Don’t Ask… Don’t Tell… Drop Dead, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #118
May 18, 2009 Mike Gold 14 Comments
When Barack Obama was running for president, he made all kinds of promises that helped differentiate his positions from those of the evil Bush/Cheney administration. By and large he’s kept most of those promises, and to be fair, some of those that he didn’t were mitigated for understandable reasons. Not all. Not all, at all.
Obama reversed his position against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military’s policy of tossing out homosexuals who come out of the closet. On May 7th, the Army chucked out First Lieutenant Dan Choi.
When such a thing happened during the Bush years, it was customary state the victim’s bona fides. Whereas that shouldn’t be necessary – it’s not okay to discriminate against, say, the bottom 25% of one’s graduating class and I, for one, hated being referred to as one of the “good ones” when Christian friends were trying to be nice to me in high school – I shall bow to tradition. Dan Choi is a West Point graduate and a decorated officer in the Army National Guard who is, by the way, completely fluent in Arabic. He served with honor in Iraq. When it comes to his career and his view of the military, Choi’s a believer. If we’re going to have well-trained soldiers in the area, Dan Choi is exactly the type of guy we need.
Now Choi is one of the 13,000 who have been chucked out of the armed forces due to nothing less than complete and utter bigotry. Obama could have stopped it, he could have put it on hold until the law could be changed. He saw what happened to Bill Clinton and he decided not to flirt with that third rail. He betrayed his promise out of political expediency, and he proved that the face of bigotry is liberal as well as conservative, democratic as well as republican, black as well as white, smart as well as dumb.
Most of all, Barack Obama proved once and for all that he’s a real politician. I am very, very disappointed. He sold himself as someone better than that. Maybe some day he’ll show the courage he showed as a candidate, but it will be too late for Dan Choi.
Obama didn’t get rid of Choi. The masters of war who hold their perverted discriminatory religious doctrine well above the oft-stated so-called “American” values of freedom and fair play for all without respect to race, creed, physical restriction or sexual orientation fired him.
As Commander-In-Chief, Obama consciously declined to lift a finger to save him. Yes, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” currently is the law of the land. So was slavery. Obama should understand better than your average W.A.S.P. that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Bill of Rights contains asterisks.
Maybe he does. Sadly, political pragmatism is a redundancy.
13,000 down; 65,000 to go. Barack, it looks like your work is cut out for you.
—-
Mike Gold’s Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind rants can be heard every Monday and Friday on The Point podcasts, available right here at www.michaeldavisworld.com, as well as at www.comicmix.com, www.getthepointradio.com, www.zzcomics.com, and www.ravenwolfstudios.com. You can subscribe to The Point at iTunes by searching under “The Point Radio.” And check out www.getthepointradio.com so you can be the first on your block to hear us when we go 24/7 – subjecting the world to new Weird Scenes rants Monday through Friday and a special two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind music and blather show every Sunday night at 7:00 PM Eastern, replayed the following Thursday night at 9:00 PM Eastern. Whew. Damn, that’s a lot of work.
pennie
May 18, 2009 - 5:36 am
Thanks Mike. We’ve never met and may not in the future but I’m guessing you had to know I wasn’t going to be quiet once I saw your column. Clearly, as you recognize, the heart of the matter is nothing more or less than outright prejudice—overt homophobia. It’s fear, intolerance, religious condemnation, and a basic lack of respect materializing as lawfully treating faggots, lezzies and all other Queers as less than human equals.
Unbelievable as it might be in 2009, the absurd caricature of the “pink pussy pansy soldier” who shirks duty and can’t carry her/his weight is still with us. Kind of like every other malevolent racial and cultural stereotype. In this cardboard fantasy, the wuss soldier drops out when faced with enemy fire and runs, exposing everyone else to danger.
Then there’s the myth of the soldier who makes everyone else “uncomfortable” just by existing in the same training and field areas.
Like some sexed-up animal rubbing off on everyone’s legs, the pervert homos will surely jump their bones nonstop. Like demonic magicians, turn previously “normal” heterosexual women and men into foaming rabid fucking homos. You know, the old “Homosexual Agenda.” Hell, the only agenda most gay military people I’ve ever known had was surviving in a military that refused to permit them to be themselves while defending our country.
I read a lot. From what I’ve absorbed, Obama has never been comfortable with anything related to Queers. He was the last candidate to state his position on homos and gay marriage.
Hillary has been well-known for her post-First Lady gay support. During the last presidential campaign, most Queers I know and read about were all over her and not him just for this reason. When Obama had a well-known religious “ex-gay” gospel singer join his campaign in South Carolina, there were rumblings in the gay community. Ex-gay? That’s kinda like Michael Jackson–funny but tragic and ultimately unreal. Ex-black? Huh?
When Obama refused to grant one interview after another to Queer publications–the same media who Hillary freely talked with–the community rumbled again.
When Logo TV sponsored the first ever Queer-media-produced televised presidential debate last August, the candidates were asked to state their positions on Gay marriage. Obama deftly side-stepped with his support of Civil Unions but not complete equality. Sticky that. More discontent.
And when Obama tied himself to a nationally prominent anti-gay minister and asked him to lead the invocation at his inauguration, the rumblings rippled. Still, we wanted to believe.
We wanted a sign. No, more than a sign–a real act of courage that displayed Obama’s meaningful support of ALL Americans that included Queers. His support of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” was there but given all of the other negatives, there were suspicions. Still, given America’s rapidly changing attitudes and laws, and understanding the political realities that dictate one must tread quietly, we remained hopeful. Vigilant, but hopeful.
I enthusiastically supported Obama from the start despite these misgivings. I so wanted a woman president (and still do) but I didn’t feel Hillary was the right one. I also wanted a “minority” president for so many obvious reasons. For me Obama represented positive change–and maybe, just maybe, for the first time ever, Queers were going to be asked to ride in the front of the bus.
From all evidence to date–not so much. I write this with so much sadness.
In all of his appointments, in all of his actions, Obama has let my community wither. During the campaign, when I talked about my support for him, I was taunted with claims Obama is just another opportunist slick politico. I so wanted to believe. I still do. But he’s not giving me any wiggle room.
I know I’ve gone on but this is troubling and reprehensible. Mike, you nailed a nerve. When all those Arabic translators were dismissed from the Pentagon during Bush’s reign for being homos, I was disgusted but understood that in that environment, it was almost inevitable. This, right now, is far different. This administration was elected for its support of change—with removal of DADT as a stated official objective.
Obama had the opportunity to issue an executive order refuting Choi’s dismissal and removing DADT. Instead, the wording on the official White House website was altered from full support of removing DADT to something much less. When some vigilant journalists and bloggers wrote about it, the wording was quickly reversed. All of these events happened in the last few weeks.
It is clear to me that Obama remains uncomfortable with Queer issues. He’s trying to tread carefully–not anger some of his constituents while not aggravating others. This middle-of-the-road, liberal coalition can unravel fast. But history has proven that this wiggle-waggle won’t work.
I have supported Obama because I grasp the realities. I’m not a one-issue woman. I see the winds of change and want to be included. But, like others, I need substance and support–not smoke or smoking guns. My heart belongs to peace and full equality for all people–including me and my community.
In the very near future, there are three issues that will come to a head. First is the federal Hate Crimes Bill (The Matthew Shepard Act) amending the current statute to include sexual identification and gender identity. The bill passed the House and now moves on to the Senate where Senator Ted Kennedy is one of the main sponsors. In the past, Obama “indicated” his support.”
Second is the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which again, includes sexual identification and gender identity as categories that cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. In the past, Obama “indicated” his support.” Both of these bills came close to passage during the last congress but failed.
Then there’s the focus of your column–“Don Ask, Don’t Tell.” In the past, Obama “indicated” his support. So what happened? This support vanished. Are we to expect the same treatment for the two important pieces of legislation?
Last week, when Obama’s press secretary was asked about Obama’s official stance on DADT, he responded that Obama preferred this thorny issue get settled by legislative relief. Like the other Queer issues in the last year or so, his stance remains elusive, troubling, and as you state Mike, speaks more about political expediency than Change We Can Believe In.”
I apologize for the length of this. I could say so much more.
Jeremiah Avery
May 18, 2009 - 7:15 am
Jon Stewart did a segment where he showed Candidate Obama talking about doing away with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and then showing the current state of affairs.
In this era, having people who can speak Arabic is essential. As he put it, “We may make them talk, but it won’t be in English”.
While people vilify Miss California for her comments, not too many were critical of the President, considering he has made similar remarks.
Whether it’s Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, the world is not going to end. While some states are legalizing gay marriage, until the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed, I’m not sure how much progress can be made.
Martha Thomases
May 18, 2009 - 7:45 am
As I understand it, the justification for DADT is that it’s bad for troop morale if there are gays in the military Straight soldiers would be uncomfortable in the showers. Gays might be sexually predatory towards their brother (and sister) soldiers.
Of course, this completely sidesteps the wide-spread sexual harassment (and abuse) by straight men towards female soldiers. If anything, it suggests that straight men are projecting their own behavior on teh gays.
But you knew that.
Mike Gold
May 18, 2009 - 9:00 am
Martha: I don’t believe male and female soldiers shower together. If they did, we’ve have fewer recruitment problems.
Certainly, not all straight men — or even a majority — are projecting their own behavior on gays. That’s like saying all female soldiers are ball-busting dykes (which some guys believe to be true). But heterosexual predators abound in the armed forces, eclipsed only by predatory religious bigots.
Soldiers — at least male soldiers — shower and shit openly, without barriers. There are some 65,000 closeted gay soldiers serving today, so with DADT or without, you really never know if the person who’s staring at your junk is doing so with salacious intent … or is merely envious.
Martha Thomases
May 18, 2009 - 9:24 am
@ Mike: Or is merely showering, daydreaming, and not paying any attention at all. But that is too heart-breaking to imagine.
Howard Cruse
May 18, 2009 - 9:38 am
A certain percentage of straight man are attractive enough to merit being admired with quiet lust by nearby gay men. The percentage isn’t nearly as large as many straight men flatter themselves into believing, but it happens—whether either or both parties are dressed or naked in a shower room.
Being admired is not the same thing as being molested, however, and having someone quietly decide that you’re cute is not the end of the world. In fact, as many non-uptight and non-homophobic straight men discover, it can feel nice. A lot better than being thought to be shlubby and unattractive.
As a gay men, I can bask in the glow once in a blue moon of still being thought by a woman, despite my advancing age, to be sexy. There’s no need to worry that she will jump my bones on the spot because mature human beings don’t behave that way, even in the military.
Such life-affirming moments can instead simply brighten my day.
Tony Isabella
May 18, 2009 - 10:13 am
Every stupid bigoted argument against gays serving openly in the military is soundly refuted in a recent book:
Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America by Dr. Nathaniel Frank
There are no good reasons for banning gays from our military.
Tony Isabella
Vinnie Bartilucci
May 18, 2009 - 11:18 am
“A certain percentage of straight man are attractive enough to merit being admired with quiet lust by nearby gay men. ”
Further proof that gay and straight people are more similar than the haters believe.
Every straight person has a personal “I’m not gay, BUT…” list.
And as far as I’m concerned, John Barrowman should be on every one…
“Such life-affirming moments can instead simply brighten my day. ”
There is a certain thrill or frisson in knowing that someone finds you attractive. When it turns out it’s someone of the same gender, it’s a little like being tipped with foriegn money – it’s nice to get, but you’re not quite sure how to spend it.
A young man offered to buy me a drink at a bar once (where I was waiting for the wife, then fiancee); I demurred quietly, but a bit later I realized I was rather complimented. If I’d had the time and gumption, I’d have gone back and asked what struck him about me.
“There are no good reasons for banning gays from our military.”
That’s true, but alas, there’s a couple bad ones that hold water, and the potential reaction of one’s comrades in arms is one of them. Since I have in fact yet to hear a story of a gay soldier dropping his arms and running in the face of battle (and I’m quite confident that there are people in the media who would make damn sure that story would be told), I’ve got to assume it ain’t happen often, yet or ever.
I can very defintely imagine stupid small-minded soldiers treating gay soldiers worse than others. It’s literally the only vague facet of the argument (it’s for their protection) that even threatens to hold water.
But of course, it’s up to the soldier to choose if they wish to declare their sexual preference; to stay in or come out of the footlocker, if you will. One would hope that with each multi-medal-award winning soldier that comes out (and gets booted), more soldiers would come to the realization that maybe it really doesn’t make a difference, and they can do their job and keep it in their pants as well as the next guy. One would hope. But of course, the army does not attract our best and brightest anymore. And if it does, they get promoted to where it’s not an issue.
I went to a catholic all-boys school. By the law of averages, I certainly went to school with gay guys, or guys who would at some point realize/come to terms with their sexual identity. As a catholic school.it was very much something that would get you kicked out. Indeed, it was a known dodge that if you wanted to get out of a few classes, you’d go down to guidance and say “I think I’m gay”. After they made sure you didn’t have any tests that day (they weren’t THAT) dumb), you got a good few hours off, all for the cost of a bit of well-meant help.
Now, this was 25 years ago, so there was a lot less desire to make a statement at the cost of your education, and a lot more…oh, let’s call it good natured ribbing. So the gay guys who I went to school with had either real good senses of humor, real strong tempers, or possibly both. If a gay guy was actually offended by said ribbing, or if they were ever assaulted for their proclivities (something I never once heard an example, I hasten to add), they were in a catch-22 of having to claim they were “offended by the accusation” or some similar misleading mindset.
