Ian S. Thompson – 3/18/07

This page was last updated on March 20, 2007.

Dump ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’; Ian S. Thompson; Beaver County Times; March 18, 2007.

As background, Mr. Thompson began writing letters as a Penn State student. His fields of study were English and international politics and he graduated in 2005 with a B.A. in International Politics. In letters to the Penn State Daily Collegian, Mr. Thompson identified himself as the political director of Allies, a PSU organization now known as SpeakOut. The mission statement of SpeakOut reads, “Works to organize the family, friends, supporters and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and ally (LGBTA) community at PSU and is committed to a safe and social network open to all students, political and social education, and to increasing visibility and fostering a positive climate for LGBTA students at PSU.” When he “signed” an anti-landmine “treaty” on the web, Mr. Thompson indicated he was a member of Amnesty International.

If you’ve read Mr. Thompson’s letters since at least mid-2004, you know he’s a full-blown socialist (“a proud progressive” in his own words from 2003) who tends to resort to name-calling and unsupported talking points.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“While Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was busy defending his remarks about gays and lesbians, in which he referred to them as ‘immoral’ and expressed his continued support for the military’s policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ the estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian soldiers currently serving on active duty were busy defending this country.”

[RWC] Despite a degree in English, Mr. Thompson appears to have the same problem with the language as the Times. Gen. Pace did not refer to homosexuals as “immoral.” See my critique of the editorial “Do tell.”

Mr. Thompson also hit a pet peeve of mine. He referred to “gays and lesbians” above and refers to “gay men” below. Why can’t we get the language correct? I thought “gay” was supposed to be a synonym for “homosexual.” If so, isn’t referring to “gays and lesbians” redundant? If not, what’s the official definition of “gay” in this context?

FYI, I’m not picking on “gay.” I have the same problem with other PC classifications like African American, Asian American, moderate, et cetera. Aside from being inaccurate, no one can seem to agree on their meaning.

“While everyone is entitled to their opinions, facts cannot be ignored.

“What is without question is that gay men and lesbians have served America honorably and with distinction in every battle this country has ever engaged in, from our own Revolutionary War to the present conflict in Iraq. The only difference is that in order to serve their country, they must lie about who they are.

“Take the example of Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva. He very much wanted to follow in the footsteps of both his father and grandfather, but in order to do so was forced to lie. Alva was the very first American wounded in the war in Iraq and was presented with the Purple Heart by President Bush for his courage and sacrifice.”

[RWC] Is Sgt. Alva a homosexual? The letter never says so, though I guess that’s the implication.

Regarding Mr. Thompson’s assertion that Sgt. Alva “was presented with the Purple Heart by President Bush,” keep in mind all Purple Hearts are awarded in the name of the President. Whether or not Sgt. Alva received his medal from the hand of President Bush doesn’t diminish his actions.

“‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was a deeply flawed compromise when it was adopted in 1993. Today, after more than a decade and well over 10,000 expulsions, it is long overdue to correct this glaring blight of discrimination that only serves to undermine our own national security.”

[RWC] Funny how the fact the policy was implemented when a Democrat was president and Democrats held majorities in both houses of Congress was omitted, isn’t it?

“It is time the United States joins the other 24 countries around the world, including Britain and Australia, that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly and proudly in their armed forces.”

[RWC] When I hear the “everyone else does it” argument for an issue, it reminds me of when as a kid I tried to excuse myself of a dumb deed by proclaiming, “but my friends did it.” One or both parents would then ask, “Would you jump out of a building (off a bridge, etc.) if your friends did?”

“There are currently well more than 100 co-sponsors in Congress of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would finally allow gays and lesbians to serve their country openly.”

[RWC] As of the date I wrote this critique, there are actually fewer cosponsors of the bill in this Congress (110^th) than in the previous.

“I hope that U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire will also join in this effort.”

[RWC] Before I begin, let me state I have neither military nor behavioral science experience or expertise. What I write below just seems to make sense. At the risk of being labeled ignorant and a sexist homophobe, here goes.

One of the reasons I oppose women serving in combat roles alongside men has to do with the sexual tension present in mixed groups and the potential effects on the mission even if full-blown romance doesn’t break out. There are a couple of other reasons, but this is the one relevant to this discussion. The fact non-pregnant sailors leave on an aircraft carrier but a number return pregnant makes it obvious sex isn’t checked at the dock.

When you have homosexuals serving with members of the same sex, how is that different from heterosexuals serving with members of the opposite sex?

Is this one of those cases where commonsense – at least to me – is wrong? I don’t know. As I wrote above, I have neither experience nor expertise in this area. Until we’re certain, however, I don’t believe our armed forces should serve as a behavioral science lab for politically correct social policies.