Declaration of Independents

Good News Tuesday: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Ends (Don't Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out!)


To cop a cliche from old episodes of M*A*S*H:

Do you hear that? asks Hawkeye or Trapper. 

I don't hear anything, replies the other.

That's what I mean. The shelling's stopped.

Well, the end of the odious anti-gay "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT), one of the very first acts by Bill Clinton upon taking office back in 1993, is like that. It's officially over and it ended with an anti-climax reminiscent of a three-day amyl nitrate bender, sez USA Today and every other news outlet that bothered to cover it.

With the lifting of the ban, the Defense Department will publish revised regulations to reflect the new law allowing gays to serve openly. The revisions, such as eliminating references to banned homosexual service, are in line with policy guidance that was issued by top Pentagon officials in January, after Obama signed the legislation that did away with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The lifting of the 18-year-old ban also brings a halt to all pending investigations, discharges and other administrative proceedings that were begun under the Clinton-era law.

Existing standards of personal conduct, such as those pertaining to public displays of affection, will continue regardless of sexual orientation.

More here.

That wasn't so hard, was it? Yet it was a very long time coming. Back in the January 1996 issue of Reason, David Link wrote about the cynical context that gave rise to Bill Clinton's rule:

Get out there and tell your stories, [Clinton said even as he was passing DADT]. Let people see what you've been going through, feel your pain. That'll convince 'em. But the failure of that strategy during the military debate had nothing to do with a lack of good personal stories. From Perry Watkins to Grethe Cammermeyer to Joe Steffan, the gay community brought out its best and its brightest to illustrate the case. Randy Shilts wrote a whole book of the most compelling stories imaginable, and the result was "don't ask, don't tell."

Read the whole story, which is about the phantom menace of gay marriage, here.

Last year, John Stossel editorialized against DADT at

America is one of many countries that forbid openly gay people to serve in the military. Others are: Cuba, China, Egypt, Greece, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Turkey, and Venezuela.

See a pattern?

With a few exceptions, those are not countries where free people want to live.

By contrast, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain all allow gay people to serve.

More here.

I grew up in a place that went apoplectic in the mid-1970s when, shades of The Bad News Bears, some pre-pubescent girls wanted to play Little League Baseball in the MYAA (Middletown Youth Athletic Association) rather than be consigned to slow-pitch softball in the MYGAL (Middletown Youth Girls Athletic League; clever!). A group of angry parents—who insisted that if boys and girls played together on the baseball diamond, the result would be the creation of a generation of homosexual teens (they didn't really seem to care about lesbians)—even broke off from officially sanctioned Little League to form their own group where you could talk about Dick Pole and Pete LaCock without smirking.

While I defend the right of private organizations to set their own membership rules without interference (and underscore that the United States military is no private organization but the ultimate public one), I bring up the Little League example to underscore how many fears of race, ethnic, gender, and class mixing are simply hysterical and based on nothing more than atavistic terrors of who knows what. Boys and girls play together in various leagues—hell, they even go to school together sometimes—and the effect on sexual orientation seems to be right around zero.

Which brings me to another interesting story that's in the papers lately: The continuing growth in the acceptance of interracial marriages, which Gallup finds is at an all-time high of 86 percent:

From the writeup:

Americans' acceptance of marriage between people of different races continues to grow and is approaching unanimity, with 86% now approving of marriages between blacks and whites. Widespread approval of interracial marriage is a dramatic shift from roughly 50 years ago when 4% approved, and even 20 years ago, when about half as many approved as do so today.

The trend mimics the growing support for gay marriage – though Americans are still less likely to accept that practice than interracial marriage. It also follows the trend toward increasing racial tolerance on other measures such as voting for a black president and an increasing belief in progress and equality for blacks in the U.S. more generally.

I would argue that these are all good trends from a specifically libertarian perspective because they show that as a society we are more likely to treat people as individuals rather than first and foremost as members of groups. Certainly the end of laws and official rules proscribing equal treatment of citizens is a good thing from a libertarian perspective.

