September 9, 2010: a U.S. District Court judge rules 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' unconstitutional. Additionally, the ruling contains a rebuttal of the argument that openly gay military personnel adversely affect readiness; it even argues that the policy has a 'direct and deleterious effect' on the military. As evidenced by my previous work, I should be a district judge for coming to this conclusion six months sooner. That's right, I win the race to prove DADT bad.
I'm not a liberal, but I'm increasingly considering myself a Democrat. Democrats seem to be owning things that facilitate military success in recent years. Climate change mitigation (which Pentagon papers have now identified as a threat to our soldiers' lives in future years): Dem-owned. Not doing stupid stuff to offend Muslims and thus not incite violence in the Middle East (i.e., oppose Islamic community centers, proclaiming a Muslim president would be evil, etc.): Dem-owned. Opening overseas dialogue to encourage reconciliation and avoid brinksmanship: Dem-owned. Keeping our eyes on the ball in Afghanistan by not invading Iraq: Not Repub-owned, but the spineless refusal to oppose the invasion meant the Dems were essentially providing tacit support. Point is, if a Republican says we should do it to support the military, someone's making money off the deal.
I've been taking another stab at 'A People's History of the United States,' and have come to the conclusion there's no excuse for having money and not making more off of war. The next time government gets a little neoconny (we'll see how November elections go), if you aren't investing in Boeing and General Dynamics, you don't deserve your wealth.