Politicos are very adept at changing course, denying, and outright lying when it comes to the fine art of retraction. The technique may be described as clarification but always involves backpedaling, spinning, and/or reinterpreting what had been said or done earlier.
NASA. Space or Politics: NASA chief Charles Bolden caused a brouhaha last month when he re-defined the mission of our space agency by telling the Arab language newspaper, al Jazzera, that his “perhaps foremost” priority was outreach to the Muslim community thereby standing on its head NASA’s long-established mission of space exploration.
(See “I Betcha Thought NASA Was Still NASA,” http://tiny.cc/v2u3f)
That mission seemed eminently reasonable considering that NASA is an acronym for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
White House head flack Robert Gibbs gently reminded Bolden that he was wrong, that he had misspoken and “That [reaching out to Muslims] was not his task and that’s not the task of NASA.”
However, Charles Bolden is not a dumb bunny and didn’t unilaterally take it upon himself to change the mission of his agency: He was directed to do so by none other than his boss, President Barack Hussein Obama, who had instructed him on his priorities before giving him the NASA job: Inspire children to learn math and science, expand international relationships and “perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science . . . and math and engineering.”
Furthermore, “A White House spokesman last Tuesday said Obama wants NASA to engage with the world’s best scientists and that to meet that challenge, NASA must ‘partner with countries around the world like Russia and Japan, as well as collaboration with Israel and with many Muslim-majority countries:” http://tiny.cc/ix491
That’s all ancient history now, or non-history since Gibbs denied Obama ever gave any such directive to Bolden. The bottom line, though, is that we have NASA back, at least for now.
Gay Integration or Segregation: Another uproar recently erupted over the military’s random survey of 400,000 service members on what their feelings were on repealing DADT, the Clinton-endorsed military policy of not asking gays if they were homosexuals and requiring gays not to say they were homosexuals.
(See “Queer News Updates,” http://tiny.cc/lf7fb)
Various gay military organizations advised their members not to participate in the survey since the questions were allegedly biased against homosexual service members. Another school of thought was that gays wanted to invalidate the results of the survey which would probably show most heterosexual service members would strongly oppose repeal of DADT.
One survey question read, “If Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would that affect your own ability to fulfill your mission during combat?”
If the service member said it wouldn’t matter, it would suggest he or she is either very liberal or very gay. If the service member said it would matter, then it would suggest he or she would object to showering or bunking with a homosexual.
That latter feeling led to speculation on whether gays and straights would or should be segregated in the military. John Aravosis, a “progressive” blogger, compared that thought with segregating blacks and whites: “Why is it okay to even talk about segregating gays and lesbians? What would have happened to an Obama administration spokesman who talked about segregating blacks?”
Mr. Aravosis is absurdly comparing military apples and military oranges. There’s a universe of difference in racially integrating the military, which was opposed by people such as the late senator Robert Byrd, and sexual integration. Racial segregation was based on bigotry. Sexual segregation, integrating homosexuals with heterosexuals in communal showers and sleeping quarters has to be considered tantamount to sexual integration–is based on common sense.
More simply put, it’s unnatural to expect a healthy heterosexual male or female to be comfortable showering and sleeping next to a person who lusts after them.
Nevertheless, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morell insisted, “No one is talking about segregating gay servicemembers from straight servicemembers. We don’t know that any adjustment will have to be made, but in the event that’s a recommendation from the review group, it would not result in any ‘separate but equal’ facilities.”
The words “segregation” and “separate but equal” are terms wrought with negative implications from the old days of civil rights agitation but they make sense in this new era of togetherness and inclusion.
The Pentagon and Morell must be fully aware that their supposed integration plan is farcical and doomed to failure. In short, it’s a lie.
I hesitate to think of the reaction in a military unit after a rape of some new recruit in the shower or in his bunk by a homosexual newly integrated into their unit. It just might result in a military revolt. For the military as a whole fighting force, sexual integration could result in a discontented and disgruntled force that would rather look for another career than tolerate Obamian social policy being imposed on the military.
In time, that could result in a predominantly homosexual military intent on waging war by strangling the enemy with feather boas and bashing them with their purses.