In a discussion of our book, The Declaration of Independents, Matt Welch got into a bit of a dust-up with the Mises Institute's David Gordon over this sort of thing (read more here, here, and here). That back-and-forth mostly centered over the defintion of tolerance and whether Matt and I insist that anyone calling themselves libertarian subscribe to our particular tastes and aesthetic sensibilities. The short answer to all that: Of course we do not insist that a preference for rock music, or Pop Tarts, or (god forbid) The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim or whatever is the only way to be.

We use tolerance in the classical liberal sense of the term, especially as it was construed in debates over religious freedom: You don't use state powers and laws to enforce a single set of values as it may apply to voluntary associations. To tolerate is not to endorse; it's a recognition of equality under the law and that suasion should be used rather than force (whether legal force, as in the case of laws banning racial mixing, or extra-legal force as practiced by the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist organizations). Just as a society that tolerates religious freedom will be filled with debate and disagreement over the differences between, say, Episcopalianism and Congregationalism, a tolerant, pluralistic society will be filled with arguments over various ways to live. At times, these will be vicious and hysterical arguments, as were the ones over gay equality and interracial marriage.

I think on issues that move from simple aesthetics to more important issues, such as the role of sexual orientation as it relates to military service or the right of people to marry whomever they want, it's hard to mount convincing polemics that don't simply rely on prejudice and superstition and appeals to collective identities. In fact, that's why appeals to abstractions such as nature, common decency, and what have you—all of which were used to buttress legal proscriptions against equality for minorities, gays, women, and other disfavored groups—have faded over time. They are not particularly strong once that first flash of reactionary emotionalism is questioned. That's especially the case in the world Matt and I describe in The Declaration of Independents, which is one in which (we argue) cultural, economic, and even political power is being decentralized and democratized. More people can route around obstacles to living on their own terms, which makes it harder for any source of authority—whether coercive or voluntarist in nature—to enforce its vision of right and wrong.

But as we can probably all agree, being wrong shouldn't preclude our being free from making arguments. It would be a pretty silent planet if that were the case.

Using the Gordon/Welch kerfuffle as a starting point, Token Libertarian Girl asks whether being libertarian means you have to be socially liberal. I'd say yes, at least in terms of buying into the larger system of toleration. But within that framework, knock yourself out slagging progressive rock, Members Only jackets, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, whatever. Her YouTube channel is here.


NEXT: About Those Millions of Jobs Saved by the Auto Bailout...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ending DADT discharges helps the medical & intel communities… which are critical [JOBZ].

    1. Behold: the world’s least-infective meme!

      1. It’s not even a meme. If a meme is a viral idea, all useless there is doing is repeatedly sneezing on us.

      2. Orrin just makes me sad.

        1. Who? If a troll posts and no one cares, at all, did it really post at all?

          1. I see that lonely little greyed-out name with no text underneath it, and I remember that Orrin is doing the best he can. It’s terribly sad.

        2. i try warty…& evidently succeed

          1. You have a funny way of measuring success, double asshole.

            1. Trolls and griefers usually do.

              1. He’s Winning The Future.

            2. one can only aspire old mex. it all about asperation w o2

  2. What is the expression you humans use? “I’d buy that for a dollar”?

  3. Give it a year and no one will remember the reasons for DADT.

  4. So what about all the gays that were already discharged? Can they sue or petition for their jobs back?

    1. Sue whom? Congress for passing the law?

    2. Maybe give them a little time to recover after the discharge and have a cigarette first, I mean they’re gay but they’re not supermen…

    3. Kristen: They don’t have to sue, they can reapply for the military. I would hope if one of the translators reapply, the military will snap them up instantly.

  5. Ah, how quckly we forget.

    DADT was actually protection for gay servicemembers, giving them some due processish rights and limiting the authority of the military to pursue their sexual preferences.

    The real odious policy wasn’t DADT, it was the ban on gay service members. I assume that has been repealed as well?

