3:48 am, May 23, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 2

  • The Sky is Falling. Not.
    This was another example of the unfounded "fear" of something happening, when in reality there was little basis for that fear. Many times it's more a case of personal bias/discomfort with something than any real issue. History often is a good teacher, and the comparison with the integration of the armed forces working just fine turned out to be a valid comparison for the integration of gays. Score one for America, the land of opportunity for all.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Gays in the military "not a problem"
    I detect a certain "whistling in the wind" aspect to this assessment. Surveys conducted by the military a couple of years ago found that the highest degree of resistance - indeed by strong majorities - to repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" Clinton era mandate was found in the frontline Army and Marine Corps combat units, a.k.a. the "point of the spear" or "band of brothers"-type outfits, which bear the full brunt and trauma of combat operations and where total inter-group trust is essential to survival and mission accomplishment. They face the highest degrees of stress and tension of all, and saw the then-proposed policy reversal as adding just another unwanted element of potential high strain to an already taut situation. In analyzing the current follow-up assessment, one must keep in mind that any officer who intends to have a long career in the military fully understands that what the top brass most definitely don't want to hear is any complaints about the impact of such a political decision on military unit cohesion and focus on mission accomplishment. The impact of this PC-based decision may well be played out in high additional unwanted levels of tension and stress at the "grunt" level, but that's apparently not what ranks as important in the Pentagon's C ring at present. We've not had a president who served in the active military since George H. W. Bush (his son was a USAF National Guard member and saw no active service). This, combined with a Congress whose membership includes so few who themselves have had active service, presents a dangerous situation in that their incomprehension as to the realities of combat operations results in policy decisions that might resonate more in the 9 to 5 civilian world but are uninformed at best about what life at rthe "point of teh spear" is all about. As usual, the "grunts" may yet again pay the high price for poorly thought out civilian policy decisions at "echelons above reality."
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }