Really not sure where to put this one. I’m not sure there’s much to debate here, but it is not Mundane or Pointless. Might should have gone in IMHO. I suppose someone may want to take a contra position.
According to the article, Bill White has support from a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and also has support in Congress. He’s never been in the military, but Secretary of the Navy is a civilian post anyway.
Truth be told, there was a time when I was pretty adamantly opposed to gays in the military. It is one of the very few arguments where I actually conceded defeat. A group of friends of mine used to eat lunch and argue law/politics while in law school. We called the group “The Round Table”. I was on the right, Buddy A was a left winger, and Buddy B was more of a centrist. We were all veterans. The topic turned to gays in the military, and I was arguing the usual morale/discipline position. Buddy A then asked me: “Oak, if gays can’t serve in the military, what did your service mean?”. Considering the obligation to support and defend the Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause thereof, I had no answer. In mixed martial arts terms, I tapped out clean at that point. Had to admit he was right, and I was wrong.
This particular appointment is not official at this point, but for those concerned about the Rick Warren thing, this may balance the scales, so to speak. Could also open some doors in the military in the next few years…
It’ll be interesting to see if this pans out, as the article isn’t going on much. It would certainly indicate more urgency to repeal DADT than I’ve been expecting, which would be nice. And it would be nice to see some gestures toward us social liberals, rather than “bipartisanship” just meaning center-left and points rightward.
One has to wonder, though, with a gay guy as SECNAV, where’s the love for rum and the lash?
If the Navy heads don’t care, I don’t see that it’s an issue.
I was in an international business class when I was in college and there was a question we had to ponder which of a group of fictional people should be put in charge of a factory in Mexico. The one who seemed the most qualified of these was a woman, but personally I voted that she wouldn’t be a good choice because Mexico has a fairly high level of machismo and it could be a non-worthwhile task for a woman to try and take charge versus hiring a man who was slightly less qualified.
So the question here is whether it would be a hindrance and if so whether it would be a worthwhile task to work to overcome that, versus putting someone in who can do the job and be productive from the get-go. Seeing as we’re still at war, productivity strikes me as being a pretty high requirement. If we weren’t, working on overcoming any gay issues in the navy would likely be worthwhile.
But since I don’t know whether the navy heads care, I don’t have an opinion one way or the other on the choice as yet.
Well if no one else is going to do it, I guess I’ll have to start:
Ahem: In the navy
Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, people, make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
So accomodate their biases rather than give the most qualified person (woman, gay) the opportunity she or he deserves? If you can’t promote even the most qualified, when will women and gays get a break?
Different areas are going to be more or less favorable to the idea. Pick those groups that seem on-the-edge as the places to place women and gays and working out from there as the idea becomes more accepted. That seems like the most effective course. Placing someone where they’re going to be ignored and fail at accomplishing anything doesn’t accomplish anything, good intentions be as they may be. It just means you have to yank the person back out without having changed a single mind.
Sure, the person might have succeeded, but in general there’s at least as many viable positions available to candidates of a certain type (female, gay, whatever) as there are candidates of that type available. Areas accepting of gays are going to produce gay candidates. Areas which aren’t, aren’t. You put the gay candidate in where he’ll be acceptable and he’ll show to other places that a viable candidate will do just as good of a job as any other viable candidate and the acceptable area will grow, producing new candidates to fill those positions. If you can take chances comfortably, then sure go ahead and be a bit more adventurous in your placement. But realize that the odds are worse for success and possibly could prove a negative in changing minds.
And like I said, the main issue right now is that we aren’t in a position where we can be adventurous. We need to accomplish particular goals in the Middle East very fast and get our economy going again. Gay rights are important, but not as important as a global recession which will lead to more deaths around the world and other nasty things.
Compared to the people who held the position during Bush’s presidency, White’s role as president of the Intrepid museum and involvement in the non-profit organisation doesn’t really seem like significant preparation for the job.
The two most recent holders of the job were basically scientists who became defense contractors. Granted, working for Lockheed or Northrup Grumman makes you familiar with defense procurement. But is some researcher turned corporate VP from the defense-industrial complex really the ideal candidate? For better or worse, managing a nonprofit foundation is a lot more like managing a government organization than is managing a similarly-sized for-profit corporation. And there is the added bonus of breaking out of the nasty iron triangle so embedded in the defense industry.
If the job requires actual technical know-how, I’ll cede the point. But my guess is that it requires people skills and money management skills–both of which are evidenced as much by White’s background as Bush’s appointees’.
Well, as a gay man, I’m sure he’s got plenty of experience handling…
…nope. Not going to do it. I’m above it. Just by the hairline, but I’m above it.
In all seriousness, it’s a right wing culture, homophobia is the norm, and I would expect there to be plenty of indignation, sneering and jokes. At the end of the day, though, it doesn’t matter what they think. They’ll do their jobs like they always do.
Given the job description posted by Grumman, how often will he really be associating with the average seaman? It sounds more like he’ll be working with the very top echelon of Navy brass, and third-party contractors and businessmen.
