The Loveshade Family Blog

Allowing homosexuals and bisexuals in the United States military is being examined by Congress for the first time in 15 years.

When Bill Clinton became U.S. president about 16 years ago, one of the first things he wanted to do was to stop the military from discriminating against bisexuals, gays and lesbians.  Under policy at that time, the Pentagon could and did ask recruits their sexual orientation.  This was due to what would now be called homophobia--people were afraid that gays would proposition, sexually molest or even rape them.  (Two or three decades ago, many Americans believed that most sexual molesters were homosexual).

Congress wouldn't go along with Clinton's proposal, but instead made a compromise.  This became known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  If you were lesbian, bisexual or gay, you were supposed to keep your mouth shut about it.  In turn, the Pentagon wouldn't ask you what genitalia you preferred.

It was an odd policy to begin with--it was against the rules for you to have a "non-normal" sexual preference, but it was OK as long as no one found out about it.  Something of an "It's OK as long as you don't get caught" policy.

But the military establishment caught people anyway.  While the Pentagon stopped asking directly, they still investigated.  The number of people kicked out due to their sexual orientation only lessened by about 10 percent, according to Randy Shilts' 1993 book Conduct Unbecoming: Gays & Lesbians in the U.S. Military.

But Congress is now holding a hearing on the policy with what is ironic timing.  Senator Sam Nunn, who was a co-creator of the policy, is being seriously considered as the vice presidential running mate for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who’s had a lot of support from homosexuals.

So what think?  What affect could having Nunn as a running mate have on Obama's campaign?  And should the military be allowed to keep people out due to their sexual orientation?  Is a policy that makes those who want to serve in the military hide their homosexuality or bisexuality fair?

(Alden Loveshade contributed to this)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080723/us_time/revisitingdontaskdonttell

Posted by Reverend Loveshade at 03:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBacks (0)

options

(Alden Loveshade is a freelance writer who became involved in a political protest while vacationing in Boulder, Colorado, some time before JonBenét Ramsey (sometimes spelled JonBenet Ramsey) was reported missing.  Alden has been following the Ramsey case ever since.)

Yes, the story about the parents of JonBenét Ramsey being cleared--again--came out a few days ago.  This time, it was "touch" evidence, DNA that was left on the girl's panties that didn't fit anyone in the family.  Sadly, mother Patsy Ramsey didn't live to see this, but her husband John and much of the rest of the family did--after living under the horror of suspicion for almost 12 years.

So why am I writing about it now and not a few days ago?

 I hesitated doing an entry at all, as I largely said what I wanted to say in a previous post (http://loveshade.org/blog/2006/08/jon_benet_ramsey_murder_case_h.html)

The reason I posted is this:

Lou Smit, a former special investigator for the Boulder district attorney's office, made a statement that could once again fan the flames of paranoia.  In fact, it seems intended to do so.  "He is still out there, he could be preying on children right now."

First off, "he" may well be in prison or dead.  JonBenét's death happened at the end of 1996, over 11 years ago.  Has America had a rash of preteen beauty queen deaths for the past 11 years?  Actually, the rate of girls in those pageants raised significantly shortly after the reports, but the deaths haven't.

Second, if he is still in America (remember that the most recent suspect was in Thailand), he may well be bothering no one right now.  One killing, as horrible as it was, doesn't mean they'll be more.

Third, even if he is in America and is actively looking for victims (which would be extremely unlikely), he's one person in 300,000,000.  Children are much more likely to be in danger because their parents don't insist they wear their seatbelts, or don't have working smoke detectors in their bedrooms, or because they overfeed the kids sugar- and fat-laden junk food.

In fact, children, and later as teenagers, are much more likely to be in danger because they haven't been prepared to deal with life, rather than be protected from some random stranger.  Children are much more likely to be harmed by their parents, grandparents and siblings than by someone they don't know.

Check the names on those missing child milk cartons--often, the last names of the child and the suspected "kidnapper" are the same.  Even when they aren't, the "abductors" are usually parents or grandparents, often responding to what they see as an unfair decision in a custody dispute.

Protect your children when they need to be protected, yes.  Prepare them for life, yes.  But let's not go around being paranoid, making false accusations, and ruining people's lives because we're afraid of the boogeyman.

See stories at http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5356818 and http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-sLk6K-keG-1TECxtjUJEtHDycgD91T51HO1

Posted by Alden Loveshade at 12:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBacks (0)

options

Hey, everyone,

As an artist myself, I fully understand the need to protect copyrights. They're really the only way that a small free-lancer like myself could survive.

But the Viacom suit against Google/YouTube sounds pretty scary. I'm not sure Viacom really has the privacy of users in mind considering that a while back a bunch of Napster users got slapped with hefty bills or face lawsuits.

And we've already seen that privacy in this country for the past seven years has been badly eroded in favor of the bottom line.

And that privacy has been getting stripped away for much longer than that.

As for copyrights, Viacom, owner of MTV and VH1, has even gone so far as to grab the rights to videos that were made years and even decades before MTV was even a germ of an idea.

So be careful if you go to YouTube, okay?

Unless you're one of those folks who knows how to remain anonymous on the Web (which I'm not.)

See more at http://news.yahoo.com/s/cnet/20080703/tc_cnet/830110784399835117 and http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSWEN535120070313

Posted by Danacasso at 07:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0)

options