Join 3,562 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Getting pepper sprayed > enlisting
April 19, 2012 7:08 AM   Subscribe

"I was wrong about Don't Ask, Don't Tell." A discharged military activist and, lately, Occupy protester, now says, "The reason I’m wrong isn’t because gay people shouldn’t join the Army. It’s because no-one should join the Army."
posted by liketitanic (48 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

 
Lovely sentiment. However, human animals aren't going to stop trying to annihilate one another anytime soon, so the US needs a military.
posted by xingcat at 7:11 AM on April 19, 2012 [7 favorites]


I agree in spirit. Even if everyone stopped joining the military it isn't like it would just disappear. There would be a draft.

And even if one person thinks that no one should join the military, that activism for the repeal of DADT was wrong, that doesn't make it true. As long as there is a standing military in the United States, it should not have the right to discriminate against anyone.
posted by IvoShandor at 7:15 AM on April 19, 2012 [5 favorites]


It's already got one. No one should join it right now. It's too big.
posted by LogicalDash at 7:15 AM on April 19, 2012 [4 favorites]


The problem is that gay soldiers are now joining the military without hesitation. I helped to make that happen. I encouraged people to support the military industrial complex, an industry so large and so profitable that wars are seemingly now fought in order to award high-yield contracts to weapons manufacturers and private security operations like Blackwater.

I. Was. Wrong.


No. You. Were. Not.

I get where he's coming from - that any reason to keep someone out of the killing industry is a good reason - but DADT was never a good reason.
posted by three blind mice at 7:17 AM on April 19, 2012 [9 favorites]


That's a bit like saying we were wrong to let women own property, because all property is theft. It's a specious and disingenuously attention-grabbing way to make a point unrelated to discrimination.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:18 AM on April 19, 2012 [73 favorites]


the military industrial complex, an industry so large and so profitable that wars are seemingly now fought in order to award high-yield contracts to weapons manufacturers and private security operations like Blackwater.

This thing. Is there any way to do anything about this thing?
posted by Glinn at 7:19 AM on April 19, 2012


That's a bit like saying we were wrong to let women own property, because all property is theft. It's a specious and disingenuously attention-grabbing way to make a point unrelated to discrimination.

Thank you! I was trying to come up with a decent analogy to explain why I so strongly disagree with the FPP. This is better than anything I was coming up with.
posted by asnider at 7:22 AM on April 19, 2012 [4 favorites]


Out of curiosity, does Blackwater/Xe or whatever they're called accept openly gay soldiers of fortune? I don't know what the EEOC requires of US corporations operating mercenary death squads in foreign countries.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:22 AM on April 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


This reminds me of people who say they don't support gay marriage because they don't believe in marriage as an institution.

People who miss the goddamn point.
posted by kmz at 7:24 AM on April 19, 2012 [16 favorites]


The important thing is that we are debating how well the hook and content are matching and ignoring the content.
posted by DU at 7:28 AM on April 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


It might influence one's decision if "join the army" wasn't the "get paid less, get treated worse, be in more danger, get fewer benefits" version of "work for pure profit no-bid contracting firms totally outside all law and regulation." There's no comparing what being in the actual military is like today to what it was even a decade ago, let alone a generation or two.
posted by trackofalljades at 7:35 AM on April 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


I liked Ian Awesome's interview with former Seattle Chief of Police Norm Stamper who today regrets his decision to allow the use of chemical agents in the 1999 "Battle of Seattle". I especially appreciated Stamper's thoughts regarding the militarization of police departments in the US.
You know, I do believe that in general there has been a major increase in the militarization of American law enforcement. We are seeing SWAT teams used for things that were not part of the designed purpose of SWAT teams. They were established to deal with hostages, bank robberies, heavily armed individuals, and often times domestic violence situations where someone is holding their partner at gunpoint. SWAT is a smart response to these problems. What’s happened is SWAT is now being employed for very low level drug offenses, on political protests and other situations.
SWAT operations can get people killed when used improperly, even though the purpose is to protect lives, to include the lives of alleged perpetrators. There is a problem in law enforcement today and that is scared cops! They have been erroneously conditioned to believe that the next person who answers a door they knock on is going to kill them. If that’s your mindset and orientation and your tools are SWAT, tragic outcomes are all but inevitable.
posted by mistersquid at 7:36 AM on April 19, 2012 [10 favorites]


The problem is not the Army but the incentivisation to join the Army, and how the Army is being used at the moment ('pre-emptive' war against non-threatening nations for corporate economic purposes. I'm looking at you, dick).

