, aided and abetted by cowardice.
ReplyDelete@JoAnna I just read your profile. You're a content editor. Explains a great deal. My reply is below, after the MWs.
ReplyDeletere: Mr. Wonderful - you contradict yourself.
"To 'lie' about who one's true nature is not the same thing as lying about something."
Actually...yes it is. To lie about his "true nature" implies that he was asked about it in the first place.
MW: When I said "lie about his true nature" what I meant was that he wouldn't be free to discuss his private life with other soldiers (i.e. boyfriend). Sometimes in cases such as this someone will ask "Do you have a girlfriend?" and some choose to say "Ya I do. Her name is Jennifer." It's a lie of convenience. Or they might say "Are you married?" He very well could be married, as gay marriage is legal in several states. If he were married to a man he most likely would say "No, I'm not."
Not being permitted to openly discuss and flaunt one's sexual proclivities does not equate to having to lie about them to keep your job.
MW: Here's where you show your true colors. Life in the military is about trying to stay alive. The very fact that you assume that gay men join the military to "flaunt" their "sexual proclivities" is not only ridiculous it's downright laughable. Gay men join the military for the same reasons that straight men do: love of country; education; world travel, etc. They don't join so they can have sex with straight men or (as Rick Santorum would have you believe) stare at them in the showers. You think we need to go to Iraq to do that? We can do that at home. We don't need to join the military to do that!
Understand? If he HAD TO LIE to keep his job, as he stated, it follows that it was because someone else broke the law and ASKED.
MW: That's the thing about DADT. If you don't ask...I won't tell. That's fine on paper but in Iraq, where bombs are exploding and people are being killed, life is different. Soldiers aren't stupid. Oftentimes they know that a guy they stationed with is gay but they won't ask out of respect. It's not about DADT. This is the real world JoAnna. As I mentioned above, I read your bio and I know that you're a very happy Catholic now, with three kids and one on the way. It's easy for you to sit in the safety of your office, typing away at your keyboard in your quaintly decorate house, but life is very different for this gay soldier and the men that he's stationed with. It's not about what he said or didn't say, nor is it about who asked what of whom when. It's about staying alive and getting to know the men that you might see get blown up right in front of you. It's all a moot point now. DADT is dead and hopefully now the bigoted booing can stop.
yeah was it...it was the concrete floor...thats the straw to grab
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of bad apples! That's the ticket! Were these same one or two guys who were booing an active duty soldier the same bad apples calling for letting folks die in the streets? Were they the ones applauding the death penalty? I bet these same screwballs are the guys that show up at every conservative rally and say something stupid or racist! Whew, what a relief to know it's just a few bad apples.
ReplyDeleteThey are very echoey, you know. It's science.
ReplyDeleteAs a progressive and an Israeli-American, I served in the IDF; we had gay soldiers and it wasn't a problem.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Israel is way less uptight and rightwing than USA. Also, I find it very, very disturbing that the rightwing in USA has no problem with booing anyone, no matter what their military status or sexual orientation. That is what leads to things like the Holocaust.
As a progressive and an Israeli-American, I served in the IDF; we had gay soldiers and it wasn't a problem.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Israel is way less uptight and rightwing than USA. Also, I find it very, very disturbing that the rightwing in USA has no problem with booing anyone, no matter what their military status or sexual orientation. That is what leads to things like the Holocaust.
Homosexual's in the military is bad.. mmmkay.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm not to blame.. South Park is.
That's how this works.. right?
The concrete floor creating unusual acoustics, eh? Well then, let's go back a few years and look at the right's reaction to Howard Dean's victory scream.
ReplyDelete@JoAnna - "See, I thought the booing was because the solider openly admitted that he lied in order to join the military. I don't know about you, but I don't want soldiers or officers in the military that have absolutely no compunctions about lying in order to advance a personal agenda."
ReplyDeleteDoes that go for Audie Murphy too?
America's most decorated soldier ever and recipient of the Medal of Honor, who served in World War II by forging his birth certificate and lying about his age?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
If you, or any of the candidates seriously wanted to defend the reputation of the GOP, why were the boo-ers not immediately condemned? Why didn't a single candidate take the opportunity to call out those that booed and tell them exactly how inappropriate they were?
ReplyDeleteIndifference is the same as permitting and accepting that behavior.
That said, the answer to the question was short sighted and ridiculous. Protecting rights is not special treatment. Soldiers have never had to hide their heterosexuality, so saying that the repeal of DADT suddenly brings sex into the military is just dumb. The change is simply that those soldiers that are homosexual no longer have to live in fear of being found out, and thus discharged.
Sarah -- I just wanted you to be aware that the news aggregate site Fark.com has picked up your story: http://www.fark.com/comments/6589516/Last-nights-crowd-at-GOP-debate-did-not-boo-that-gay-soldier-it-was-one-guy-whose-boos-were-amplified-by-concrete-floor-with-picture-evidence
ReplyDelete5094 clicks since last night!
Silence in the face of bigotry and discrimination is acceptance of the behavior. The fact that not one of the candidates had the courage to defend a man that is offering up his life for the safety of our country, the very crowd booing him, and the people standing in silence on the stage speaks volumes about who they are as self proclaimed Christians ready to represent all of the citizens in this country with the commitment to equality that our Declaration of Independence and constitution advocates.
ReplyDeleteJoAnna, under your standards, the military should not provide benefits of any kind for legal spouses or biological children, particularly the biological children, because the mere presence of these reveals the service member's sexual activities, which you say have no place in the military.
ReplyDeleteBusy day with the kids, but quickly -
ReplyDelete1. Whether or not DADA was just, unjust, right, wrong, etc. is irrelevant. At the time the solider in question joined the service, DADA was a part of military regs that he was obligated to follow as part of his service. If he thought he could not follow those regs, then he shouldn't have joined. Soldiers don't have the luxury of choosing which regs to follow and which to dismiss.
2. Sure, it's entirely possible that the soldier meant he had to "live a lie" but for some unfathomable reason chose to phrase it as "I had to lie" instead. If that is the case, it was incredibly poor phrasing on his part and incredibly poor judgment on whoever vetted the question. At first listen, without the benefit of Monday morning quarterbacking, you hear a solider say, "I lied to keep my job." I think that's boo-worthy.
3. Audie Miller - great man. Still, his incredible record and astounding courage doesn't negate his lying to enter the service. The U.S. didn't want to send kids to battle, hence the age restriction.
4. Lucy - only if benefits and etc. are conditional upon proof of no sexual contact, which has never been the case.
Regarding "Santorum and the other candidates are EVIL because they didn't immediately condemn the booing!", Sarah's follow-up post indicates that Santorum et al didn't HEAR the booing in the first place. So, unless we expect the GOP candidates to have magical powers of which we were heretofore unaware...
Aaaand Joann avoided all the tough questions and managed again to defend the indefensible: booing an American solider serving in Iraq. What a surprise. As I pointed out (and you ignored), up until DADT was repealed, it was impossible to be gay and serve without lying. People rarely ask other people flat-out if they're gay or straight but there are hundreds of day to day causal questions that do. So according to your logic, all gay soliders should be booed.
ReplyDeleteI'll try again. What "personal agenda" did you think this gay solider tried to advance (other than risking his life to keep you and me safe, that is).
And do you feel that a solider mentioning his wife in casual conversation merits dismissal? And if not, why should a solider mentioning his husband in casual conversation merit dismissal?
And in response to your 1. above, the solider in question did follow DADT and did not come out until it was repealed, despite the fact that he naturally and unavoidably had to lie to do so. So I'll ask again, where do you get off advocating booing this man who has risked his life to keep you and your children safe?
@JoAnna:
ReplyDelete1) He quite obviously did follow DADT as evidenced by the fact that he was gay and in the military before it was repealed. It just so happens DADT requires lying by omission. Hint: that's the DT part.
2) Since you are so hung up on his exact words, I suggest you watch the clip again. Do you think someone saying "I had to lie about who I was because I'm a gay soldier and I didn't want to lose my job" is boo-worthy? Hint: No.