Today there’s good news and more good news and some bad-but-so-stupid-it’s-funny news.
Good News 1: The House of Representatives voted yesterday to let the Defense Department repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the ban on gay and bisexual people serving openly in the armed forces. Also yesterday, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a similar measure allowing the repeal of the ban. The repeal’s ultimate fate in the Senate is uncertain, but momentum has been building lately in favor of repealing the discriminatory ban, and yesterday’s votes were major steps toward that goal. By the way, recent polls from the Washington Post/ABC and the New York Times show between 70 and 75 percent of Americans think gays should be able to serve openly in the military.
Good News 2: We also have a Stupid Thing of the Week, which leads us to . . .
Bad-but-so-stupid-it’s-funny News: The religious right has stepped up pressure on its sheep in Congress to fight the repeal, including an incredible rant from the Family Research Council saying that repealing the ban “will turn the U.S. military into a terrifying free-rape zone” where straight service members “will be fellated in their sleep against their will.” That’s still not as goofy as the rightwing group America’s Survival, which claimed repeal would mean that “disease-tainted gay blood threatens our troops,” and would lead to “transgendered individuals who want to dress up as members of the opposite sex and would cry ‘discrimination’ if they are not allowed to do so.” The evidence given for this? Corporal Klinger of the TV show MASH. No, I’m not kidding. Read it and laugh (or weep) here.
Republican members of Congress responded to the religious right’s pressure with unintended hilarity. Most of the Republicans who spoke on the floor of the House yesterday tried to portray the repeal as a danger, an unwanted “social experiment,” or an “insult to the troops.” Read about their arguments here.
Our favorite comments came from Rep. Todd Akin (R-MI), who asked, “So are we going to protect and condone homosexuality in the military?…Is this the sort of thing that George Washington or our founders would be proud of, that we are doing today in this quick flash before Memorial Day?” Well, here’s a “quick flash” for Rep. Akin and all likeminded bigots: Baron Friedrich von Steuben. Who was that? He was a Prussian aristocrat, a well-known gay man, and oh by the way, was also Inspector General and Major General of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Von Steuben taught George Washington’s army the basics of military service, wrote the Revolutionary War Drill Manual, and eventually served as Gen. Washington’s chief of staff. Yessiree, those gays are a real threat to America. Now, Rep. Akin, and all the other backward lemmings of the right who love to refer to the Founding Fathers, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Maybe it’ll keep you quiet for at least a few minutes.
This article appears in May 25-31, 2010.
There is no concrete evidence that von Steuben was gay. Thus, it’s just an assumption made to help the debate against DADT.
You also missed the point that most historians credit 2 people for the US’s independence and Steuben is one of them.
Concrete evidence? What do you want exactly? A 1780 woodcarving of Von Steuben in drag with his signature on it?
It’s true that there is no “concrete evidence” of von Steuben’s homosexuality. There’s also no proof that Little Richard is gay, either, but come on. The truth is that when you research von Steuben thoroughly, you find that there was a very strong general consensus, in other words it was common knowledge, among nearly everyone who knew von Steuben that he was gay. He even kept young, handsome “assistants” with him at all times while he was turning Washington’s ragtag army into a real fighting force. Too bad more homophobic Repugnicans don’t know about that bit of U.S. history, since it tears the hell out of some of their preconceived notions of patriotism, history, sexuality, individual rights, and macho John Wayne-ish nonsense. So my original point is still the same: gays have served honorably in America since Day One. Hey, maybe that great student of history, Glenn Beck, could bring up von Steuben on his show – nahh, probably not since it doesn’t have anything to do with Hitler.
Whatever “evidence” exists is rumor and conjecture.
“At the age of 33, in 1763, Steuben was discharged as a captain from the army, for reasons that are only speculative.”
The more likely reason is that the Prussian army downsized tremendously and von Steuben was left without work. Also, all that exists were rumors that seemed to have only existed back in Prussia. Most of the sources I’ve read mention he sought work elsewhere because of the rumors that could easily have been out of jealousy. (Just think of any political campaign that takes ‘facts’ in order to mudsling. Ex/ President Obama isn’t a terrorist, but wasn’t that an idea spread a lot during the campaign?) Once he is in the US, however, it’s different. Sure now they say he has a male assistant, but seriously? That’s going to be your evidence? And adding quotes to say “assistant” doesn’t make it any more factual. Nice try though.
Rumors are not fact. To simply call him a homosexual and use his as a poster boy in order to get DADT repealed is ridiculous and insulting. To history and intelligence.
And how funny that all this conveniently gets attention now?
Do some actual research and then talk.
And, Walter, really?
Was your comment supposed to be pointless?
If you have to make history state that von Steuben was gay in order to validate the efforts and sacrifices of homosexuals in the military, you’re kind of doing the opposite of your intended goal.
Those that argue that he was gay and that this proves gays should be in the military make the entire argument sound weak.
Frank Griffin is truly mentally ill. He is posting as anonymous now and arguing with other people only to try and back up his sick, twisted views and opinions.
Thank you, Mr. Pruitt, for your commentary and the truth on the matter. Worry not about the pitiful ramblings of ‘Frank Griffin’ or ‘Anonymous’. Just one in the same, just like the rest of the psycho republican teabaggers. God help them.
Thank you for assuming that’s who I am?
I can assure you that you’re incorrect in your assumptions.
