The Sam Nunn Moonwalk

by: Firefly

Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:21:08 AM EDT

The moonwalk or backslide is a physically complicated dance technique that gained widespread popularity after being performed by Michael Jackson on the 1983 television special Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever, and has since become his signature move. The purpose of the moonwalk is to give the illusion that the dancer appears to walk forward while actually moving backward.

So, in light of the recent report about gays in the military actually not posing a risk to "unit cohesion", I just wanted to revisit this recent (June 3rd) statement by Sam Nunn:

"I think (when) 15 years go by on any personnel policy, it's appropriate to take another look at it - see how it's working, ask the hard questions, hear from the military. Start with a Pentagon study."

Much has been said over Pedantic Sam asking whether it might be appropriate to "revisit" the policy, but unless I've missed something, I've seen little analysis (of this nature) about Sam's apparent wish coming at least partly true so quickly after he made the statement.

So, about Pedantic Sam, I wonder:

Did he know about this before the report came out?  Did he propose revisiting the DADT policy and enmeshing the gears of bureaucracy because he knew?

And, more generally:

What quality of ear stoppers must one have to ignore repeated studies (such as the Rand study of 1993), evidence of pain caused, 12,000 soldiers dismissed for either telling the truth or having a non-militarily relevant truth discovered?

Nunn's hard stand, which included photo-op tours of cramped U.S. submarine bunks, has been branded "bigotry" by gay bloggers.

Yeah, like me.  As an aside, I love it when the unintentionally homo-suggestive language always appears when it comes to opposing to those oh-so-powerful homa-sec-shuls.  "Hard stand" indeed.  Ha!

Well, we wouldn't want to "ram" a repeal of DADT down the "throats" of the American Public, now would we?

You know, if I had used public demagoguery to ruin the lives of 12,000 people, and aside from that, hurt the friends and family of those people, whoever they are, military or not, I might also find it convenient to ask whether it would be appropriate to revisit the policy my grandstanding gave rise to.  

While all the while knowing the damage done has been repeatedly revisited, by the SLDN among others.  By numerous reports of missions being harmed in Iraq by lack of appropriate personnel, some of whom were gay.

Avoiding responsibility for a grave injustice by commenting on it as if you are apart from it is always a nice dodge.  Being socially conservative, after all, means never having to say you're sorry.

And it's now a comically characteristic tactic of social conservatives to pretend nothing has been reported or heard on a particular social injustice for years, even as the rafters are crashing around one's head on the very topic in question.

I call it the "stick fingers in the ears strategy".  I think I might be seeing this very strategy in action by Nunn, though it's only become clear a month later.

And in reference to Nunn's recent widely reported comments on DADT, all I'm saying here is in light of this new report, the timing of Sam's sudden and supposed change of heart is mighty convenient.  It could not have been more effectively timed as a plaintive cry to engage the bureaucracy to slow progress had it been planned.  So I now have to wonder -- was it indeed planned?

So when can we expect ex-Senator Nunn to address his wish coming true?  Will he ever?  And if he does, will he thank the authors of this report and admit it meets his seemingly bottomless requirement for absolute proof that gays in the military will not be the death of us all?

Or is he, as I suspect, like the proverbial ostrich, going to stick his head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen and reiterate his call for endless hearings and studies on the insulting topic of fitness of gay people serving in the military and the absolute need to cater to anyone who might get cooties from being around us?

Will he pick the wax out of his ears and hear, at long last?

Will he ever apologize for his part in creating this shameful policy, and stop pretending with weasel language he's somehow apart from it?  

And will Senator Obama show some respect to his gay supporters by ignoring Nunn and picking a quality candidate for his VP?

UPDATE:

Just for those who think that the topic of Sam Nunn in general, or his possible VP candidacy, is no longer timely, we now have the mendaciously and archaically "centrist" Newsweek posting this bit of absurdity, yesterday:

The biggest stumbling block in selecting Nunn is his support in 1993 for a Pentagon study that backed a don't-ask-don't-tell policy for gays in the military. Nunn's position now is a mixture of new rhetoric ("I'm grateful to the thousands of gays and lesbians serving today") and a willingness to "review the policy" with an eye toward "eventually" changing it.

This won't be nearly enough for the gay and lesbian community and other liberals, for whom a controversial position of 15 years ago is still fresh. But, contrary to what many assume, this constituency does not have a veto over Obama's choice. And after pleasing gay rights groups by expressing his opposition to a California ballot initiative that would change the state constitution to bar gay marriage, Obama has some room to maneuver.

It's difficult to overstate the sheer wickedness and unsupported intentional perversity of this reasoning.  So, putting up someone for VP who has proudly damaged thousands of people's lives is an admirable example of Obama "standing up to a powerful interest group"?

Because gays, by themselves, can't stop this, singlehandedly, it's a wise move by Obama?  To crap all over a loyal interest group again?

Deliberatly hurting and insulting people who have no "veto" power is what it means to be moderate today?

I retch, Newsweek, at your evil crap.  I retch.