    1. ^This. And it’s not like gays weren’t kicked out before DADT.

    2. Well, yea and no. It did give some protection to gay service members, but it was also the first time that being openly gay in the military was banned by an act of congress rather than just military policy.

    3. If your supervisor found out you were gay under DADT, didn’t that automatically create grounds for dismissal. DADT just codified it. I don’t think it mattered how they found out.

  6. Now all the military has to do is get the hetrosexual members (pun intended) to agree with the policy.

    1. I believe the Pentagon study found that upwards of 70% of active duty soldiers agreed with ending DADT.

      1. I knew a guy who was on an aircraft carrier back in the early 1980’s. He told me there were many gay sailors on his boat. Everyone knew, but they kept their mouths shut. Apparently, if they all left at once, the ship would have been impossible to operate.

        1. This is in no way a slam on the Navy and I know gays are represented in every service, but yeah. For some reason the Navy is probably the most popular choice for gay enlistees. I also believe this trend predates the Village People.

          1. Rum, the lash and sodomy.

            1. manly mens’ men

          2. I’ve never spent much time around the Navy, so I can’t comment on Art-P.O.G.’s statement, but based purely on my own personal observations, about 30% of the females in the Army are lesbians. Many of them are excellent soldiers, and some of them are still close friends. Today is a good day.

            1. I’m not sure about 30%, but a lot.

        2. and they would have lost the rear admiral to boot.

    2. Except the administration and the military are screwing it up. Instead of being tolerant, they are now absolutely INTOLERANT of anyone who doesn’t love the gays. Stay tuned for a wave of demotions for anyone who makes the slightest off-color remark.

      The crazy part is that it will make life in a combat unit far more dangerous for a gay man since it destroys his ability to build trust with his team members.

      1. Because being discharged for the crime of being born a certain way and not lying about it is bad, but not being able to be a vocal bigot is the real oppression.

        1. Fuck-off asshole, I’m talking to adults.

          1. Adults are concerned about the delicate feelings of bigots? Don’t soldiers do what they’re told?

            1. I see that Reason has racist pictures up again.

          2. I don’t think this means anyone has to come roaring out of the closet. Even so, I don’t know why it would mean a gay infantryman couldn’t build trust with his compadres. Most gay troops will be as professional as anyone else about matters of the boner, I’m sure.

            1. Ask any Marine or Army Infantryman – the first thing you do when getting to a new unit is figure out who you can depend on. You build comradeship and trust by spending time together and joking around.

              Anyone who can’t handle a joke, probably can’t handle a firefight – so everyone keeps his distance.

              How do you joke with somebody who can destroy your career if you offend him?

              1. How would you joke with a black guy?

                1. Pretty honestly – they proved themselves as soldiers long ago.

                  1. WTF, and gays haven’t?

              2. I think troops have already been dealing with that as far as race and religion. Gay or not, I think most troops who go into combat arms have a bit more intestinal fortitude than to go apeshit after a bit of a ribbing. And there is a line between ribbing and gay-bashing.

                1. Damn it, Fluffy.

                2. I agree – and I hope it remains that way. Everything I’ve heard from active duty friends makes it sound like that isn’t how it’s going down.

                  1. We shall see.

                  2. Then maybe we need a break from war so the troops have time to adjust. 😉

              3. I imagine the same way employees joke around their female coworkers. I don’t think it changes anything except maybe now offended gay enlistees don’t have to suffer in silence.

                1. You are right. They can give shit right back and get accepted by most. Or, run to the FS and get treated like a bitch by everyone.

        2. So, if gays are born gay, what about gender roles? Do you believe you are born with a gender role, or it is socially constructed?

          1. Both. It’s not just nature or nurture, it’s both. A lot of the differences in gender are based in genes or embryonic development or puberty, but some are based on stereotypes, societal conventions or parenting. They’re intertwined, too.

        3. I served in the Air Force with people I knew were gay – people MOST of the flight knew were gay and most people didn’t give a damn that they were gay. But I know what this person above means. People make jokes, sometimes off color. Sex is one of the most popular topics for jokes – and joking about sexual orientation does not equal bigotry. It is not the same thing as joking about race because the topic of sex is so ingrained into human psyche.

          1. Not specifically directed to you PIRS, but I see a lot of people, when this topic comes up, worrying that the military pukes won’t be able to “joke around” for fear of being discharged for hate crimes or some shit.

            But are these millions of parasites leeching off the tax dollar so they can tell jokes and play grabass? Ostensibly they are supposed to be defending something or some shit. I have ZERO sympathy for some little welfare ward crying that he can no longer tell off-color jokes or he’ll lose his handouts. The military should be as onerous as possible. As should every State-sanctioned welfare program.

            1. Not to play the whole ‘you weren’t there, man’ card, but the military life does get pretty onerous during deployments. I wouldn’t call it a welfare program, either.

              1. Not trying to start an argument here, but I would call it a welfare program, and I was there.

                Enlisted, mos 38A, 413th CA BN out of Lubbock, TX, deployed to Iraq. I did ROTC in college when I got back, because I saw what the officers were pulling down.

                I wound up not going that route because I met my future wife and wanted to settle down, but most of my friends from ROTC stayed in, and several of them have been on multiple deployments, where they make TONS of tax-free cash with deployment pay, separation pay, hardship pay, danger pay, huge overpayments for BAH (and they pocket the difference), etc. etc.

                1. What makes it welfare? Their pay?

                  1. I still don’t see how that makes it a welfare program. I did have a drill sergeant use that phrase before, though, and I understood it in context. I think I’ve lost the context now.

            2. Zuo, I invite you to visit just about any of the fine drinking establishments around Quantico, VA and share your opinions.

              1. Also, making the military as onerous as possible would not work with an all-volunteer military during wartime. Our friend Zuo is encouraged to try basic training to see what he thinks, but he seems pretty staunchly anti-military. Hell, he can’t even tell the difference between a military and a welfare program.

            3. Are you getting money taken from taxpayers against their will? Subsidized/free housing and food, also paid for by the unwilling taxpayer? How about “free” education and training, who is paying for that?

              Not welfare my ass. If its not welfare then its a militaristic feudal state. Take your pick. Yeah, you have to work a little more than most welfare programs. But the bennys are a bit more as well, aren’t they?

              RC the whole “Oh yeah, say it to my face!” bullshit isn’t really effective from a logic standpoint. Yeah, some meatheaded idiots will get violent when confronted with the truth that they aren’t a heroic badass warrior, but a thug with jackboots and a rifle, living off the government largesse. (Sound familiar to anybody here? Maybe substitue the boots for a badge?) In libertarianism might doesn’t make right, does it? I thought we were more about NON-aggression?

              1. Silly me, I thought military services were authorized by the US Constitution. Now I know better. Thanks, Zuo, for your enlightening views.

                1. N/P. You should check out the decades where the United States had NO standing army when you have some time. Wild, huh? No standing army? I wonder what the “founding fathers” would think of having a standing army?

                  OH SHIT. Here’s a line from the part of the Constitution you’re referencing: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”

                  1. I like how you think you’re dropping knowledge on me but I already knew that. I also joined the Army during wartime. Who do you have a beef with here, anyway, the military or Congress?

      2. but old mex feels intolerance IS tolerance

        1. Well, tolerating intolerance is, so there’s that.

      3. I see what you mean, but to contribute to a hierarchical organization that is open to all comers, you have to be able to maintain comity between organization members.

        If an NCO loudly voiced his opinion that all blacks were no-good niggers, he would be a liability. Someone in the chain of command over him or under him is going to be black. The organization’s legitimate and direct needs require him to shut up or face discipline.

        I certainly would tolerate his opinion if he were a private citizen. But his opinion would make it impossible for him to be an effective NCO.

