I was going to comment on a pretty bad editorial in the Toronto Sun on gays in the military, but chose not to do since it required me to login with facebook and then I would have to allow the Sun to "Access my basic information: Includes name, profile picture, gender, networks, user ID, list of friends, and any other information I've shared with everyone." What a crappy policy! You can only comment on their web-placed articles if you give up all this info? One thing to ask for a real id and perhaps an email address, but the rest? No thanks. Remind me not to send an op-eds to them.
Anyhow, the crappy piece, calls repealing DADT a political decision and then makes a bunch of points that are not backed up by data. First, to call this decision political means what exactly? Well, it means that politicians made it, and perhaps were not focused on effectiveness. Well, that may be true, but banning gays from the military was also a political decision. Obama was playing to his base, certainly, but public opinion, as repeated demonstrated, has moved to being in favor of repealing DADT. Moreover, DADT is very much counter to some of the basic elements of being an American: free speech, due process, equal protection under the law. Again, to call something that is controversial political ranges from naive to mendacious.
Second, the article actually tries to make the point that European countries have gays in the military but have underperformed in Afghanistan. Tell that to the Danes that have been fighting hard in the toughest parts of Afghanistan with few restrictions (few caveats) and paying a high price in casualties--highest per capita. Tell that to the Aussies who have been working hard in Uruzgan but/and have gays in their military. Same for the British. And France went from caveated to not so much without any change in their policy of gays serving in the military. So, this doofus who wrote the opinion piece is sorely lacking in facts.
So, the Toronto Sun publishes pieces that are really stupid (as in clearly wrong and not fact-based) and then requires one to surrender heaps of information in order to comment.
Sounds like the need a Letter to the Editor.
Post a Comment