The Battle Cry of Freedom

From Glenn Greenwald this morning:In fairness, the U.S. is fulfilling President Obama's pledge that it will "not stand idly by" in the face of a tyrant's oppression of his own people, as the U.S. is actively feeding that regime new weapons; that, by definition, is not "standing idly by." In his U.N. address, President Obama praised the regime ("steps have been taken toward reform and

The Battle Cry of Freedom

From Glenn Greenwald this morning:In fairness, the U.S. is fulfilling President Obama's pledge that it will "not stand idly by" in the face of a tyrant's oppression of his own people, as the U.S. is actively feeding that regime new weapons; that, by definition, is not "standing idly by." In his U.N. address, President Obama praised the regime ("steps have been taken toward reform and

Cognitive Dissonance or Philosophical Subtlety?

The other e-mail I got yesterday was from another blogger whom I've sometimes debated in comment threads elsewhere, and sometimes conversed with in e-mail. Yesterday's message was brief and to the point:

Considering you wrote off officer Choi, I would have figured you to at least say the getEQUAL crowd was misguided for demanding an end to DADT.

This referred to some of my less than admiring remarks about Lieutenant Dan Choi, who seems to be the current poster boy for gays in the military, and to a recent post in which I praised getEqual activists for heckling President Obama for not pushing harder on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Well, I can understand why many people would see some cognitive dissonance there, even though I don't. But I also admit that it's taken me some time to clarify in my own mind why I feel the way I do. There's long been tension between gay activists who oppose US militarism -- one guy once wrote to the Village Voice that he supported the ban on gays in the military, and wanted it extended to heterosexuals; I concur -- and gay activists who want gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals to have the same chance to kill and maim innocent people in foreign lands that heterosexuals enjoy. Or, to put it a bit more tactfully, this latter faction wants equality of opportunity for military service while refusing to examine the uses to which America's armed forces are put. It's better public relations strategy, of course, and that's what is wrong with it.

Those who want the ban on gays in the military to end often seem to be those who express dismay that the gay movement in the US is associated with, or stereotyped as, The Left. That doesn't seem to me to justify embracing the Right. Some point out, accurately enough, that people often join the military for economic reasons, to get job training or money for college, or just a job, and they accuse those who disagree of looking down on working-class gays who lack the options in life that we supposed elitists have. This argument has lost some of its sheen since Bill Clinton's attempt to end the ban failed in 1993, when Americans who joined the military were less likely to have their legs blown off. Clinton's foreign-policy "successes," it should be remembered, were mainly due to his keeping American casualties low and foreigners' casualties high. And now, as new atrocities by American forces are being unearthed and publicized, I'm seeing the same demonization of American soldiers by liberals and even some leftists that attended Vietnam veterans a few decades ago. (See Vietnam vet Jerry Lembcke's important and still-timely book The Spitting Image: myth, memory and the legacy of Vietnam [NYU Press, 1998].) So, all you working-class gay kids should be free to join the military -- so we can denounce you as "pure human shit to begin with" when you do the job you signed up to do, the job that we told you was good enough for trailer trash like you.

Dan Choi told the Equality March in Washington last October, "We love our country, even when our country refuses to acknowledge our love! But we continue to defend it, and we continue to protect it, because love is worth it!" I pointed out at the time that Choi, a veteran of the Iraq War, was being disingenuous (putting it tactfully again). The US has not fought a defensive war in my lifetime, and a fortiori not in Iraq, which was a war of aggression, and is now a brutal occupation of the country our forces invaded. Choi was appealing to his audience's patriotism, and as I've also said before, patriotism is the first refuge of scoundrels. Still, it's missing the point to say that I "wrote off" Dan Choi. The door to my boudoir is always open to you, Dan. But the real issue isn't Dan Choi, or any other American soldier, sailor, Marine, or Blackwater operative.

None of this means that Don't Ask Don't Tell shouldn't be repealed. I don't think that fighting the military ban on gays has been a good use of gay activists' time or energy, but the policy is discriminatory and can't be justified on any grounds. Replying to my correspondent, I drew a few historical parallels: There were German Jews in the 1930s who were avid supporters of Hitler and insisted that they were as patriotic as any Aryan. Such people were fools and worse, but that doesn't mean that I support Hitler's anti-Jewish laws. The same applies to Proposition 8: I don't agree with the craze for same-sex civil marriage, but inscribing discriminatory policies in a state constitution is bad law.

The deployment of the word "equality" as a buzzword to push same-sex marriage and the repeal of DADT is misleading, a diversion from important questions that need to be addressed. If German Jews had been allowed to join the Einsatzgruppen openly, that would have been "equality," but I think few people today would agree that the first goal should have been equality for German Jews in military service, and then you could ask whether supporting Hitler and invading Poland was really a good thing. But that is what the more moderate opponents of Don't Ask Don't Tell argue: first we need to get formal equality for the LBGTQ Citizen, and then we can debate the propriety of invading Iraq, or escalating the US war in Afghanistan, or attacking Iran. That's just another diversion, of course: in reality, no such debate is acceptable to them.

Cognitive Dissonance or Philosophical Subtlety?

The other e-mail I got yesterday was from another blogger whom I've sometimes debated in comment threads elsewhere, and sometimes conversed with in e-mail. Yesterday's message was brief and to the point:Considering you wrote off officer Choi, I would have figured you to at least say the getEQUAL crowd was misguided for demanding an end to DADT.This referred to some of my less than admiring

Cognitive Dissonance or Philosophical Subtlety?

The other e-mail I got yesterday was from another blogger whom I've sometimes debated in comment threads elsewhere, and sometimes conversed with in e-mail. Yesterday's message was brief and to the point:Considering you wrote off officer Choi, I would have figured you to at least say the getEQUAL crowd was misguided for demanding an end to DADT.This referred to some of my less than admiring

That's What Friends Are For

I'm not sure why I haven't felt like posting, or doing much of anything constructive or productive the past couple of days. Doesn't matter. This brought a smile to my face tonight (via):



Is there anyone with access to Obama who will explain to him that many gay people don't trust him, including (especially) gay people who voted for him? I giggled when he protested to the chanting activists that Boxer is their ally, and he's their ally, and he wants to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. He wanted a public option for the health care reform bill too -- hell, once upon a time he wanted a single-payer system. Who knows what he'll be serving up by the time a supposed DADT repeal reaches Congress? (Remember, DADT was Clinton's follow-up to his pledge to lift the ban on gays in the military. Result: the numbers of people expelled from the military for being queer increased.)

But let me just stick to gay issues. During the campaign Obama pandered to homophobic churches by getting an "ex-gay" preacher to entertain them. He used the word "proselytizing" with reference to gay people in an interview with the gay press. (To be scrupulously fair, he was talking about a gay man he'd known who "wasn't proselytizing all the time", but that would seem to imply that he thinks that significant numbers of gay men are.) He invited the antigay preacher Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. His Department of Justice defended the Defense of Marriage Act against a court challenge, with derisory damage control afterward. He has repeatedly and clearly expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage, in terms that make it clear he doesn't understand the issues involved. He ignored, and his ally Barney Frank sneered at, the Equality March on Washington last fall.

As long as gay people have an ally like Obama in the White House, I suspect that Don't Ask Don't Tell will be around for the foreseeable future. Those who want it repealed should keep up the pressure. I think it's obvious from his expression and body language in this clip that he was very displeased that the proles were harshing his vibe, but it's about time people from his base started doing that.

I notice that all this took place at a Democratic National Committee Fundraiser -- more than heckling, Obama needs to feel a pinch in the party's money department. But don't worry, in 2012, we'll have "Surely, comrades, you do not wish Sarah Palin back?" That'll keep the voters in line.

That's What Friends Are For

I'm not sure why I haven't felt like posting, or doing much of anything constructive or productive the past couple of days. Doesn't matter. This brought a smile to my face tonight (via):Is there anyone with access to Obama who will explain to him that many gay people don't trust him, including (especially) gay people who voted for him? I giggled when he protested to the chanting activists that

That's What Friends Are For

I'm not sure why I haven't felt like posting, or doing much of anything constructive or productive the past couple of days. Doesn't matter. This brought a smile to my face tonight (via):Is there anyone with access to Obama who will explain to him that many gay people don't trust him, including (especially) gay people who voted for him? I giggled when he protested to the chanting activists that