Tuesday, November 10, 2009

"They said Hasan also once tried to convert a patient to Islam and that he received a verbal warning."

Drudge linked to a story at NPR entitled, "Answers Sought On Fort Hood Suspect's Link To Imam." Within the story was this:

The officials also dismissed the significance of reports that Hasan's colleagues complained about his religious and political views. One official said they get thousands of complaints every year, some of which lead to investigations, while others do not.

Two psychiatrists who worked with Hasan at Walter Reed and asked not to be identified told NPR that during the six years he worked there, he was frequently distracted and often late for work. They said Hasan also once tried to convert a patient to Islam and that he received a verbal warning.

At one point, the psychiatrists said, some co-workers actively sought to have Hasan removed from the Walter Reed program. He was later reassigned to Fort Hood.


Well, at least Hasan wasn't trying to convert his patients from gay to straight. Now that would definitely have led to an investigation.

Labels: ,

32 Comments:

Blogger Cham said...

If Mr. Hasan had worked for any private entity he would have been gone in a heartbeat. In other news on the Internet today (and speaking of which) it turns out the military has booted a large number of gays simply because they've come out of the closet. It has cost us, the taxpayer, over 200 million dollars to train their replacements. So, to wrap things up, crazed unhappy nut: okay. Obedient hardworking gay: immediate honorable discharge. If Hasan wanted out of the military he could have started talking about a fictitious boyfriend. Here he's killed 13 people and that still hasn't gotten himself out of the army. Talk about a crappy plan.

2:02 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger Helen said...

Cham,

I'm with you. I think gays should be able to serve in the military and people who make threats or believe that suicide bombers are heroes need to be the ones to go. Others may feel differently, however.

2:11 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Ditto what you two think.

Trey

2:40 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Ditto, again.

Concerning the gay issue, the problem isn't the gays but the people who don't like gays or can't seem to tolerate them. What other entity could get away with discriminating against gays for employment?

3:28 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger fred said...

Though I am sad to think gays not allowed openly in our military I would point out that the services have a fine record of integrating (1950) before the rest (mostly) of American society, and showed the nation it could be done and work with little difficulty.

The only reason he would try to convert someone to being gay would be if he were gay, which would have had him tossed out. We have any number of military trying actively to convert non-believers to The One True Faith.

4:31 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger blahga the hutt said...

Ok,

I'm going to have to disagree with the opinions here. Nothing against gays, but I don't think that the military is the place for social experimentation. I think the don't ask, don't tell policy is fine. Why screw with something that works? Because it's "progress?" It would be highly disruptive and the middle of a shooting war definitely isn't the way to go with this.

You're asking these guys to lay their lives on the line so that you can sleep peacefully at night. I don't think the fact that they may be somewhat discriminatory really matters all that much. Yeah, it's a conservative culture in the military. So what? You really want to replace that with a "liberal" culture? Yeah, good luck with that. I'd love to see how well the military performs then.

Personally, I'm getting a little tired of hearing about everyone's sexual preferences. Can't anyone just be private anymore? Is that really all that much to ask? You don't need to be Victorian, but trumpeting it out isn't the way to go either.

4:32 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger Cham said...

Here is today's CNN article about gays in the military. It turns out those that are out of the closet and are discreet do just fine.

5:32 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger dr.alistair said...

don`t ask, don`t tell seems like a good plan, but i get the distict impression that some gays don`t like to not be really gay and so the be a soldier bit wouldn`t be liberal enough.

i really don`t feel comfortable personally with liberal views regarding sexuality at all, but that makes me a prude or homophobic by default these days, so my position of privacy and consideration of others gets shouted down by tolerant considerate types agressively and vociferously telling me to shut up.

true liberals, intolerant of the views and values of others.

5:44 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger blahga the hutt said...

Cham,

The very idea that they have to trumpet their sexuality makes mockery of your argument. That's not being discreet. That's kinda the point of don't ask, don't tell.

5:51 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger blahga the hutt said...

Fred,

In 1950, the army was still in conscription. It wasn't a volunteer force yet. I think that there is a big difference in that conceptualization.

5:56 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Cham, et al.
RE: Don't Count On It

If Mr. Hasan had worked for any private entity he would have been gone in a heartbeat. -- Cham

I've seen corporations where a manager started b---- slapping another manager in a meeting. The assailed was fired. The assailant, a senior manager of the 'feminine' persuasion, was only reprimanded.

Political correctness has SERIOUS problems and it is found EVERYWHERE.

After all, witness the report of an employee, of the male persuasion, was fired for commenting to a fellow employee, of the 'feminine' persuasion, that homosexual marriage—which she was about to engage in—was 'wrong'....in his honestly held opinion.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. The Army has become so politically correct that anyone who would have criticized Hasan would have been given a reprimand....of the official form, i.e., a career ender.....

6:36 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dr Helen
RE: [OT] Homosexuals in the Military

I think gays should be able to serve in the military.... -- Dr. Helen

Professionally speaking, i.e., 27 years in the infantry, I disagree. And I have a number of 'bloody' good reasons for my position. But that's another thread.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There is no place for sex forward of the COMMZ. -- CBPelto]

6:42 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger Jason said...

Has anyone done a poll of active duty servicemen to find out what they think about the whole "gays in the military" question?

I can see the argument that it shouldn't matter, and you don't *ask* the troops, you *tell* 'em, but even so. This is an issue which could have profound morale effects. I'd think the attitudes of the troops should be taken into account, but I don't know what they are.

10:08 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger Dr.D said...

We hear about how we need muzlims in the military for their language skills, but then along comes this case. If Hasan was providing anything of value, it was not language skills, but rather it was medical skills, something the US taxpayer paid to develop. We could certainly have made that investment in someone who does not hate America instead, and come out way ahead in the bargain.

11:03 PM, November 10, 2009  
Blogger J. Bowen said...

Here is today's CNN article about gays in the military. It turns out those that are out of the closet and are discreet do just fine.

In my meager experience I found this to be true. I worked with several gay men and women while in the Navy. Those who were good workers were left alone, despite the fact that they were openly gay. Only one was actually kicked out, and it wasn't even because he was gay. He was eventually kicked out for popping on a urinalysis (he tried being a terrible sailor and being openly (and loudly) gay so he could at the very least be transferred out of the command, if not separated, and eventually settled on smoking some pot).

Has anyone done a poll of active duty servicemen to find out what they think about the whole "gays in the military" question?

I can see...


Based on my experience, you might as well be asking whether they believe the military leadership ought to stage a coup for the purposes of establishing a Christian theocracy. Despite many people's actions which suggest the contrary, I think many people would like to believe that they believe that gays shouldn't be allowed to openly serve.

As for Hasan and his allegedly having tried to convert someone, so what? Until military officials at all levels stop trying to foist Christianity on people, I see no problem with this. In fact, kudos for him for playing the same game that the religious nuts in the military have been playing all along (may he live the rest of what will hopefully be a long, miserable life in prison, happy in the knowledge that he's just as obnoxious as so many Christians are).

12:57 AM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger Roman Wolf said...

Boy, so many opinions and so little time...

Dr.D,

True, especially because he went to USUHS.

J.Bowen,

Let me ask...you say that gays had no problem being openly gay in the military yet you claim the leadership are a bunch of Christian Theocrats? Something doesn't add up in your own post and I was wonder if you could elaborate?

Chuck Pelto,

I'm in complete agreement with your first post. PCness has replaced common sense within the workplace, every workplace.

On your second post, I'd love to hear you elaborate your reasons for your position. I imagine one of the big reasons is unit cohesion. More picking your brain because even though I am a young man I'll never be able to join up(I make most 4-Fs look healthy you see).

3:21 AM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger TS said...

Pelto, you're a wanker.

10:50 AM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger J. Bowen said...

Let me ask...you say that gays had no problem being openly gay in the military yet you claim the leadership are a bunch of Christian Theocrats? Something doesn't add up in your own post and I was wonder if you could elaborate?

And there are a bunch of old people who were whining and bitching about their freedoms when the last health care bill came out because it didn't benefit them and yet are conspicuously silent now that a new health care bill that benefits them has come out. And there are a bunch of loony Christians who are constantly whining and crying about the dearth and death of religious freedom in this country because they can no longer foist their religious beliefs on a captive audience of impressionable young children. And there are a bunch of people of all ages, colors, and backgrounds who are just now whining and bitching about the growth of government who are nonetheless constantly demanding that the government continue to grow to meet their demands for more money and power.

The reason for the disconnect between people's actions and their rhetoric is quite simple: people will take from others whenever the consequences of doing so are not readily-apparent or are likely to be non-existent. All people are selfishly-motivated (everything we do, from killing people to doing charitable works, is the result of our wanting to satisfy some unsatisfied desire). It's one thing to claim to be against a particular policy that would benefit you at others' expense when there is no hope of your seeing that policy put into action and quite another to have the same views when you are faced with the choice of having that policy put into action. People's rhetoric is rarely ever reflected in their actions (and there have been psychological experiments that prove this).

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the leadership of the military were to stage a coup for the expressed and actual purpose of creating a Christian theocracy, then the majority of the people in the military and the country as a whole would support them. Those people might waver in their support or turn against the military leaders if they [the leaders] pursued other goals that the majority of the people in the military and the country were opposed to, but that's a separate issue. The military and this country as a whole is full of people who call themselves Christians but who are in fact no better in their actual desires than the Taliban (and this is definitely not a new phenomenon).

