Article

2010-12-19 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2010-12-19 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 Change that to simply say "Serve in the military 4 years Honorable service or 2 or more combat tours gives them a green card and fast track to citizenship", then I think I'm all for it.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-12-19 02:27|| 2010-12-19 02:27|| Front Page Top

#2 One big problem with the act is it is an invitation to fraud. There is no meaningful requirement of proof of age when they entered the country - or even age now.
The other problem is credibility of government - we have offered amnesty several times before, always with the promise of improved border security, and of course the borders just got less and less secure instead. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.... fool me three times????

Posted by Glenmore 2010-12-19 09:44|| 2010-12-19 09:44|| Front Page Top

#3 The Food "Safety" Act was also shot down. Reid had attached it to the Omnibus Spending Bill because he knew it wouldn't pass on it's own. Watta tool.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2010-12-19 09:50|| 2010-12-19 09:50|| Front Page Top

#4 a reprieve for Farmer's Markets

Posted by Frank G 2010-12-19 11:07|| 2010-12-19 11:07|| Front Page Top

#5 DREAM Act shattered in Senate

Your dream maybe, lefty journalist.

One of mine just came true.

Posted by gorb 2010-12-19 13:15|| 2010-12-19 13:15|| Front Page Top

#6 As Glen Reynolds said, "This Lame Duck Congress is turning out to be pretty good".

Posted by Deacon Blues 2010-12-19 13:47|| 2010-12-19 13:47|| Front Page Top

#7 And a reprieve for bake sales.

Posted by anonymous2u 2010-12-19 14:25|| 2010-12-19 14:25|| Front Page Top

#8 Deacon, it's also proved to be pretty "lame" all right. Two bills have been passed - one more favorable for the Republicans than the Democrats, and one that should be vetoed by the President. Congress is supposed to "provide guidance and direction for the good order of the militia and the military". Instead, they've done something that will finally achieve their goal of crippling our armed forces. Any Rethug that voted for this steaming pile of horsehockey should face a serious primary challenger in their next election.

Posted by Old Patriot 2010-12-19 18:01|| 2010-12-19 18:01|| Front Page Top

#9 As Glen Reynolds said, "This Lame Duck Congress is turning out to be pretty good".

Only because they are worried about 2012.

Posted by gorb 2010-12-19 18:11|| 2010-12-19 18:11|| Front Page Top

#10 OP, I know several men who are gay who served and did their jobs. Gays served in WWII and did a good job as well. The Social climate has changed greatly since we were there and I believe as long as they do their jobs and don't inhibit Unit Cohesion there shouldn't be a problem.At one time Blacks were not allowed to fight either.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2010-12-19 18:51|| 2010-12-19 18:51|| Front Page Top

#11 Deac, all other points aside, homosexuality is not the same as black in terms of military good order, unit cohesion and society's acceptance.

If society has changed enough then DADT is OK to open up to open service, but I am not convinced of it. But it has been a long while since I have been "in charge" of small units where this would have the most impact, so I am no longer qualified to give a completely unshaded answer either.

My preference is that Congress have listened OPENLY to the military leadership in the combat arms. They did not - the "studies" I know of second-hand were all "pushed" so that people knew they were expected to give the PC answer regardless of the honesty of the opinion sought.

So at this point, I cannot say if open service is ruinous or of no consequence. It all depoends on the troops and the small unit leaders, the guys at the pointy end of the stick.

All I know is that in my personal experience, homosexual compadres had little effect because those of homosexual orientation kept things professional when off duty and kept their sexuality out of the unit, or they were in (no pun intended) rear support or other non-critical operational roles (hospital medic, supply at HQ, deskbound intel linguist, etc), where close quarters and personal trust are not as important.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-12-19 20:32|| 2010-12-19 20:32|| Front Page Top

#12 I think it will be OK. The problems will come with activists who claim victim status or want special privileges

Posted by Frank G 2010-12-19 20:45|| 2010-12-19 20:45|| Front Page Top

#13 Frank G's got it. The problems will arise when somebody wants a certain duty status (& pay) until it's time to get shipped off to earn it - then they play a PC harassment card to stay back, then the short-handed unit gets legitimately resentful and harasses any others in it.
My read is EVERYBODY gets teased in a small unit, especially in a combat unit; it's kind of a subconcious testing process. If the DADT folks can take it (and it will likely be rougher than for most, at least at first) I think they'll be accepted just fine; if not ... lots of unintended consequences. Advice to DADT folks - be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.

Posted by Glenmore 2010-12-19 21:45|| 2010-12-19 21:45|| Front Page Top

#14 my son's got a fellow GI that was Manning's battle-buddy in basic. Says he was a disliked POS even then

Posted by Frank G 2010-12-19 21:58|| 2010-12-19 21:58|| Front Page Top

23:50 JosephMendiola
23:39 European Conservative
23:38 SteveS
23:33 SteveS
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:08 JosephMendiola
23:06 gorb
23:05 Secret Asian Man
23:04 gorb
22:55 gorb
21:58 Frank G
21:45 Glenmore
21:30 JosephMendiola
21:20 JosephMendiola
21:12 JosephMendiola
20:52 tipper
20:45 JosephMendiola
20:45 Frank G
20:43 JosephMendiola
20:37 JosephMendiola
20:32 Frank G
20:32 OldSpook
20:30 JosephMendiola