      4. So the only way for gay soldiers to build trust with straight soldiers is to be dishonest with them?

        And how often does objecting vocally to homosexual behavior figure into the average soldier’s daily duties?

        1. No. The way to build trust is to be tolerant and prove yourself. That’s all.

          1. So what does being a homo have to do with that? Homos can’t prove themselves? I’m pretty sure they can.

            1. Combat arms troops have had to deal with all sorts of operational stress the last ten years. Maybe the timing of DADT repeal was right, maybe it was wrong, but I think if servicemembers can adjust to the stress of the last 10 years, we can adjust to gays serving openly.

            2. YES. Just don’t go running to the First Sergeant the first time another Marine utters the word “queer” if something doesn’t look right.

              1. I’m pretty sure a homo who has decided to join the fucking Marines isn’t going to go and cry to Sergeant over some words.

                1. I’m pretty sure you’re right, Episiarch. It will probably happen occasionally, but a small percentage of people will let hypersensitivity to about anything drive them to complain.

                2. No kidding. Every one of them has probably been through far worse just growing up. Remember how vicious a pack of 10-year-olds can be…?

                3. I’m pretty sure a homo who has decided to join the fucking Marines isn’t going to go and cry to Sergeant over some words.

                  Now the Air Force, on the other hand . . . .

                  1. Now the Air Force, on the other hand . . . .

                    I heard tell they get upset when the mint is left off their pillow

                4. I don’t share your confidence. I’ve seen too much BS with women in the military to think that they won’t screw this up.

                  I hope I’m being a pessimist.

                  1. So now gay men are equivalent to women? Have you been watching alot of “Queer eye…”

                    1. I’m talking about the hours of mandatory PC films and sexual harassment lectures – even in all male combat units.

                      Afterwards, you try to avoid even talking to female soldiers.

                    2. Old Soldier,

                      Don’t mistake stupid bureaucracy with undoing bad rules. You’ll have overreactive government bureaucratic stuff with every change, but that’s just the way of things. It doesn’t change really what you have to do, just another hurdle to avoid the bureaucracy. Eventually the issues fade away and the bureaucrat loses his job with another round of cuts.

                5. Not right away. But give it time.

                  ‘that’s gay’
                  ‘don’t be such a faggot/homo/sissy’

                  Eventually, these will be verboten. And punishable. And that is not good.

                  You cannot force amity.

                  It hasn’t worked with black people. It won’t work with gay people. The prejudices need to naturally erode. Trying to force the matter creates resentments that can be more insidious than the original prejudices.

                  But, humanity likes to leap before it is fully ready….

              2. I’m pretty sure being gay doesn’t make you into a tattletale.

                1. They will get a lot of encouragement from the JAGS and other REMFs.

  7. I still remember “SPC A.” the bisexual infantryman getting discharged under DADT back in ’07. Four years later, things have changed a bit.

    I never found out whether he was pitching or catching. It’s kind of awkward to ask such a question.

    1. Caught and prosecuted for Sodomy? Or did he “come out” publicly?

      When I headed to Desert Shield in ’90, we had a guy trying to convince the Company Commander he was gay and shouldn’t be deployed. The Major told him “I don’t care if you blow the whole company, you’re going.”

      1. Caught and processed for discharge as I understood it. I actually don’t know how that works inside the UCMJ.

        1. The UCMJ (basily the law members of the military live under) used to say that gay sex (Sodomy) was illegal.

          DADT made everyone stop looking for gays but kept the ban on gay sex on the books. As long as you didn’t make it absolutely impossible to ignore, everyone looked the other way.

          1. It wasn’t just gay sex. Technically “unnatural carnal contact” regardless of gender combination was proscribed. Not that anyone was prosecuted for the hetero variety.

            1. You probably aren’t going to get arrested for having the butt-sex with your wife. There are prosecutions for other sex crimes including adultery.

  8. By contrast, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain all allow gay people to serve.

    With very few exceptions, those would be places where I, as a FREE person, would NOT want to live, either.

    1. we dont want cermugdeons like ol mex either.

    2. Still better than Cuba, China, Iran, etc.

    3. Whether a bunch of countries that have no respectable military* allow gays to serve strikes me as pretty much irrelevant.

      *not counting Israel and I suppose the UK. Not sure about Canada and Germany, any more.

      1. Canada’s got a pretty respectable military (smallish, though) and so does Germany. We just don’t want Germany’s military to get too respectable, amirite?

  9. Libertarian narrative: Government discrimination against gay soldiers ends – yay!

    Gay-rights narrative: Discrimination ends in the military – next step, Congress needs to ban discrimination by private businesses – yay!

    1. If discrimination is the norm or even moderately common, government turning a blind eye is effectively the same as government endorsing discrimination. You have to weigh competing freedoms: the freedom to discriminate against the freedom to participate fully in one’s society and its commerce. If you are hindered from doing the latter because of how you were born, how do you justify the supposed virtues of the market?

      1. Re: Sockpuppet,

        If discrimination is the norm or even moderately common, government turning a blind eye is effectively the same as government endorsing discrimination.

        If ice cream eating is the norm, government turning a blind eye to ice cream eating would be effectively an endorsement of ice cream eating.

        You’re such the logician, sockpuppet.

        Fuck off, and leave the adult conversation to us, the adults. Go play with dolls; pretend you’re running government and vioate them, or something.

        1. You’re a vulgar obnoxious prick, you know that? It’s adult to respond to an argument with “fuck off”? Which is about the extent of the substance of most of your replies.

          1. Re: Sockpuppet,

            You’re a vulgar obnoxious prick, you know that? It’s adult to respond to an argument with “fuck off”?

            To your really imbecilic and inane arguments like the above, yes: it is proper.

            FUCK OFF!


            1. i gots nothingz

      2. When I took employment-discrimination law, one of the first things that we learned was that discrimination is an inefficiency for which markets tend to correct when left free to do so. Why do you think that anyone perceived racist laws like the Davis-Bacon Act to be necessary?

        1. Re: Doctor Whom,

          Why do you think that anyone perceived racist laws like the Davis-Bacon Act to be necessary?

          Unions: “It’s not racism when WE do it!”

          1. [UNIONZ] !

  10. Re: Nick,

    Using the Gordon/Welch kerfuffle as a starting point, Token Libertarian Girl asks whether being libertarian means you have to be socially liberal. I’d say yes, at least in terms of buying into the larger system of toleration.

    Why would that be? I can be a very tolerant, all-embracing idiot or a total social recluse and still be a libertarian, as long as I hold the beliefs that people are free to pursuit their interests, to keep their lives and their property. This is what Gordon was arguing, Nick.

    “Welch wonders how Ron Paul can be excluded from the libertarian mainstream and mentions a number of articles in Reason about him. He does not see that the point at issue is the implications of the definition that he and Gillespie proffer. If this definition mandates that libertarians are social liberals, then to the extent Paul is not a social liberal, he fails to qualify. If Welch nevertheless considers him one, he has not thought through what his own definition entails.”

  11. DADT will be just like the “flag burning controversy”(to borrow from PJ).

    it was an incredibly contentious issue until it got decided by the scotus. at the point at which it was finally decided, pretty much everybody stopped caring.

    you are free to burn flags (but god forbid don’t burn a koran) as long as you don’t do it in a no burn area or do it to somebody else’s flag and yet… the entire edifice of western civilization did not collapse.

    DADT will end … with a whimper and a few years from now, people will be “what was the big deal?”

    oh, and thanks to the log cabin REPUBLICANS for spearheading the decline of DADT.

    1. Re: dunphy,

      DADT will be just like the “flag burning controversy”(to borrow from PJ).

      And about time, too. As history has shown, an all-gay batallion can be quite formidable.

      1. yep ask the persians

        1. formidable and FABULOUS

          also, there is a certain pleasure in seeing homophobic fucksticks like those islamist assholes be completely pwned by gay military men.

  12. That’s especially the case in the world Matt and I describe in The Declaration of Independents, which is one in which (we argue) cultural, economic, and even political power is being decentralized and democratized

    In this book I’ve never heard of before, do you mistake the world you describe for the actual world?

    Because our actual world is getting less economically, culturally, and politically varied, and more conformist?and, especially culture-as-politics/politics-as-culture -wise, more policed for conformity?every day.

    How ’bout a li’l experiment?

    Why don’t you guys convincingly pretend to believe that, say, Muslims are an especially fuckheaded kind of religious fuckheads who deserve no more consideration than trailer-park snakehandlers?and probably less, because snakehandlers don’t throw snakes at Jews and fags?and that, oh, gays have let themselves be transformed from the world’s awesomest subculture into an effectively cultureless (Glee is minstrelsy!) subset and/or pet of Big Yuppie Asshole, and! especially! that the Palin family’s breeding in public is not only inoffensive, but totally cool, because they seem like nice neighborly folks who wouldn’t try to steal half your yard with some hinky adverse-possession shit, like you know the Obamas totally would, because they’re cunty.

    Then try to go on living the life you knew before you said those things.

    Do it.

  13. Well that’s just fabulous!

  14. “Woody Held.”
    Heh, heh.

    When I wrote a story about the first time condoms were advertised on airplane banners over Ohio Stadium on OSU game day, I led with “What would Woody think?”
    Alas, it didn’t make it past the copy desk.

    1. Damn squares. That’s gold.

  15. I like Julie Borowski, but she is desperately in need of diction lessons from Prof. Henry Higgins.

    1. It would only result in the rain in Shpain falling mainly on the plainsh. Eh, what would I know? I gave up my lisp in 3rd grade.

  16. Gee, why not start an all-gay battalion or division or something. You know, the way they made the blax fight back in the olde days when the white establishment military didn’t like them either?

    Then the gays can embarress and shame the military for their prejudice at the same time they “serve their country” (aka pretend to be a hero while rolling in stolen dough from taxpayers and cavorting on occupied stolen land) like the rest of the militurry.

    1. OK, you don’t like the military. Awesome for you.

      1. But does he like the military less than he likes ladyparts? That’s the question on everyone’s mind.

        1. I think his nightmares feature an all lesbian batiallion with sychronized periods (though I did think the bloody nose thing was kind of funny, in a gross-out, sugarfree kind of way).

          1. Ha ha, it makes me think of Hothead Paisan.

  17. It was a pleasant surprise to see a photo from the mostly forgotten anti-integration bombing in Clinton, TN. I am from Clinton, and went to the re-built high school that was partially destroyed (it’s now the middle school). There is a great documentary on it called “The Clinton Twelve” that everybody should check out.

  18. At least libertarians have accomplished one thing – they’ve made me want to apply a baseball bat liberally to anyone using the word “tolerant”.

  19. DADT is gone, though we have to change all the less then honorable discharges to Honorable, and pay restitution to people for the suffering they received by simply being truthful about them selves

    And it appears that those kicked out can now re-apply for the mil as long as they are now qualified under current regulations.

    Why was DADT a big deal?

    We have 2 million in our military uniformed service. Many of them dont know anyone who is gay.

    When the discover that people they know and respect, and mutually trust with each others lives are gay, thats 2 million more people on the side of equality.

    And 2 million more who will be deaf to the rantings of the hatemongers.

    I knew that basically we were the last Nato nation except Islamic turkey to end DADT type laws

    HOw many realize that we were the last westernized nation except Brazil to end slavery.

    Crimes against humanity all ginned up by conservative xtians – the same people who gave us slavery, the KKK, and segregation.

    And who now hate gays.

    Whats it really about – wnen the minister riles up the people, they contribute more money.

    Of course the churches conveniently forget the love of money is the root of all evil.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.