11:00 AM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: [OT] Ad Homs, Anyone?

Pelto, you're a wanker. -- TS

Really salient arg, that.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Lawyers Rule:

[1] If the Law is against you, argue the facts.
[2] If the facts are against you, argue the Law.
[3] If the Law and the facts are against you, call the other side names.

The Official Rules: A Compendium of Truths and Laws for Living]

12:30 PM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Roman Wolf, et al.
RE: Args

On your second post, I'd love to hear you elaborate your reasons for your position. -- Roman Wolf

The args against are rather lengthy and have considerable detail in personal experience as well as historical reference.

There are two principle args:

[1] The battlefield is where soldiers MUST concentrate on the fight and not on relief of tension by sexual activity.

[2] The supply of blood to treat the wounded MUST be preserved. Especially since no one knows when or where a unit will be cut-off from it's normal lines of communications-supply and be forced to use their own troops to provide blood for the wounded.

There are other args that can be presented, e.g., 'morale'. But they are easily disputed. The two mentioned above are much more difficult to dispute.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Amateurs study tactics; professional soldiers study logistics.]

12:36 PM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Cham, et al.
RE: [OT] Discreet?

It turns out those that are out of the closet and are discreet do just fine. -- Cham

Interesting thought that.

How 'discreet' can one be on the front lines? Humping away in a foxhole not 10 meters from another fighting position?

How about in a tank? With a crew of four?

Remember that co-ed pair of truckers captured by the Iraqis during GWI?

Three guesses as to what they were doing when the Iraqis captured them. First two don't count.

Then there's the case when I was stationed in an infantry battalion at Fort Carson, where we had an injury that needed to be evacuated to the hospital for fear of loss of a limb.

Couldn't raise the Front Lines Ambulance that was supposed to evacuate the injured man.

A battalion XO went looking for the vehicle and crew.

He found them—another co-ed crew—using the litters in the back in a very unprofessional manner. And their radio was turned off.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Well....if he was paying her, maybe it was a 'professional' manner.

P.P.S. There are other instance of serious problems of this sort. Some of them very profound from history....

12:46 PM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger J. Bowen said...

How 'discreet' can one be on the front lines? Humping away in a foxhole not 10 meters from another fighting position?

Do you know any gay people?

6:55 PM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: J. Bowen
RE: 'Discreet'

Do you know any gay people? -- J. Bowen

Yeah. Why do you ask?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Sexual harrassment in this area will not be reported. However, it will be graded!]

7:08 PM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger blahga the hutt said...

"Do you know any gay people?"

Not to cut in or anything, but yes, I do (does this really matter?) and I still hold to my initial statement up top. I have no issues with gays, but for them to push their agenda in a shooting war is neither the time nor the place to do that. The military is way too serious a profession for people to be socially experimenting. It's one of the few jobs where someone can literally get killed.

7:12 PM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger J. Bowen said...

Because that was an utterly-ridiculous comment to make. By your logic, we also ought to be banning women in the military because heterosexual people are going to be humping away in foxholes and in fanrooms not 10 meters from fighting positions.

I personally knew of only one instance where two gay guys were humping away in a fanroom while they were supposed to be doing other, obviously more important, things. And even then, it was only because they had already been trying to figure out ways to get themselves kicked out.

The fact is, gays have served with distinction for years now alongside their heterosexual counterparts and have done so with a sense of honor and dedication that matches any heterosexual. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that those who've made their sexual preferences an issue have done so for the same reason that heterosexuals "create" behavioral issues: to get themselves kicked out.

7:17 PM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: J. Bowen
RE: Sooooo....

By your logic, we also ought to be banning women in the military because heterosexual people are going to be humping away in foxholes and in fanrooms not 10 meters from fighting positions. -- J. Bowen

....you're beginning to 'understand'.

Out of curiosity....

....what was it about that FLA incident you didn't quite 'grasp'?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There is no place for sex forward of the COMMZ, in the theater of war. -- CBPelto]

9:07 PM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: J. Bowen
RE: Just One

I personally knew of only one instance where two gay guys were humping away in a fanroom while they were supposed to be doing other, obviously more important, things. And even then, it was only because they had already been trying to figure out ways to get themselves kicked out. -- J. Bowen

Not sure EXACTLY what a "fanroom" is. But I do recall reading an item of the history of World War II, where Marshall Tito, commander of the partisan efforts in Nazi-occupied Balkins had to ORDER summary execution of co-ed partisans who were caught 'fratrinizing' on duty.

Something to do with a 'release' of tension in the combat zone.

Why?

Seems that while the sexually active LP/OPs didn't notice Nazi forces infiltrating their unit positions. The surprise attacks cost many partisan lives.

So....

....please tell me how 'life-threatening' is something going on in a "fanroom" and I might be able to put it into its proper 'perspective'.

Were hundreds of lives at risk?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

9:12 PM, November 11, 2009  
Blogger Fen said...

Concerning the gay issue, the problem isn't the gays but the people who don't like gays or can't seem to tolerate them.

No. The problem is one of privacy. Women have seperate quarters and showers and bathrooms from the men. So should gays.

"What other entity could get away with discriminating against gays for employment?"

Sorry, but thats ignorant. The military routinely discriminates against sexaul orientation, age, weight, medical condition, vision, etc.

There is NO RIGHT to serve.

3:28 PM, November 10, 2009

6:22 AM, November 12, 2009  
Blogger Fen said...

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the leadership of the military were to stage a coup for the expressed and actual purpose of creating a Christian theocracy, then the majority of the people in the military would support them."

You obviously don't know anyone in the military. For the Marines I served with, the Constitution trumps everything.

Else, Clinton and Obama would never have sat in the oval office.

6:32 AM, November 12, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Fen, et al.
RE: Here! Here!

You obviously don't know anyone in the military. For the Marines I served with, the Constitution trumps everything. -- Fen

Same goes for my comrades-in-arms in the Army.

And you're right about Clinton and Obama. Otherwise, we'd have had a Seven Days in May, without Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, LAST May.

So if the Marines and the Army "defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic", I have to wonder what sort of paranoid J. Bowen is. Or maybe he's a recent 'graduate' of the vaunted American public education system.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Thanks for pointing that comment out to me. I missed it in my initial glance-over of their missive.....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[]

4:32 PM, November 12, 2009  
Blogger Professor Hale said...

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the leadership of the military were to stage a coup for the expressed and actual purpose of creating a Christian theocracy, then the majority of the people in the military and the country as a whole would support them.

This is just absurd. You would have a difficult time finding any military officer who whould support a coup for any reason so long as there is an elected official in the White House and a representative congress. It only becomes slightly more absurd to suggest that the American people would support a Christian theocracy. A government run by moral Christian men and having moral christian laws is not the same thing as a theocracy. The fact that we do not have such a thing is evidence that a majority of Americans do not support it. I could personally do with a whole lot less of government officials coveting my property.

9:44 AM, November 16, 2009  
Blogger 1charlie2 said...

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the leadership of the military were to stage a coup for the expressed and actual purpose of creating a Christian theocracy, then the majority of the people in the military . . . as a whole would support them. "

Utterly preposterous. I was privileged to work with folk from all 4 branches (I do NOT count the USMC as a department of the Navy, thank you), and all I spoke with placed their loyalty to that silly Constitution. You know, that odd thing the oath mentions.

I omitted what the country might do, since I won't speak for them. But the thought of the military supporting a coup for something as trivial (to them) as setting up a theocracy is ludicrous fantasy, generally coming from folk who've never been in the military.

The military . . . is full of people who call themselves Christians

Wow, I met very few who EVER called themselves that. Many, from conservative backgrounds, may have behaved in accordance with many Christian beliefs, but actually calling themselves "Christians?" Oh, no.

". . . but who are in fact no better in their actual desires than the Taliban (and this is definitely not a new phenomenon)."

Oh. yes, the majority of the US military all want to kill schoolgirls. Now I see -- just another military-hater.

Having been to southwest asia and Auschwitz, I love comparisons to the Taliban and Hitler. They provide an extremely accurate and rapid assessment as to the experience and objectivity of the writer. Great shorthand.


That said, Helen, I echo one poster who said the military is not a place for social experimentation.

If you've never served, it's hard to describe the manners in which it's different than civilian life.

It's not just a job -- even firefighters don't live with their co-workers for months or yearss at a time. It's not like a college dorm -- barring a VT incident, college life is nowhere near as stressful, and not as dangerous.

It's not like being a police officer -- they're seldom "on duty" in a dangerous territory 24x7 for prolonged periods of time (though there are some similarities to deep-undercover operations).

It's literally not like anything else I can think of. As a result, there are constraints, conflicts, and a code of conduct unlike any other environment I can think of. So it's only natural that it be highly resistant to change -- frankly it's justified.

You have to ask yourself, "What's are the the two most important things about a military a military force ?" For me, it's

Readiness
Ability to win
Obedience to civil authority


Note that "diversity" is not in my list.

I argued many, many years ago that women should be allowed to be fighter pilots. There is no physical reason to exclude them, and there is always a shortage of exceptional fighter jocks.

At the same time, I thought letting them into (for example) infantry, where cardiopulmonary capacity and upper body strengh are very important was very stupid. Of course, the PC crowd won.

2:19 PM, November 18, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home