2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I would also like to comment on Senator John McCain's lack of honor, courage and frankly, flagrant dishonestly, on the subject of repealing DADT.

On October 18th, 2006 on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" Senator McCain said, on camera, to an auditorium of Iowan's quote:

"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we oughta change the policy' then I think we oughta consider seriously changing it. Because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."

That day was yesterday. And how did Sen. McCain respond when the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs - the most senior civilian and uniformed military leaders in the nation came to him and stated in unequivocal terms, they wish to change the policy? With visible anger and outrage -- completely reversing his position and ensuring that everyone in the room knew that CONGRESS had the responsibility to change the policy, NOT the "leadership of the military".

But the truth is as Adm. Mullen so eloquently put it :

"....the fact (is) that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

The distinguished senator from Arizona can learn a great deal about integrity and leadership from this outstanding Admiral and SecDef.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Hi Tom -

Over 13,500 men and women have been officially discharged under DADT, but MANY MANY more officers and enlisted decide to quietly leave the service because they are tired of living a lie and being REQUIRED BY LAW to prostitute their integrity in order to honorably serve their country and protect their families and neighbors - I'm one of the latter.

Engraved on the class ring I shed blood, sweat, and yes, tears to earn is engraved my class motto - "Sibi Aequum". Latin for "Be true to yourself". I remember looking at my ring (which I still proudbly wear) and tearing up as I signed the letter to CinCPacFlt resigning my commission.

I agree - we should all be invited by Congress to testify and have these lawmakers, including John McCain, tell us why we're unfit.

Thanks for your comments and support! Jim Maguire (today's guest)

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

@Marcants

I applaud your desire to repeal DADT, but it's a FACT that if you've played on a college sports team or gone to a local gym, you've showered with someone of the same sex who is gay. It's just not that big a deal - and shouldn't be.

You have served with gay men your entire enlistment and will continue to do so. So even though they are there, and you KNOW they're there, pretending they're not is the critical piece for you to be comfortable? What about truth, honor and integrity which lead to unit cohesion?

So a guy hit on you - big deal - take it as the compliment it was and just say "hey dude, i'm straight" and that should be the end of it. What if it had been you hitting on a female? Would you want her transfered because she rebuffed you? Or if she hit on YOU, would you require she be transferred so you're "not uncomfortable?"

This is a bizarre and bogus argument. There are existing regs on fraternization or harrassment. The guy who was grabbing guys when sleeping should be disciplined, as it is today.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context