"Don't ask, Don't tell" policy

In 1993 president Bill Clinton introduced "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy under compromise with legislators who opposed a complete repeal of the 1982 Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, the prior ban on gays in the military. The policy bans gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people from serving in the military. The policy also bans military officials asking questions or pursuing investigations of soldiers suspected of being homosexuals. Any service member that openly reveals their homosexuality through words or actions is discharged from service. On September 9, 2010, a federal district judge declared the policy to be unconstitutional. On October 12, 2010 Federal Judge Virginia Philips granted a worldwide, immediate injunction prohibiting the Department of Defense from enforcing or complying with the Don’t ask, Don’t tell policy, and ordered the military to suspend and discontinue any investigation or discharge, separation, or other proceeding that have been commenced under the policy. On October 19, 2010, military recruiters were told they can accept openly gay applicant. On October 20, 2010 a federal appeals court in California granted a temporary stay reversing a worldwide injunction against enforcement of the US military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy maintain the DADT policy.

I personally agree with federal judge Virginia Philips worldwide injunction prohibiting the Department of Defense from complying with “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy. I don’t see how allowing openly gays into the army could harm anybody. Being openly gay doesn’t affect the knowledge and skills you have to have to survive in the army. I really don’t see any difference between people being in the army and not being openly gay and them being openly gay. Yes it may offend some people but if those certain people let openly gays affect the way they perform their duties then that would be the responsibilities of the judgmental people, not of the openly gays. I would like to see the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy gone for good, there is no reason why it should even still be in effect.

Memo to President

In John Aravosis’s blog, “Memo to the President: No one is asking you to be Superman”, he expresses the some of the nations’ lack of trust in President Obama’s ability to govern. He states that while no one expects the president to be Superman, supporters would like to feel Obama is at least trying to do his job and keep up with promises made during election campaigns. Instead, Aravosis believes Obama “prefers to avoid what he considers "controversial" issues all together”, leaving some doubt of whether or not Obama realizes the full extent of his job as our nation’s leader.

According to Aravosis, Obama supporters contend that this president prefers to work behind the scenes, taking his time while contemplating the nation’s biggest problems with little wasted emotion. This kind of leadership became evident in the initial downplay of the BP oil spill disaster. Our country expects its leaders to lead and “show [their faces] when a crisis arises”.

Aravosis further accuses the President of not “[grabbing] onto an issue like a dog with a bone, tenaciously working it until you get the best deal possible, even if all your hard work goes on under the radar, behind the scenes.” He further notes Obama prefers to make a public statement about his goals and then sit back “until things are ready to fall apart”. Aravosis makes reference of this action on Obama’s health care reform, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, immigration, as well as lots of other campaigned issues. Aravosis believes the President sits back and lets his staff and Congress work on the issues until the last minute, and then take credit for the deal, only if the outcome turns out favorable.

Aravosis bring up some good arguements when he states the different topics that President Obama has yet to work on, keeping in mind that all he seems to be doing is taking the credit.

I agree with everything Aravosis is saying which is sad because I will soon be voting in my first presidential election and I have little trust in its (Presidents) office as of now.

"Will the Win Endure"

On August the 21  2010, Ralph Peters posted an editorial about the U.S. winning the war in Iraq and most of our soldiers returning home. Ralph Peters served in the US Army both as an enlisted man and officer for over twenty years, has written twenty-four books, and has been with the New York Post for about eight years. Because of Peter’s strategic experiences and dealings in seventy countries, one may tend to side with him and his article, “Will the Win Endure”, as it talks about Peter’s opinion of what will happen now that “President Obama has disengaged just when we need personal involvement at the highest level”. Peters seems to be afraid that all of our successes in Iraq such as “a major Arab democracy, and defeating a horrific dictator along with Al Qaeda”, might “go south”. “Iraqis have begged us to help them. They've pleaded with this administration to stay in the ring and referee their pols. They desperately want us to keep some token troop presence beyond New Year's Eve, 2011”. But with President Obama’s recent change in focus the Iraqis could believe that we have given up on them, and the effect of this could be the Iraqis giving up on themselves. “We're so close . . . it would be unforgivable to fail for want of a little high-level attention to Baghdad.”

Quotes from http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/will_the_win_endure_gv9gL0NEMHhS1IOWjjcJMK

Bio info from http://www.nypost.com/columnists/ralphpeters