So we got the good news that legislative repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that kept LBGT folks from openly serving in the military has occurred, as the Senate voted Saturday to first cut off debate on the question (that's the vote that required 60 Senators to pass) and then to pass the actual repeal legislation (which also garnered more than 60 Senate votes, even though it only needed 51).
Most people would assume that once Bill (remember Bill, from "Schoolhouse Rock"?) made it out of Congress and over to the President to for a signature that the process of repeal will be ended-but in fact, there's quite a bit more yet to do, and it's entirely possible that a year or more could go by before the entire process is complete.
Today we'll discuss our way through why it's going to take so long; to illustrate the point we'll consider an actual military order that is quite similar to the sort of work that will be required from the Department of Defense (DOD) before the entire "DADT to open service" transition is complete.
Dr. Kenneth Katz recently published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled "Health Hazards of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This week, he penned an op/ed for RH Reality Check about his experiences treating U.S. military at an STD clinic in San Diego. Dr. Katz sees the Pentagon's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" rule for LGB members of the military as a huge roadblock to good medical care. He's pretty confident that his military patients feel safe divulging their sexual histories to a civilian doctor like himself. But when those troops go overseas, they are cared for by military doctors. Technically, doctor-patient communication is exempt from DADT, but many patients don't realize that they can tell their military doctors about gay sex without fear of reprisals (at least in theory). Dr. Katz's patients have told him that they won't go for recommended follow-up STD screening after they ship out because they're afraid to be honest with their doctors. He worries about how many troops are suffering from treatable infections in war zones because they aren't allowed to serve openly.
Food stamp use skyrockets, swordfish sales unaccountably flat
Monica Potts of TAPPED points to the alarming statistic that in the last month alone an additional 500,000 Americans went on food stamps. She notes that the right wing website Daily Calleris alarmed not by the fact that fellow citizens can't afford food, but rather that there's no gruel-only foodstamp program available:
Meanwhile, the conservative news site The Daily Calleris shocked, shocked, to learn that you can use food stamps to buy all manner of food. The government, apparently, doesn't restrict you from purchasing an $18-per-pound swordfish steak from Whole Foods. But that kind of discovery, like almost everything else in the "debate" over food stamp use, is the sort of ridiculous one that comes from a person who's never been hungry.
The Hyde Amendment
In Campus Progress, Jessica Arons and Madina Agénor call for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment for being an assault on the reproductive rights of poor women and women of color. The Supreme Court declared abortion to be a constitutional right in 1973, yet nearly 40 years later, the Hyde Amendment still prohibits nearly all federal funding for abortions. In practice, the women most affected by the Hyde Amendment are those who depend on government health care programs like Medicaid and the Indian Health Service:
Former U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), the law's sponsor, admitted during debate of his proposal that he was targeting poor women because they were the only ones vulnerable enough for him to reach. "I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman," he said. "Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the ... Medicaid bill."
Meanwhile, ultra-conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is calling on Congress to de-fund the reproductive health provider Planned Parenthood, Andy Birkey reports in the Minnesota Independent. In an interview with a conservative news site, Bachmann doubled down on that idea, suggesting that all of health care reform be de-funded because it funds abortions. This is not true. The aforementioned Hyde Amendment guarantees as much. Furthermore, even though health reform never would have funded abortions, President Obama signed an eleventh-hour executive order guaranteeing that health care reform would not fund abortions.
Brooklyn bees gorge on maraschino cherry run-off
Home beekeeping is the hottest new trend for health-conscious locavores. New York City recently changed the law to accommodate beekeepers in the five boroughs. Just because you live in an industrial neighborhood in Brooklyn is no reason to miss out on this sweet action, right? Well, actually, there is a catch. That nice honey at the farmers' market tastes like lavender because that's what those rural bees ate. What do bees in Red Hook, Brooklyn eat? Run-off from a maraschino cherry factory. The overindulgent bees "look like vampires" according to one local keeper and their honey runs bright red. Maraschino honey sounds like a delicious mash-up of high and low culture. Unfortunately, Sarah Goodyear reports in Grist that the end product doesn't taste nearly as good as it looks. Arthur Mondella, the owner of Dell's Maraschino Cherries, wants to do right by the beekeepers. He initially suggested putting out vats of different colored syrup to "help" the bees make rainbow honey. His proposal was not well-received by the crunchy set. Instead, he has agreed to work with the beekeepers to keep the bees out of the vats next year.