In the current situation, people with no other economic options are joining the Army, signing their lives away. It's not dissimilar from the mentality of gang membership at the moment. People do not join gangs because gangs are honourable, but because there is a practical economic benefit in places few alternatives exist.

Israel and Germany both have compulsory civil service requirements for adults. Israel's is de facto military service. Germany's is either military service or civil service, depending on one's orientation. I am highly in favour of that system, for it teaches young people that society does not just exist, it exists on the contribution and sacrifice of individuals. Further, you can imagine the government would be less eager to deploy solidiers when young adults from all class backgrounds will be deployed to the front lines.

In the current volunteer system, those that volunteer often have no other voice, thus it's hard to mount visibile opposition. If they had a voice, they would be speaking out against lack of economic opportunities.

Or perhaps in Haiku:

We need an Army
We need a better Army
Equal chance for all.
posted by nickrussell at 7:42 AM on April 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


I really liked this article, because I think it changes the conversation rhetoric. As he says in the very first line, "My focus in activism was a narrow one, born from personal experience and thrust onto the national stage." To me that says everything. Why are we trying to fight for equal oppression? It's like the goats complaining that only the cows get to go in the "special truck."

Please note: I am not arguing in any way that, before DADT was repealed, straight people were better or did more to help or carried a heavier load than did gay people.
posted by rebent at 7:49 AM on April 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


Saw this coming a mile away. This was actually a problem BEFORE the removal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Many gay activists refused to take part in agitating for a change to military policy that would permit gays to serve openly because they fundamentally disagreed with the military. I don't fault those folks. I'd consider myself one of them under almost all other circumstances - but I'm a pragmatist and I realized that my opposition to our military can be divorced from my desire to see equality for queer folks here in the US. What's more, if I can USE the military to further MY agenda, all the better.

That said, the retrospective view is a little more intellectually problematic for me, since opposition to the military really has nothing to do with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Gay folks joined the military prior to its repeal as evidenced by - drumroll please - THE AUTHOR HIMSELF! If he's hanging his opposition on something as flimsy as "gays are more likely to join the military now that we've done this" well, color me a little skeptical. I'm sure they are. Marginally. I think the influx of gays into the military is going to be a relatively small uptick in folks who might have considered joining. I considered it when I was 18 and adrift in college and fairly certain I had no idea what I wanted in life aside from someone else to tell me exactly what to do. I was turned off by Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Sure. That was iffy. But I was ultimately turned off by something else that galvanized my opposition to military force - September 11. I think the thing that I remember most vividly is the horrifying national bloodlust that swept from sea to shining sea in the wake of that tragedy. And as I watched that, I realized that I wanted no part in whatever our nation was about to do in blind, vicious retribution for the injuries it had just sustained.

I'm sure not all gays have the same perspective and opinion that I do. But I suspect that queer folks, currently still a very publicly marginalized tiny minority, are more likely to their own "otherness" before putting on a flak jacket and picking up a gun to help kill another "other." But I am also reassured that even if they do, there will be policies in place to attempt to secure equal treatment for them. (Whether that happens or not is another issue entirely, and I certainly hope that the military is planning to track friendly fire deaths as they relate to sexuality in order to ensure that there is no disproportionate impact on folks now openly serving.) So while I still vehemently oppose the military at it currently exists, I am still confident that moving our country one step toward equality was the right thing to do.
posted by jph at 7:49 AM on April 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


This reminds me of people who say they don't support gay marriage because they don't believe in marriage as an institution.

People who miss the goddamn point.


I do not think that people are "missing the point." I think people who identify as LGBTQ and who do not "support" "gay marriage" (similarly-gendered marriage is more precise) are very intentional about making their own point. Many people, unlike this "discharged military activist" would not say that the discrimination inherent in a system of marriage that excludes people in similarly-gendered couples is a good thing (38/50, and potentially more after this election cycle, of U.S. states have one or multiple forms of "Defense of Marriage Acts"). Many LGBTQ individuals believe that (a) resources are being diverted to "marriage equality" that could be used to address structural/institutionalized racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism and disagree with the "national political strategy" of the mainstream "LGBTQ movement." Many see how marginalized LGBTQ identified people are not benefiting from marriage. A recent report from the Center for American Progress highlights this. Many of those individuals do not agree with supporting an institution that privileges those within it and punishes those outside of it; only benefiting are relationships and family constellations that the government finds pallatable (and which historically and currently has excluded those defined as "deviant" or "outsiders" by those with political power). For critiques on "marriage" that demonstrate the true negative consequences for LGBTQ people, visit some of Nancy Polikoff's writings. That said, none of the LGBTQ identified folks that I know miss the point that their exclusion from the "institution of marriage" is based on homophobia and transphobia.

The same can be said of LGBTQ-identified people who opposed the focus on Don't Ask, Don't Tell as a political agenda item, when the culture of war and the military often results in violence in other countries against people who are LGBTQ or violence that is homophobic/transphobic in nature (rape and other sexual violence, including sodomy), among other forms of violence. And violence within the military against LGBTQ identified (or presumed to be identified) solidiers. Similarly, people critique the strong correlation between poverty, race, class and enlistment. I have not personally heard LGBTQ identified people miss the point that DADT was homophobic and transphobic in its roots. (And by the way, the "end" of DADT has still left serious holes in the protections for enlisted members who are trangender identified. A group consistently left behind or thrown under the bus of the mainstream "LGBTQ movemement.") People have valid critiques of the military and "marriage."

I am not saying that this was/was not one of them. But to simply dismiss people who challenge something as missing "the goddam point" is a mistake.
posted by anya32 at 7:50 AM on April 19, 2012 [7 favorites]


society does not just exist, it exists on the contribution and sacrifice of individuals

If only there were enough space on a bumper sticker to include both this and enough snark to make it stick, you'd be a 1%er by now.

It's a shame that 14 words can induce too many complexities to be understood by the general populace these days. Although, putting that into perspective it does make sense why "The reason I’m wrong isn’t because gay people shouldn’t join the Army. It’s because no-one should join the Army." was subjected to the section and "I was wrong about Don't Ask, Don't Tell." got to live on the fpp.

Cart before the horse and all.

posted by Blue_Villain at 7:53 AM on April 19, 2012


...subjected to the -below the fold- section, that is

My kingdom for an edit button.
posted by Blue_Villain at 7:55 AM on April 19, 2012


Institutional discrimination based on sexual orientation is fucked up. The US uses its military in fucked-up ways. That does not mean that it's wrong to protest institutional discrimination in the military. Two fucked-ups don't cancel each other out to make a moot point.

I sympathize with the writer of the article -- I think a lot of people experience similar guilt when they repudiate a culture that was previously a big part of their identity, whether it's the military, religion, chosen career, etc. But people need to make their own choices, and dismissing this as invalid tips over into self-righteousness and undermines his own argument.
posted by desuetude at 8:10 AM on April 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


@Blue_Villain:

If only there were enough space on a bumper sticker to include both this and enough snark to make it stick, you'd be a 1%er by now.

I have no idea what you're on about. The point was about compulsory civil service imbuing young people with an understanding of society. I am completely in the dark as to your comment, if you care to elaborate.
posted by nickrussell at 8:11 AM on April 19, 2012


...subjected to the -below the fold- section, that is

My kingdom for an edit button.
posted by Blue_Villain at 7:55 AM on 4/19
[+] [!]


There is no more inside here, so I'm not sure what you're on about, either.
posted by liketitanic at 8:15 AM on April 19, 2012


But to simply dismiss people who challenge something as missing "the goddam point" is a mistake.

I apologize, I really did paint with too broad a brush there. In my experience, the people saying the things I was talking about have not been LGBTQ or allies, but rather people who believe themselves enlightened and say things like "I'm colorblind, I don't see race" or "I'm not a feminist, I'm an equalist" in earnest.
posted by kmz at 8:19 AM on April 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


My problem with arguments like this is that they are saying, in essence, "I want to stop gay people from making the wrong choice by not giving them that choice."

