PrintDecember 23, 2010
The Art of War and DADT
Hollywood is allowed to discriminate based on anything. "Sorry, but you're too black." "You're good, but you're too fat." "I like you, but you aren't pretty enough." Hollywood can pick whomever they want, for whatever reason and with no repercussions. Discrimination for the sake of art.
But the military, the people who protect the nation, can't choose whom they want now that gays got their win with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now they can be openly gay. What exactly is openly gay, anyway?
Gays are individuals and not defined by their sexuality -- at least not the smart ones. So there is a wide spectrum to being gay.
When I think of being openly gay, I think about the black folks who say to me that I don't "act black." Sure I do. I am openly black, but being black doesn't define me. Being American does, as does being human.
I believe that most gays in the military couldn't care less about exposing their sexuality and are content to just do their jobs. I say this because I don't walk through life being black.
Unlike Hollywood, where being gay or bi considered à la mode, the job of the military is to create military "personnel" regardless of sexual orientation, ethnicity, creed, or whatever. Black soldiers are not walking around saying, "I'm a black colonel." All the military cares about is the "colonel" part. Truth be told, the military is more concerned with one's competence. The same would be true of "gays," as most military men and women don't care what type of sex another soldier is having, as long as that sex doesn't infringe on them.
I suspect that the military has a much better "gaydar" than gays think. Their peers know who is gay in the military, or at least they have their suspicions. There are high-ranking gays in the military now. The woman who filed the suit to repeal DADT is a retired officer. I'd be willing to bet you that most of the people who promoted her already knew that she had her penchant for the ladies. Her gayness apparently didn't negatively affect her career. It would appear that the only person concerned about her gayness was she herself.
So what liberals have done for the military is what they have been doing to all of America for decades: injecting cancer. Soon promotions will be measured by how many "gays" we have at a certain rank, or "I didn't get this promotion or billet because I am gay." Gays will require their own facilities, and they could end up where black people were in the '40s...segregated.
What's interesting about DADT when compared to blacks being in the military is that blacks had to endure a very different form of discrimination. Discrimination against blacks was called "Don't Ask, We Already Know."
Blacks had been discriminated in the military for decades. Be it military or civilian, with rare exception,[1] people already knew who the blacks were in the military. Yet somehow, in what liberals believe is the most racist country in the world with the most heinous military, blacks managed to get a black commander in chief[2] and a black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff[3].
It has been argued to me that repeal of DADT is needed so that gay military personnel can invite their significant others to events. Not true. Gay military personnel could have appeared with their same sex-partners, and under DADT, nobody could question either of them. It was just two buddies hanging out or "girls' night out" as far as DADT regulations were concerned. But don't expect bases to look like the Mission District of San Francisco, because public displays of affection are forbidden by everybody, gay or straight. No fraternization or "sororization," either.
I'm not sure what this new development will do to morale within the military. I do believe that it's possible there will be an "us versus them" mentality amongst homosexuals, which cannot be good for anybody.
The military which is supposed to protect us now has become a victim of the liberal agenda. Go ahead; declare your open gayness, whatever that means. But don't expect the military to act according to the gay agenda like people do in the civilian world.
Legislating based on sexual proclivity is wrong. Few jobs require knowledge of one's sexual nature, and most that do are located near Hollywood. Repeal of DADT is just the liberals' way of attacking an institution -- an institution that was not discriminating against gays in the first place. The military is like Hollywood: they have a set of guidelines they felt made them more effective.
Turnabout is fair play, however. I say we attack the liberals' institutions -- the media, Hollywood, academia. Let's sue them for discriminating against conservatives, straights, Republicans...after all, those are creeds!
Let's show liberals that we really understand the art of war.
That's my rant!
Kevin Jackson is author of The BIG Black Lie and The Black Sphere blog.
