Visited my father and Jean, his partner of many years, near Christmas. They live in a relatively new development in Chico, California. Each house is one story and they're all about the same size at around 2000 square feet. The fronts seem of equal length, the space between the houses, equal. Very few trees anywhere. Each house features a well-manicured, dark green lawn; each house seems orderly and well-kept. Despite sidewalks, and a few portable basketball hoops, I rarely see people anywhere in the neighborhood. There are no front porches. Every front door is shut. No children play in a wide street that sees little travel. It's a soundless neighborhood.
But it's alive with Christmas decorations on lawn, roof, and facade of nearly every house. Most have scores of small, colorful lights; many have a Santa or two or three in various poses and settings -- some relaxing under palm trees, some on a sleigh, some standing with legs wide apart in a greeting. There are inflatable snow-globes, inflatable characters and inflatable scenes, though not all are inflated during the day and so a flattened, deflated mess of color mars a lawn otherwise filled with Christmas cheer. Candy canes, brightly lit trees with computer generated lighting patterns, carolers, elves, penquins, even Mrs. Claus.
A favorite feature is brightly lit reindeer with slowly swiveling or nodding heads. I'm told that sometimes, late at night, kids ride around town and place the reindeer, with their swiveling, nodding heads, in attitudes of sexual congress. This forces Jean up a little earlier than she intends so as to decouple frolicing, lights a-poppin', heads a-noddin' deer before the sun comes up and so that the neighbors we never see won't be scandalized. Jean has unseasonable things to say about such kids who would disturb the "poor reindeer."
Some houses are dark holes on the street. So cheerless are these houses by comparison with the hundreds of candy-colored lights on either side that one almost expects Boo Radley to come out of the back of one and eat a squirrel or something.
Most houses sport a modest display that suggests a day's joyful work. Some go a bit beyond that, compelling Tina to wonder if there are "catalogs with up-to-date creations that people just must have."
And then there's that one house that seems nearly steroidal in its adornment. So bedecked in Christmas regalia is this house, so swathed in ornamentation, trimmings, and Christmas baubles, that I got the impression of an illuminated, manic rooster among lesser cocks. Here it is:
Across the street, as if in somber, if not opprobrious, response was a bit of mangy buzz-killing homelessness illuminated by a single star. Pushed up as far toward the street as it can be placed, this scene is either about to cross the street and have a word with the Santa Fantasia scene or maybe it just seems to ask, "Uh, have you forgotten something?" Here it is:
The placement of the creche facing the riotous Santa party across the street gave the impression of a scolding neighbor: "Hey! Hey you! Let's hold it down over there! I got a sleeping baby here!"
What happened to the gays in the military article I was responding to? I wrote a response and when I clicked send it said it didn't exist. Then I signed back on to your site and the article was gone.
ReplyDelete(Here is my response to the "disappearing" article since I spent an hour responding.)
ReplyDeleteTalk about whacko. This post was nuttier than squirrel shit.
As usual, you misstate the conservative position.
Conservatives understand, much better than liberals in my opinion, that the military exists to defend our country as our elected representatives see fit. Their specific duties require them to blow shit up and kill people. This attracts certain types of macho people who have to be trained in close quarters. Military combat is a highly specialized field that isn't like any other field in civilian life. They have to develop a cohesiveness and bond that most jobs don't require. Good troop morale is essential in keeping this killing machine working efficiently.
That being said, ANYTHING that makes this group of warriors less effective as killers is bad for the military. If letting gays serve openly makes the military less effective, then fuck 'em, the armed forces aren't a social program. If gays serving openly doesn't affect their ability to do what they need to do or doesn't deter the recruitment of future soldiers, then let them in.
My personal feeling is that if someone is willing to put their life on the line for our country, then God bless them. But I'm not in the military. I don't know how that will impact the armed forces and their effectiveness. So I yield to the people in the military. The experts. And not the politicians who think they know or the myriad of social equality committees that exist in the military. Polls show that 60% of marines don't want openly gay men or women in the corps. Right now, that is good enough for me even though I don't agree with it. And if those marines' reason is "homophobia" (what a stupid word), so be it. The reason doesn't matter to me. Military effectiveness is all that counts.
(continued in next post)
The great thing about DADT was that gays got to serve in the military. Not good enough for liberals. A Pentagon survey showed that only 15% of gay military members wanted their unit to know they were gay. So 85% were comfortable with keeping their sexuality secret. Again, not good enough for liberals. You guys know better than everyone else what should be done so we are going to set military policy based on liberal social agenda.
ReplyDeleteHere's a newsflash for all the bleeding hearts: the military and the post office are not equal government institutions. Nobody cares if there are gays working at the post office. Entirely different skill sets are required for both places. I would venture to say that every person in the military could do any job at the post office but only a handful of postal workers could do the work required in the military. The military is a unique environment. You guys have to stop trying to equate all jobs with the armed forces.
Since conservatives are whackos, here is why liberals are morons: their political world view is based on emotions rather than rational thought. Your tax policies are based on hatred of the rich rather than what makes good economic policy. The same with immigration. Who cares that illegal immigrants are draining our resources, you feel sorry for them. Now you want to have an open policy regarding gays in the military because "it's not fair" to make them hide in the closet. That might be true but the military can't worry about that. They need to make decisions that are in the best interest of military readiness and effectiveness.
You used to make arguments that were fact based and logical. Now you just make stuff up. If you had said the Pfc. Bradley Manning is an example of a closeted gay man that engaged in espionage and sold his country out to Wikileaks because he was struggling with his sexuality, then we could have a debate. But then you would have to acknowledge the conservative position that his case supports keeping his type out of the military. According to The New York Times, Bradley sought "moral support" from his "self-described drag queen" boyfriend. Instead you write some bullshit scenario that completely distorts the conservative position.
Juan Williams is a liberal but he came around to making logical arguments for his liberal views. He couldn't go the route you, Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews on the serious political shows. If he would have tried your brand of "Bush lied, people died" bullshit, he would have gotten eaten alive by the serious news journalists he was debating. This is ultimately why he got fired by the uberliberal NPR. He wasn't singing from the same hymnal.
You need to get away from the name calling and quit arguing with yourself.
Why I dropped it for a while: I had to rewrite it to be funnier and I thought I should wait until after Xmas to post it. In the meantime, read the Christmas blog entry!
ReplyDeleteIn your comment number 2, substitute "blacks" for "gays" and you have the argument against allowing integrated units in the military.
As for the polls of the Marines: 60% don't want gays. I wonder what the % was 20 years ago. I wonder how they'll react to a direct order to suit up and fight.
As for 85% of gays in the military "comfortable" with keeping their sexuality "secret": What does that mean? Would YOU be comfortable keeping your sexuality secret? Would you be comfortable being asked? "Hey, Sargeant M -- you straight, gay or what?" Or: "Marines, I will now ask you about your sexual orientation. Everyone who wants to keep it a secret, you need not step up. Okay, all heterosexuals, step forward . . . unless you want to keep it a secret. Now, all homosexuals step forward unless you want to keep it a secret."
Yeah, that's gonna work.
As for the military requiring only the macho. What about the guy on the 9/11 plane headed for the White House? What about all the closeted gay soldiers? What about women? What about the Village People?