Some LGBTQI people are not against the 'culture of war and the military'. Some choose to enter the military for social or economic reasons. Taking Don't Ask/Don't Tell off the 'acceptable causes' agenda says that those people are less important.
posted by muddgirl at 8:20 AM on April 19, 2012 [7 favorites]


@muddgirl: My problem with arguments like this is that they are saying, in essence, "I want to stop gay people from making the wrong choice by not giving them that choice."

Perfect summation.
posted by nickrussell at 8:33 AM on April 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


(I don't think, by the way, that Ian Awesome intended his article to "take Don't Ask/Don't Tell off the 'acceptable causes' agenda - this issue is very personal to him and I think this essay should be taken in that light.)
posted by muddgirl at 8:39 AM on April 19, 2012


Well I guess Occupy finally has an agenda.
posted by Artw at 8:41 AM on April 19, 2012


Ah, the goddamn point:

That larger, insurmountable injustices are less worthy of our support than the smaller, easily conquered injustice.

I'll vote for marriage equality and will get married when it is legal. That won't stop me from thinking the entire legal institution is not right.
posted by munchingzombie at 8:41 AM on April 19, 2012


ven if everyone stopped joining the military it isn't like it would just disappear. There would be a draft.

Call me "out there" but we need conscription. We need a fair system of conscription where everyone, regardless of economic background, is required to be in the military and have an equal chance of having their face shot off to protect US interests abroad.

Know why? If it wasn't an all-volunteer military, the people in power would face tremendous pressure from the populace when they misused the military.

The way it works now, with an all-volunteer army, is there's this veneer of "he's serving his country, he's making a scarifice, he's noble," when the the fairer description was "he graduated from high school and he didn't want to work at the tire warehouse, so this was his best option." So the kid in question gets a job, and everyone is proud of the kid for taking the job as though it involved sacrifice. Then should he get blown up, everyone thinks "he was doing what he wanted to do. He knew the risks, and he did it anyway. What a hero," instead of "what a fucking waste."

If everyone was conscripted, and kids getting shot up to steal other countries' oil didn't volunteer, there would be Vietnam-level outrage much faster than Vietnam created it. Parents would take to the streets, kids waiting for call-ups would take to the streets. Politicians know this, so the current "military as armed branch of corporate interests" wouldn't exist. The military would be used for real threats, and used carefully.

I don't like the thought of my daughter having to take two years out of her life to be in the Army, but I think it would make for a better America.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:42 AM on April 19, 2012 [21 favorites]


"No Taliban ever called me fag..." Oh...
posted by symbioid at 9:06 AM on April 19, 2012


How's this for a goddamn point:

This topic(democracy) brings me to that worst outcrop of the herd nature, the military system, which I abhor. That a man can take pleasure in marching in formation to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; a backbone was all he needed. This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism by order, senseless violence, and all the pestilent nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism — how I hate them! War seems to me a mean, contemptible thing: I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business. And yet so high, in spite of everything, is my opinion of the human race that I believe this bogey would have disappeared long ago, had the sound sense of the nations not been systematically corrupted by commercial and political interests acting through the schools and the Press.

-Albert Einstein from "The World as I see it"

posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:09 AM on April 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


But what does that have to do with gay rights?

My impression is that Ian Awesome's point was that he feels like he wasted his time fighting for a DADT repeal, when instead he should have been fighting against the military-industrial complex itself.

Which is fine, but it doesn't equate to "Ian Awesome was wrong about DADT." He was right about DADT and he's probably right about the military-industrial complex.
posted by muddgirl at 9:16 AM on April 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


You'd think being anti-war would be as simple a stand to make as being anti-baby kicking.
posted by Bonzai at 9:21 AM on April 19, 2012 [4 favorites]


That's a bit like saying we were wrong to let women own property, because all property is theft. It's a specious and disingenuously attention-grabbing way to make a point unrelated to discrimination.

Yeah, what galls me is that this is internalizing and recapitulating right-wing gotcha talking points. "You're against hurting the environment, but hey hippie, Al Gore flew in an airplane once! So there!"

One of the reasons that DADT lasted as long as it did was the cultural self-selection that kept liberals out of an ever-more-conservative and religious military. This is not a good thing.
posted by dhartung at 9:30 AM on April 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


Out of curiosity, does Blackwater/Xe or whatever they're called accept openly gay soldiers of fortune?

It is kind of an unrealized dream of mine to own a company that does this very thing.
posted by elizardbits at 9:45 AM on April 19, 2012


This reminds me of people who say they don't support gay marriage because they don't believe in marriage as an institution.

People who miss the goddamn point.


I dunno. If you believe marriage is a harmful institution that should be abolished, and that abolition is more important than the defense of equal rights, then I can grok it. Keeping gay marriage illegal invalidates the institution; legalizing it, in the long term, will only cement its social foundation further.

Likewise with DADT. If it discourages people from joining the military, is that worth the violation of rights? It's an interesting question, at the least.

One of the reasons that DADT lasted as long as it did was the cultural self-selection that kept liberals out of an ever-more-conservative and religious military. This is not a good thing.

Again, if you are looking to dismantle or seriously defund the military in a significant way over the long term, then maybe it's not such a bad thing to make it unstable and associated with a population minority.

I don't like the thought of my daughter having to take two years out of her life to be in the Army, but I think it would make for a better America.

Personally, I'm with you, because (as you say) mandatory conscription would be the biggest defense against military action, b/c hey, now legislators got kids in the army.

My problem with arguments like this is that they are saying, in essence, "I want to stop gay people from making the wrong choice by not giving them that choice."

Some LGBTQI people are not against the 'culture of war and the military'. Some choose to enter the military for social or economic reasons. Taking Don't Ask/Don't Tell off the 'acceptable causes' agenda says that those people are less important.


Exactly. I don't necessarily think that's such a ridiculous conceit. Warmongers and people willing to kill are less important than pacifists. I have little problem with that notion.

I don't agree with the argument for DADT (I think the defense of rights is more important), but I can certainly grok it. In some ways, it reminds me a bit of Michael Mello, the death-row lawyer who stopped defending clients and started working outside the system because he felt that by defending clients we was enabling the system.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:08 AM on April 19, 2012


I refuse to believe there is something inherently wrong with joining the military. We have politicians who use the military for shitty, greedy ends because we keep allowing these politicians to get away with it. That doesn't make the military bad. Reforms need to happen (DADT), but as usual, that's far less about the military itself than it is about the civilian leadership.

Would a massive enlistment boycott for the specific purpose of preventing the misuse of the military have an effect on how it is used by politicians? Maybe. For a short time. Good luck establishing the kind of message unity you'd need to make that happen.

If you honestly think that enlisting means you implicitly condone torture, or imperialism, or the murder of innocent civilians, then on behalf of myself and everyone else who has honorably served, please accept my upturned middle finger.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:13 AM on April 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


Likewise with DADT. If it discourages people from joining the military, is that worth the violation of rights? It's an interesting question, at the least.

Not if you care about equality, no. According to this logic, gun control advocates ought to support laws which bar blacks from owning guns.

Again, if you are looking to dismantle or seriously defund the military in a significant way over the long term, then maybe it's not such a bad thing to make it unstable and associated with a population minority.

You'd prefer the military to centralize its power and resources amongst a conservative ideological minority? DADT did not make military expansion unstable.

Also, there's much more to the military than killing people. Ask anyone who's driven on an interstate highway, or gotten some help from Coasties.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:18 AM on April 19, 2012 [4 favorites]


In some ways, it reminds me a bit of Michael Mello, the death-row lawyer who stopped defending clients and started working outside the system because he felt that by defending clients we was enabling the system.

And again, I have no problem with individuals making personal decisions about what is most important to them. What I do have a problem with (and I don't think Ian Awesome was necessarily doing this) is when people use these personal decisions as reasons not to support a cause at all (I see this most often with gay marriage arguments, probably because gay marriage bans were more controversial than DADT).

Warmongers and people willing to kill are less important than pacifists.