In discussing how America should respond to the North Korean artillery attack on South Korea, almost all the discussion invariably turns to what China will do. The only ally of North Korea, China is the only nation in the world which can effectively pressure North Korea.
There has been quite a bit of debate about what China is thinking right now. Many hope that China will value its commercial ties to the West above its ties to North Korea. Others point out, less optimistically, that China wishes to preserve North Korea - if North Korea fell, millions of impoverished refugees would flood into the country. Moreover, a reunified Korea would be aligned with the West, constituting a threat next to China's border.
All this is very much speculation and guesswork. What does China really think about the North Korean attack?
Actually, it is very easy to find out what China thinks. In fact, the Chinese government has an official press agency: Xinhua. Most people probably don't know this, but Xinhua can be read for free online in English.
So what does China think about the North Korean attack?
Well, what better way to find out than to go read the Chinese government's official newspaper!
I have a ton of things on the desk at the moment, and I don't have the time to really run out this story before Election Day, but I want to bring to your attention something very strange that I found on the 2008 "Christine O'Donnell for Senate" MySpace page.
What it basically comes down to is that the United States Marine Corps and the United States Army are "Christine O'Donnell for Senate" MySpace friends, or that there are persons who have created United States Army and USMC MySpace pages that purport to be official that have "befriended" her candidacy. There's also a Navy page that appears to emanate from a US Navy recruiting office in California on her '08 campaign's "friends" list.
At a minimum, all of this would seem to be a combination of inappropriate behavior and poor management of social media; at worst, you have activity that is "some kind of unlawful", either on an administrative or civil level.
I'll make this fast...but I'll also make it interesting.
Follow along, and you'll see what I mean.
This week, Republicans in the Senate successfully showed their collective contempt for our men and women in uniform and in the process they made our military weaker and our country less safe.
Led by John McCain -- the upper chamber's cranky uncle -- Republicans blocked Democratic efforts to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on gay men and lesbians openly serving in the military.
If McCain's comments after the repeal effort failed are any indication, members of the Grand Old tea Party fail to grasp the finer details of the policy or how it has been implemented. Worse still, they are defiant in their ignorance.
Overshadowed by the antics of the Kentucky Senate race is the fact that we have some fine men running for the Congress this year in the Bluegrass State. Ed Marksberry, John Waltz, and Jim Holbert are all great Democrats and deserve our support. John Waltz conducted a tour across his district and found out one thing. Folks are pretty scared about their retirement security with the talk of benefits being cut and retirement ages being raised. While Waltz believe budget cuts are inevitable, he has the right mindset to do it rationally.
Allow me to second David Sirota on twitter, and applaud President Obama's remarks on the civilian control of the military in his speech yesterday, when he accepted the resignation of General Stanely McChrystal:
The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that's necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.(...)
It is also true that our democracy depends upon institutions that are stronger than individuals. That includes strict adherence to the military chain of command, and respect for civilian control over that chain of command. And that's why, as Commander-in-Chief, I believe this decision is necessary to hold ourselves accountable to standards that are at the core of our democracy.
I disagree with our continued presence in Afghanistan, but it is laudable that President Obama emphasized how keeping McChrystal on as commander threatened civilian control of the military. If Generals can use the media obsequiousness to dictate military policy, and then stay on as commanders after denigrating virtually the entire civilian leadership of the military, then we would be at an extremely dangerous moment for our democracy.
Now, being in Afghanistan endangers us in multiple ways too, but credit where credit is due on this matter.
David Sirota reminds us of how General McChrystal used the willingness of military and government elites to turn control of national security over to the military forced Obama's hand on the troop build-up in Afghanistan:
The U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says he wants more troops. His new memo calling for a bigger Afghanistan deployment prompted President Obama to begin carefully considering different ways forward - and Washington to hammer the White House for entertaining any alternative to McChrystal's request.
Republicans lambasted Obama for letting "political motivations...override the needs of our commanders," as Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said. Likewise, the Washington Post insisted that Obama's failure to promptly back McChrystal's surge proposal could "dishonor" America, while the New York Times said no matter what the president wants, "It will be very hard to say no to General McChrystal."
The coordinated assault sharpens that question about who "the deciders" should be - elected officials or the military?
Before Obama had made his decision on whether to escalate in Afghanistan, McChrystal made it known that he wanted an escalation. This put Obama in a difficult political position, given that our national media seems to think the military should decide whether, when, where and for how long we send troops overseas. It also probably didn't help that members of Obama's cabinet seems to share that view
"Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs."
I don't mean to avoid casting any blame on Obama for the escalation, as though he did it unwillingly in the face of insurmountable public pressure to listen to McChrystal. He didn't.
However, by stating his policy preference in public and playing off elite deference to the military on this area of foreign policy, McChrystal set a very dangerous precedent for any possible future time when a President may have different views on troop deployments than the top military commanders. If Obama had not wanted to escalate, McChrystal's public statements would have put Obama in an extremely difficult political position. This poses a threat to civilian governance of the military in America.
It is also worth noting that McChrystal may have even violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Artical 88 states:
"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
If McChrystal were to continue on as the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, it would continue to call into question civilian governance of the military in America. The military does not dictate foreign policy, and it is subordinate either the Executive or Legislative branches of government. Or, at least it should be those things. But, if Obama were to allow McChrystal to stay on, it is probably about time to start using terms like Secretary Obama and President McChrystal..
As you have no doubt heard by now, General Stanley McChrystal,, commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, has trashed the entire civilian national security leadership in a tell-all article (PDF) in Rolling Stone. McCrystal himself doesn't shy away from that characterization:
I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and it should have never happened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard.
"McChrystal has been directed to attend (Wednesday's) monthly meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan in person to explain to the Pentagon and the commander in chief his quotes in the piece about his colleagues," a White House official said.
There isn't a person in the country who could make derogatory statements about his or her bosses of the sort that appear in this article and keep their job. If an exception is made for a General, even when talking about the senior civilian national security leadership--including the President-then, to say the least, it would be difficult to characterize the United States as still operating under civilian government.
We have become a country with a bipartisan consensus that the size and length of troop deployments should be determined by Generals ("I will listen to the commanders on the ground") rather than by Presidents. If Congress were to try and assert its Constitutional authority to end a troop deployment by resolution or by ending funding, well then Congress hates the troops, rather than serving as the legitimate, Constitutional authority on the matter. If you criticize military leaders in ads, then Congress will take time off from "governing" to pass a resolution condemning you. And, when spending freezes or cuts are announced, the military is always exempted.
Enough is enough. The United States of America is a civilian government, not a military one. Anyone in the country would be fired for doing what McChrystal just did, and an exception should not be made for him just because he is a General. No matte the political dangers associated with firing generals (see Truman and Lincoln), the threat of military governance has become real and the line must be drawn here. Fire McChrystal.
Also (Adam): Just to add, nowhere was the need to assert civilian control clearer than the performance of the military in the Don't Ask Don't Tell debate. From Sec. Gates repeatedly undercutting the Administration's position on repeal, including the infamous Gates/Mullen letter to Chairman Skelton, to his callous statement after his Commander-in-Chief negotiated a compromise to four out of five service chiefs writing Congress on the eve of the repeal vote urging no vote, it was appalling how much power the military has over the Commander in Chief. I hope that dynamic shifts.
When Scott Roeder shot Dr. George Tiller in church last year, media accounts described him as a lone wolf. Roeder acted alone on the day of the assassination, but he was part of a community of career anti-choice terrorists, as Amanda Robb reports in Ms. Magazine.
Concern over deficits is suddenly all the rage again. One player putting itself in the forefront of the issue has missed an obvious candidate for cost savings, though.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
Yesterday was the President's Deficit Commission and today is the Peterson summit. The very serious people (who didn't know there was a housing bubble) are telling us that our own government providing benefits to our people is baaaad and very unserious. (Military spending? What's that?)
So what about that deficit, and the Social Security crisis? Always, always keep in mind that the whole bruhaha over Social Security comes out of a strategic plan to get rid of it. As Paul pointed out in his post and as I have written about,
This strategy goes back to a larger Wall Street effort to get rid of Social Security. A 1983 Cato Institute Journal document, "Achieving a Leninist Strategy" by Stuart Butler of Cato and Peter Germanis of Heritage lays it out for us. The document is still available at Cato, and select quotes are available at Plotting Privatization? from Z Magazine. ...
[quotes from the Cato strategy document]
... Every time you hear that "Social Security is going broke" you are hearing a manufactured propaganda point. Every time you hear that "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" you are hearing a manufactured propaganda point. Every time you hear that "Social Security won't be there for me anyway" " you are hearing a manufactured propaganda point.
Don't fall for it. If they can gut Social Security they stand to make a lot of money but you stand to lose your retirement.
AND never forget that the deficit was also manufactured on purpose, to defund government's ability to regulate business and protect citizens, and to force a shrinking of what the corporate right calls "big government." Government is We, the People making the decisions for ourselves, "big government" is We, the People making more decisions for ourselves. The only alternative is the wealthy and big corporations making the decisions for us instead. Don't fall for it. We didn't have deficits until we cut taxes on the rich.
The upcoming November elections draw near, both Democrats and Republicans are in an election state of mind. Both parties are focusing on trying to appease their voter base, while Obama and his administration push forward to make due on some promises such as health care reform and the repeal of the ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ military policy.
According to recent surveys 32% of Americans affiliate with the Democratic Party and 26% self-identify as Republican, while 39% identify as independents. Regarding the upcoming fall election, 34% of Americans say that they will definitely vote Democratic, while 37% say that they definitely will not.A majority of the public view both Democrats and Republicans unfavorably. 51% of the public view the Democratic Party negatively, and 57% for Republicans. Three- quarters of the American public disapproves of Congress, which is their highest disapproval rating since 1977. Additionally, half of the public would like to see the filibuster rule changed, in order limit back and forth politics of Congress, and ensure sure legislation actually can be passed.
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama took a pivotal step towards repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Approximately 16 years later, this repeal is far overdue.
It was in the middle of the speech, in one clear sentence, that America was reminded of a federal law enacted in 1993 that rips at the fabric of our nation’s core belief in liberty and equality. President Barack Obama set a timetable to end the controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy passed during former President Bill Clinton’s tenure. “This year -- this year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do.”
Our troops have been in active war since 2001 – defending the United States and promoting the values of our nation. It’s simply hypocritical to send American troops to fight and often lose their lives in the name of freedom and equality, yet threaten their military status by asking them to conceal a part of their identity. Repealing this federal law would be a big step towards improving the civil rights of our nation and recognizing that being gay does not determine one’s courage, passion or work ethic.
I sat down this morning with Rep. Joe Sestak to discuss the news around Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and specifically questions around implementation of a repeal. Many of you know Sestak's political history, but a little on his military background. Sestak is a decorated, former 3-star Vice Admiral in the Navy and the highest-ranking former military officer currently serving in this Congress. He also served as Director of Defense Policy at the National Security Council and as policy adviser to Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark, where he oversaw a process, in his words, "to try to change the Navy". I was interested in talking to Rep. Sestak particularly because he had spent time overseeing structural change in the Navy and understands the process.
The main point Rep. Sestak made to me is that the year-long "study" that Sec. Gates announced at yesterday's hearing is an unnecessary delay, and change could be instituted far more rapidly. More in the transcript.
Adam: Thanks for joining me. First, I want to ask about your reactions to yesterday's Senate Armed Services hearing.
Rep. Sestak: I was very pleased to see the significant step that's being taken by the Defense Department to move forward and accept that Don't Ask, Don't Tell has to be repealed. I also believe, however, that the implementation study that's going to be done doesn't need to take a year. I believe it should be done in a shorter period of time. We have many lessons that we've learned from previous areas of integration: African Americans into the military, women into defense combat roles. During 1970 through '74, we had a strategic naval operation by Admiral Zumwalt- this is as I was entering- and he instituted many significant changes in our military and he did them quite rapidly. Now maybe you don't just want to do them with what is known as a "Z-Gram", a message that comes out that says, "implement this", but I believe we can do this more rapidly. That said, it's a significant step that we've taken because it's going to happen, but the Congress has to vote on it, so let's make sure we have everybody there, let's make sure we have the courage to do it and do it rapidly.
Adam: You talked about a "Z-Gram"- what is the fastest process that could and perhaps should be taken versus a long, drawn-out process?
Rep. Sestak: A "Z-Gram" was where the Chief of Naval Operations would say, here's the new policy. The best way to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell is to call the flag leadership together and then they meet with their commanders, then those officers meet with their subordinate commanders, and through the chain of command there's an explanation of why and how this policy is going to be changed. You have the chain of command, the leadership including the chief petty officers, who are the backbone of the Navy, understanding why. Then you set out, on this date certain, this will be the change. But the problem is they're going to study it for a year first, then there will be the implementation. And I just think that's an awful long time to study an implementation.
We are a military that understands processes very well. If anyone can go off and implement something rapidly, it's the military, because we do so many war plans, we do so many contingency plans, it's a part of our culture, we can take how to do this, stick it into a model, and do it in a fairly short timetable. I don't want to take away from the importance of having moved this out there, but at the end of the day, we know this is going to be done. The military is such a young organization, and we're well beyond any previous stereotypes. We can go about this business, and I would like to see Congress move on this rapidly. In fact, I believe it should be in the defense authorization bill, and that would take 2-3 months to get it through the process. It's about time to implement it.
Adam: What do you think our odds are of including it in and passing it through the defense authorization bill?
Rep. Sestak: Well, I think it's pretty darn good. But then, I've only been in politics a few years, but this is something where the Commander in Chief speaks, I think people have the courage to do the right thing. There are those on both sides of the aisle who are still opposed. However, I think at the end of the day, the Commander in Chief saying let's do this, with the military's leadership saying let's do this, you'll find that there'll be more than enough votes to make it happen.
Adam: The New York Times reported a few weeks ago that the Pentagon was considering separate shower facilities and locker rooms. In the past, there has been discussion of pilot programs. Is any of this necessary to go through during implementation?
Rep. Sestak: No. They're serving out there right now. They go into showers, non-gay or gay, right now into sports gyms. It's a way of life. Let's go out and make it happen. We don't need to go through a pilot program. We don't need separation of showers. We're beyond all that.
Adam: If the Pentagon implemented the timeline that you outline, how long do you think that should take?
Rep. Sestak: I would say two to three months. Because you can do this in a nice deliberate way and still finish it in that period of time. Someone used the phrase to me, the military is always "ready". We can do these things. I always remember former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Crowe once said, supposedly to President Clinton, just tell the military to do it and they'll do it. In the meantime, I think the President should consider an executive order, under a stop-loss provision, that when you don't want someone to be discharged while the study is being done, why kick people out that you know you're not going to in about a year? Second, I think those who were dismissed under the wrong policy should be permitted to come back in.
STATE BLOGS