I think it’s fair to say that was a microcosm of the experience in the military. Not something I’d ever want to experience. Indeed, the fact that these people would willingly set themselves up for that potential crapstorm sorta makes them braver, don’t it?
Shame more folks don’t notice that.
marc alan fishman
May 18, 2009 - 11:30 am
Not much else to add here. It’s not surprising that Barack did what he did, but it’s dissapointing to say the least. To quote Chris Rock: If they wanna fight, let ’em fight. Cause I ain’t fightin’! I don’t give a f**k if there’s a Russian tank rollin’ down Flatbush Avenue. I ain’t shootin’ nobody. So call me a f*gg*t! When the war’s over, I’ll be the f*gg*t with two legs, thank you!
If anyone wants to makes the sacrifice to fight for the company, I don’t care if they want to screw watermelons. I’d say give em a hand grenade and a watermelon and say GO! (I know I’m lifting that from another comedian).
I can ONLY hope that President Obama’s decision wasn’t done quickly, or happily. And perhaps in the future we’ll rid this country of the homophobia that makes truly NO sense what-so-ever.
Tony Isabella
May 18, 2009 - 8:54 pm
Vinnie…
Not even the bad reasons hold water. The absolute refutation of those bad reasons is laid out in the book I recommended and completely backed up by examples of those countries that do allow gays to serve openly in their countries.
Tony Isabella
pennie
May 19, 2009 - 4:34 am
When all is said and done, the fact remains that until Obama, in his elegant and distinctively clear, straight-forward style, actively demonstrates his support for Queer people, Queer legislation, and refutes anti-gay policies, proposed or on the books–along with refuting the people who side with these prejudicial policies and issues–his stance and administration will remain at best, muddled if not tarnished.
In his frequent press conferences, national appearances, and through administrative aides and others, Obama has decisively addressed difficult issues. Even during his Sunday Notre Dame appearance, he confronted the abortion issue head-on. So why not gays in the military and DADT? Why not homosexual marriage and the proposed inclusive legislation?
I believe we all know why. He’s uncomfortable and still treating Queer issues as a political hot potato instead of taking a stand that, given the current environment, is not really all that courageous. It wasn’t when Clinton was president and created DADT. It is much less so now.
Yet if we are to truly embrace Obama as not just another slick opportunist politico,it remains the right thing to do. It’s about basic equal rights–nothing less. He knows it and we know it. It’s put up or shut up.
Does he really believe courting the neo-cons is consistent with his stances as a candidate?
Did MLK’s struggle mean civil rights for some while excluding others?
During the mid-1960s, in a stance unpopular in some circles, then-president Lyndon Johnson actively supported the Civil and voting rights acts. It was the right thing to do.
The time is now. What was right then is right now. Where’s Obama?
Mike Gold
May 20, 2009 - 5:53 am
When I was younger — much, MUCH younger — I’d get propositioned by guys from time to time. I always took it as a compliment, and then I’d usually forget about it. My best friend and very frequent companion, a year younger than me, would freak out and remember it forever. I never understood that; I wrote it up to his Irish Catholic upbringing (thereby clueing Rick Oliver into our late friend’s identity) but, clearly, it was deeper than that.
The funny thing is, he had a lot of gay friends — and I mean a lot. He wasn’t repressing anything. I think it was a matter of liking the individual because you know him, but disliking the category because you’ve been trained to do so.
It gets back to “the good ones” bit I mentioned about four feet above. Man, I hated that.
pennie
May 20, 2009 - 8:52 am
Mike, when you write: “It gets back to “the good ones” bit I mentioned about four feet above. Man, I hated that,” I can understand why, but in the past, with so many, so prejudiced, people like you were such a welcome presence, I’m not sure there was/is a right way to express this without foot-in-mouth virus.
Thankfully, times and people have changed. Still, forgive me–You ARE one of the good ones. Sorry.
I also apologize for creating much of the four feet of space above. My passion gets the best of me.
Mike Gold
May 20, 2009 - 9:57 am
I understand (and deeply appreciate) your sentiment, pennie. I also understand the sentiment of the young woman – Asian-American, MOTU! – who was the object of my attentions back in 10th grade. When she said “you’re one of the good ones,” I knew EXACTLY what she meant. I was fine, but them other Ashkenazim were not.
I’d heard it before and I’d heard it since, but I was more perturbed by this one because back then my hormones oozed through my two-tones with every step I took in her presence. I’d bet it would shock her as well – today. At least I hope so. As I recall, her parents were incarcerated in a Japanese-American internment camp.