In an anti-war movement? Yes. In a gay rights movement? Hell no. It's incredibly immoral, not to mention ineffective, to only fight for the rights of those who agree with us. Gay Americans deserve the right to participate in American society as Americans. That means they deserve the right to participate in the shitty aspects as well as the good ones.
posted by muddgirl at 10:23 AM on April 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


In an anti-war movement? Yes. In a gay rights movement? Hell no. It's incredibly immoral, not to mention ineffective, to only fight for the rights of those who agree with us.

I think "efficacy" of a "movement" is dependent upon the ultimate goal of "the movement." What is "the gay rights movement"? Who gets to define the "goals of the movement"? Who gets to lead/be the "face" if you will of "the movement." I think that there are people who are claimed as members of the "LGB (fake T)" movement who do not feel as though their values, wishes, goals are being pursed by the "maintream movement." There are individuals who feel as though pursuing the end of DADT hurt them, their communities, and the greater world because resources were not spent on addressing their lived needs.

I recognize that people choose to enlist for many intentional reasons and I neither have the authority nor the desire to speak for them. AND, I generally try to exercise caution when speaking of a "movement" - because, again, whose movement is it? Who benefits? Who (yet again), is further marginalized or ignored? I find those conversations to be invaluable.
posted by anya32 at 10:42 AM on April 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


I refuse to believe there is something inherently wrong with joining the military.

I refuse to believe that encouraging, glorifying, and endorsing a "service" who's main purpose is to facilitate the killing of other human beings is anything other than inherently wrong. Not to mention a threat to the survival of our species.

If you honestly think that enlisting means you implicitly condone torture, or imperialism, or the murder of innocent civilians, then on behalf of myself and everyone else who has honorably served, please accept my upturned middle finger.

Straw meet man, unless of course someone has actually suggested that in this thread.

Also, there's much more to the military than killing people. Ask anyone who's driven on an interstate highway, or gotten some help from Coasties.

True but those things can be had without a military establishment.

The bottom line is that military establishments are not good bed fellows with open societies. The American Empire can't collapse soon enough as far as I'm concerned, then maybe the rest of us non imperialists can get on with building a better global society in a true post colonial world.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:29 AM on April 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


The American Empire can't collapse soon enough as far as I'm concerned, then maybe the rest of us non imperialists can get on with building a better global society in a true post colonial world.

Good luck with that.
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:32 AM on April 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


By his logic, DADT was unfairly discriminating against straight people
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:40 AM on April 19, 2012


Also, there's much more to the military than killing people. Ask anyone who's driven on an interstate highway, or gotten some help from Coasties.

Or been flooded out of their homes.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:37 PM on April 19, 2012


I'm friends with Ian Awesome, and he is indeed awesome. And while I may not agree with what he writes sometimes, I'm glad his work is getting out there to the larger public.
posted by spinifex23 at 12:56 PM on April 19, 2012


As Mayor Curley said, we need mandatory service in the USA. It will will again tie us together as a country. As it is we are flying off in all directions.

I just looked up German Conscription. Unfortunately Germany just ended its mandatory service in 2011. They used to have the option of 6 months in the military or one year of alternate civilian service. It was ended as a cost-saving measure.

That depresses me. I don't see any way forward towards an egalitarian future without us all being in it together, and I don't see us being in it together currently.
posted by GregorWill at 2:17 PM on April 19, 2012


Good luck with that.

Well with the collapsing part luck isn't really needed, but with the building a better society part yeah...
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 2:42 PM on April 19, 2012


military industrial complex

It is the military-industrial-Congressional complex, and don't let them tell you different.

As far as the 'militarization' of police, the rules of engagement I'm familiar with prohibit this sort of action against unarmed, nonviolent protestors. Their mission creep and bloated departmental budgets (usually driven by 'homeland security' grants) have given them gear, but no understanding.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:03 PM on April 19, 2012


liketitanic: ""The reason I’m wrong isn’t because gay people shouldn’t join the Army. It’s because no-one should join the Army.""

I've said this for a long, long time.

I'm OK with the Army having rules saying that only left-handed hemophiliacs named O'Brian can join, if it means they have less troops to run the machine.
posted by dunkadunc at 6:42 PM on April 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


« Older How a fire in a small German town threatens to cau...  |  The wonders of space.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments