X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:00:24 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: RECENT DISCUSSION TOPICS RE "DRAFT DODGING" & MILITARY GAYS
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> FROM: James Sheldon
>  As a new subscriber, I've read the "discussion" with some amusement.  I'd
 like
>  to offer a few comments/observations.
>
>  First, it's fairly apparent most of you engaged in the cross talk have little
> or no military experience. (On the other hand, I can speak from more than 23
> years as an Air Force Officer, and 21 before that as the son of a career
 NCO(Th
> at's an enlisted person for those of you who don't do acronyms.)) The net resu
> lt is you lack a factual basis for many of your comments.
I don't know, is it me?, that sounds condenscending.  Like I can't comment
on the military because I've never served?  hmm..
> Now to substance.
>
> Regarding President-elect Clinton's, Vice President Quayle's and President
 Reag
> an's "draft dodging."  I really don't have any problem with Clinton having
 avoi
> ded military service, or with Quayle going into the National Guard.  They were
> like many young men of that time who sought ways of avoiding the draft (Why do
> you think we have so many middle aged, male teachers out there?)  What I do
 hav
> e problems with, is the way Clinton went about it and comments attributed tohi
> m regarding his abhorrence of the military.
Well, if you knew what you were talking about and it's obvious that you don't
you would know the Clinton NEVER said that he had an "abhorrence of the
military".  Here is a quote from his letter 23 years which is the closest
thing to your statement.
"
   And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have
been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I
am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will
help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have
come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing
the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years,
lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it
is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if
it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal. Forgive the
length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a lot
to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Col. Jones for
me.
"
As for the way that he (Clinton) "went about it", he used LEGAL methods
to avoid service.  That sounds OK to me.
>By failing to serve, he has no pra
> ctical experience with the military environment.  That's okay for the ordinary
> citizen, but not for the "commander-in-chief."
So Lincoln, FDR, Reagan amd a whole host of others should not have been
commander-in-chief?!!
> For all his short
>  comings, at least VP Quayle's National Guard time has given him exposure to
 th
> e military environment.
The point of my deriding Quayle's National Guard time is not a slam on the
NG but more importantly a slam on Quayle for being absolutely in favor of
Vietnam (when the vast majority of the country was opposed, '68) and then
finding a way around being sent to fight.
>
> Incidentally, for those of you "Quayle-bashers,"  I'd ask which one of you has
> the ambition, intelligence and perseverance to rise to the second most
 importan
> t job in this country?  He may not be the smartest bear in the woods, but
 those
> of you who criticize from the cozy "ivory tower" can't even say you've tried.
This is an interesting argument.  I certainly don't have any desire to
become a junior senator from Indiana.  I'll grant you that ambition and
perserverance plays a large part of a senator's role.  Intelligence is
dubious.  He surrounds himself with some of the top minds in the country.
And he does what they say.  Now if you want to say that it takes intelligence
to do that, fine.  I think (to bring this back to another thread) that he
is a dolt!
>
> Finally, to gays in the military:
>
> First, as a member of the military, you do not have the same full use of
 consti
> tutional rights that you do in the private sector.  This is a position Supreme
> Court and Congress have taken in recognizing and legislating the Uniform Code
 o
> f Military Justice.  The UCMJ is the legal statute of the military and sets
 for
> th offences punishable by fine or imprisonment which may/may not have a civil
 c
> ounterpart.
That's right.  That's why the privacy issue (or lack therof) is MOOT.
>
> There are gays in the military - that's a given.  Just as there are child abus
> ers, drug users and alcoholics.  They're facts of life, but not necessarily
 acc
> epted lifestyles.  As a practical matter, homosexuallity is considered to be
 pr
> ejudicial to the good order and conduct of the service for a number of
 reasons:
>
> -  In the modern military, homosexuals have been viewed as a security risk,
 sus
> ceptible to blackmail.
>  Admittedly, a person who acknowledges
> his/her homosexuality voids a significant part of the risk.   However, as long
> as society does not consider it an acceptable lifestyle, there will be those
 wh
> o won't acknowledge it.
Hmm. Society does not consider it an acceptable lifestyle?  Tell that to
the MAJORITY of Americans who feel that gays ought to be allowed in the
military.
But you could be right that there may be some (and considering some of the
bigots that have been posting, I wouldn't blame them) gays who don't come
out.  So that is a reason not to allow gays in the military?  There are
people in the military who have affairs and wouldn't respond well to
blackmail.  Should we not allow heterosexuality in the military either?
>
> -  Another concern, and one I've witnessed first hand, is aggressive
 homosexual
The issue as PRESIDENT-elect CLINTON has said is conduct.
>  As I said, this is something I've seen hap
> pen - it's not a fantasy.  This type of activity, coupled with the advance of
 A
> IDS (and let's get real - homosexual males are the population "most at risk.")
> makes homosexual activity incompatible with the military.
You are a very bigoted man.  I feel very sorry for you and the life that
you lead.  If the military has done this to you, then PRESIDENT-elect CLINTON
should seriously introduce an education program in addition to allowing
gays in the military.
Look if you want to make AIDS an issue, let's do this.  Lesbians are by far
the lowest risk group. Let's just allow Lesbians in the military.
>
> The bottom line, I think gays will end up being allowed in the military, but
 on
> ly after they make a confidential disclosure of their status.  What they do of
> f duty, and off camp will be their business.  However, any efforts to
 prosletiz
> e the lifestyle, engage in homosexual activity or recruitment, will be met
 with
>  punitive action.
No kidding Jack.  CONDUCT.  The same is true, babe, with Heterosexual activity
and "recruitment".
>
> Some food for thought - Uncle Ernie
>
Sleep well.  Knowing that right next to you is a *gasp* GAY Male.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU