Why I Hate…Debating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

By Nick Rodham Churchill

It has been 17 years since Don’t Ask Don’t Tell passed through Congress and was signed by the President of the United States.  While the legislation was still absurd then, it’s even more out of place, out of character, and out of tune with American values now.  Dozens of countries now allow gay men and women to serve openly, including progressive gems like Uruguay and Peru.  Meanwhile, those countries that disallow gays and lesbians from serving include Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Yemen (among others).  Dear god, which club would you rather be in?

While I do hate the legislation as a whole, what I almost hate more is the ridiculous fact that – in 2010 – we have to even consider debating whether the legislation should be repealed or not.  Statements include things like “we have to study the impact of such measures on troop moral” and “we don’t straight troops to feel uncomfortable.”  On that first point, isn’t it slightly more demoralizing to have to hide your identity to die for your country?  It’s like, “okay, you can take that bullet or fight that war but only if you pretend you’re not yourself.”  On the latter point, why are we only concerned about the straight troops feeling uncomfortable?  They’ll inevitably be the majority regardless of whether people can serve openly in the military.  They’ll still dominate the armed service and – AND – if they’re that scared and emotional about a few homos, shouldn’t we be reconsidering whether they’re really fit to serve?  It’s like, “yes sir, I am ready to face down a terrorist wearing a bomb but a homosexual?  Preposterous!”

These past few weeks it seemed all would be made right in the World as Congress finally moved toward a repeal (something an overwhelming majority of Americans AND Service Members agree with).  Then suddenly, without warning, it emerged that Obama may not have enough votes to seal the deal.  A few thoughts:  1. WHAT?  2. SERIOUSLY?  3. COME ON!

I HATE that anyone thinks there is possibly an alternative debate to this issue, and it remains a real problem in the media sphere as well.  In a constant pursuit of “balance” every side is given a voice, legitimizing every side regardless of whether or not they make any sense, can back up their claims, or are even supported by a significant number of people.  Not everything is black and white (or in this case, camouflage and rainbow).  Sometimes one side is actually more right and the other is just flat-out bigoted, discriminatory, and wrong.

Even this group of STRAIGHT soldiers in Iraq agrees, and put together this little number in protest of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  Git it girl!

Musings On The Colour Of The Tie

By Tal-Anna Szlenski

Whilst myself and another of my Spin Surgeon companions sat to watch the parliamentary debate ensuing the Queen’s Speech, I started pondering about ties.

During the election campaign a lot of attention was paid to the tie colours and patterns worn by the main contenders in the race. Now, tie-spotting seems to have become somewhat of a fad. However I actually have a bit of a penchant for ties and scarves (and additionally have no qualms judging a person by their socks – yes, really). Hence, I started philosophying about the signals sent by the new leadership-duo, based on their ties earlier today:

So, did Cameron’s baby blue tie suggest his Conservative views had been watered down by his partnership with the Lib Dems?

And perhaps of more interest, what did it mean when Nick Clegg’s face turned wretched and became as red as his tie when Harman spoke of his partnership with the Tories? Was it a pityful appeal to the Labour oppistion, upon a realisation that his initial fascination with the Tories has worn off?

Now if only I had a view of their socks too…

And we’re back!

By Tal-Anna Szlenski

We’re back, and with changes as to how we’re going to run this blog in the future. 

As some might have noticed, the last post on this blog was submitted almost a month ago. This lack of posts was not because we didn’t have anything to say. I mean, it was UK election time! Of course we had something to say. And a lot of it.

Yet it posed a problem. You see, within this fine group of people contributing to the blog, many found themselves in a bit of a dilemma. Most, if not all, of us are – quite unsurprisingly –  established, or seeking to be, in the realms of politics, journalism and communication. We had to admit that blog posts of a controversial nature under personal names could compromise any professional reputation, with the click of a Google search.

Hence, our solution to this problem, and the way the blog will be run in the future looks like this:

The list of contributors to the blog shall remain with our names. Yet we have all chosen a internet moniker which we will use consistently with our posts. With this system we hope to retain accountability, as well as a mild degree of anonymity.  

This resolution of ours  is perhaps not perfect nor fool-proof, but it serves our purpose in this conoundrum so typical for the so-called internet age.

With this new meassure many more posts should be emerging, and we look forward to explore how our solution takes form in practice. Of course we are interested in hearing any other suggestions, or thoughts on what you guys reckon about this? Please do share.

As such, consider this the last ‘named’ post on the blog.

Happy friday!