[lit-ideas] Re: Permission to speak?
- From: "Veronica Caley" <molleo1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 19:30:35 -0400
The vote in the House of Representatives passed to repeal "don't ask, don't
tell." The Senate is expected to pass it this coming week. Then the military
will review whether to do it and how to do it. Housing, benefits and such.
Technically, repeal is dependent on report. In reality, my take on it is that
it is a formality. It's what Obama wants but he wants the Congress to do it.
I didn't post Rep. Murphy's comments to start discussion of repeal of "don't
ask, don't tell." I had been asked re my comments about soldiers doing their
jobs. The quote contained a bit about how Murphy, a former Iraq veteran,
discussed this with his former colleagues. He said the bit about their doing
their jobs and specifically mentions, "kicking in doors," dealing with rpgs.
But I am fine with discussing it. I call us Saudi Arabia west.
Exaggeration I know, but it's not getting all that much better.
Veronica
----- Original Message -----
From: EVANS JUDITH
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 6:31 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Permission to speak?
but is the vote to repeal it? or is it in favour of Obama's
"repeal at some future undetermined date if and when the President, the
Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs all certify that the
new Pentagon regulations that would replace the current DADT policy are
consistent with military readiness, etc."
bill? (I copied that wording from americablog.com)
better than nothing, of course...
Judy Evans, Cardiff
On 30 May 2010 23:04, Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well written... and a-change is underway:
"The US House of Representatives approved yesterday the proposal to
overturn the law banning openly LGB people serving in the military.
The House vote, which came through at 234-194, reflects a strength of
feeling among members of Congress that the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law
brought in under President Clinton has to go, and that the US was ready for a
military in which soldiers can be open about their sexuality."
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/05/28/us-house-delivers-victory-on-proposal-to-overturn-gay-military-ban/
Best etc etc
-t
In a message dated 5/29/2010 11:28:38 P.M., molleo1@xxxxxxxxxxx
> writes:
> I sent two letters a few days ago, both of which
> appeared in my sent items
> box. But they never appeared in my Inbox, which
> I like to check for
> accuracy in case I missed something when I
> proof read it. I know one got
> through because Mr. Speranza sent a response.
> The other one referred to
> Congressman Patrick Murphy. I would appreciate
> it if you received that one if you
> let me know. About once a month I have to
> resubscibe to fix one thing or
> another. It had same subject line as this one.
> Thanks.
> Veronica Caley,
> Milford, MI
>
> ----
>
> Veronica. I have just used the search-engine at the
> lit-ideas files, and
> indeed, the post where you referred to me as the 'Grice
> expert' ALSO included
> the bit about the P. Murphy. I skipped that because I was
> so excited you
> were quoting me that I made my point without going
> through the details of
> your post.
>
> I LOVE R. Maddow. I think she is GREAT. She is NOT a
> journalist, of
> course! More of a showwoman! So I can imagine the
> interview.
>
> The point was about sexual orientation, etc. (She is a
> lesbian, Rachel, no?
> She is never seen in tabloids going out with different
> men! Just joking).
> Anyway...
>
> So, Murphy qua war veteran (be careful there, because once
> a VETERAN, no
> longer a soldier -- really) says that he would support the
> 'don't ask don't
> tell' because what
>
> "a man does in his bed" or closet is irrelevant for his job
> done, etc.
>
> ---- I share the feeling! But surely it's more complex than
> that! I DON'T
> THINK the issue should arise in that no reason should be
> given!
> But I recall Maddow also interviewing the same army member
> who DID come
> out, and there was a debate as to whether he could REMAIN
> in the army.
>
> The 'don't ask don't tell' sounds like hypocrysy, and this
> soldier who DID
> tell even if nobody ASKED him also raises a Gricean point.
>
> The 'justification' by Murphy seems simplistic. There is a
> LOT written
> about male bonding, etc. and there are arguments against
> and for it.
>
> But basically, the main argument is that a bed is a bed is
> a bed. But in
> the barracks, a bed is a bed is a bed IN THE BARRACKS. Not
> to forget the
> SHOWERS! So, knowing MALES, a lot of sniggering, abuse,
> discrimination SHOULD
> ensue if somone self-airs, "I'm homosexual".
>
> Not that words fail THERE. "Don't ask, don't tell". Tell
> WHAT? It seems
> that ALL words labelling 'sexuality' are sort of wrong.
> "I'm straight". "I
> never asked you". Note that 'straight' sounds even
> gross when it comes to
> FEMALES! Or not!
>
> J. L. Speranza
> Bordighera, etc.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