The fact that common sense can be labelled as “mentally ill” and “sick, twisted” says a lot about you.
Oh, and I’m not Republican. Nor am I Democrat or anything else. I am just sensible and actually give a crap about history.
Reread my comment. You’ll realize how foolish you sound.
Not to mention, Rosa, that you added nothing to the argument. You merely called Walter’s comment “truth”. Care to explain why you think so? And why my actually sensible and fact-based comments make you think I am a mentally ill person?
Once again, I direct you to my comments. Nothing reads of a ‘psycho republican teabagger’. Quite the opposite, if anything.
But thank you for your comment that lacked any semblance of intelligent argument. It just reinforces my belief that most people like to ignore fact and merely base their argument on feelings and unrelated thoughts and then attack those that can make a valid argument. (Which is painfully obvious by most of your words being negative criticisms that are quite unfounded and reflect poorly on you.)
LIAR
My God, it is that Frank Griffin. So sad, so pitiful.
Thank you, Mr. Pruitt, for your commentary and the truth on the matter. Worry not about the pitiful ramblings of ‘Frank Griffin’ or ‘Anonymous’. Just one in the same, just like the rest of the psycho republican teabaggers. God help them.
Ignorance is bliss…
— L.M.
(Notice those aren’t Frank Griffin’s initials! Oh snap!)
P.S. Repetition doesn’t make an argument stronger or any more valid. Just so you know for future use. And the fact that I, someone in my 20s, appears more knowledgeable and sensible than you, who I’m guessing is older or trying to be, says a lot.
Frank,
If comparing me to you means that I use logic when stating my opinion, than so be it. I don’t take it as anything offensive.
It is sad that any words of intelligence can so easily be ignored. And their need to attack the person behind the words instead of the words themselves prove they have no argument. Logic, it seems, is too difficult for them to comprehend. Quite pathetic on their part.
It’s refreshing to hear someone capable of reading information, judging it for what it is instead of just accepting it, and have something logical to say about it.
Your lies won’t change the facts. You can use ‘anonymous’ all you want. Only a mentally ill person would create a ‘make-believe friend’ up to back up their opinion on a message board. But I guess you have to do that if you want anyone to support most of your psychotic lies.
How dare you make sexually harrassing statements to me. Just because you hate women and are a true racist and certified pshycho, doesn’t give you the right to threaten women and their children as you have in the past. Perhaps we need to take some extra steps to track down who you really are and where you live. Maybe it’s time some nice liberal attorneys come knocking at your asylum door. Keep on and see.
Rosa,
I think you need to stop reading into things and seeing what’s not there. THAT is a sign of someone mentally ill. He made no comments that were sexually harassing. He merely called you out on your own words so you can stop playing the part of a victim.
Oh, and I’m not a male. Your assumptions are just that. Assumptions. You know nothing of me or, apparently, the argument at hand.
And I choose to be anonymous because of people like you. The point is to argue opinion, not attack an identity. And, yet, you’ve attempted to do that even though I haven’t provided you my identity to attack. Kudos to you.
Also, I do not know Frank Griffin nor any of his past posts you keep mentioning. Perhaps there’s truth in what you say, but I have no idea and judging from your method of argument, I am left to wonder how much truth could be held in your words. I am not affiliated with this blog or site at all. I saw the article on a search and felt compelled to respond. If you are a regular on this site, perhaps you should have learned by now how to respond to an article or opposing view/argument properly. Especially considering you never answered my questions having to do with the POINT of this whole post. You merely attack an anonymous person and in order to do so you give me a character — one of a person you apparently can’t stand and, therefore, ignore any logical rationale. What if I used my name? Would you still call me Frank? Really now? Is it so impossible that another person on this planet can have a similar view? I’m not calling you Walter, am I?
If anyone radiates a closemindedness here, it’s you.
Go to bed Frank and stop your sick foolishness. More and more ridiculous rants with every post, whichever name you decide to use or personality you take on for the moment.
Perhaps since Glen Beck says that he has been sent by God to get President Obama out of office, maybe you can claim you were sent by the Devil in Hell to try and help? Unfortunately, psychopathic claims like that only makes people’s assumptions about all of you that much more substantiated.
God Bless.
Rosa,
You’re speaking jibberish and, as such, I can no longer follow your ranting.
You sound foolish and nonsensical. But can’t teach an old dog new tricks so I’ll stop trying to educate you. Or even use logic. You obviously can’t follow.
So enjoy your day and your lunacy. I can only hope that other people aren’t affected by it. It would certainly decrease their IQ…
G’day.
A palabras necias, oídos sordos.
No se hizo la miel para la boca del asno.
Good, now get the hell out Frank!
Ay mujer. Tienes muchos problemas.
Que Dios te bendiga. Es obvio que la necesita.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
some concrete current statistics about queers. A war setting is a place wher imediate first aid is needed which will often involve mingling of blood. Emergency transfusions or just applying pressure to a wound when you have a scratch or open wound yourself. Do you really want to encourage much higher risk of those diseased with life threatening std which can be cotracted by mingling of bood?
Why is aids treated as a privacy issue rather than a life threatening disease? In the US congress and OSHA mandate I have a right to know what hazards I’m exposed to in the workplace. If the ground pounder beside me has aides or a significantly higher than normal risk of having aides and/or syphilis shouldn’t I have a right to know that?