Punting the Pundits

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.): Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Now

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a fundamental issue of civil rights and human dignity that deserves to be taken far more seriously.  Since 1993, more than 14,000 Americans have been relieved of their duties under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  That’s about 15 people dismissed every week, their jobs taken away, their service and their honor denigrated, not because of how they performed but because of who they are.

I can’t think of anything less American than asking young men and women to die for our freedoms, and then not extending them those very same

freedoms.  It’s incomprehensible to me that we would ask our troops to live with secrets and shame about the core of their very identities.  And how can

an institution as devoted to truth and honor as the U.S. military enshrine and embrace a doctrine that instructs people to lie?

I’m fully aware that being in the military involves a subjugation of self that is unique, that makes it different than just about any other job.  But that does

not justify “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  As former Army Captain Jonathan Hopkins wrote in the New York Times: “Other soldiers don’t get enough

time with their families; I’m prohibited from having a family.”

Any policy that forces brave Americans to choose between serving their country and having a family is just deplorable.  Enough is enough.  It’s time

to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Amy Goodman: From Tuskegee to Guatemala Via Nuremberg

News broke last week that the U.S. government purposefully exposed hundreds of men in Guatemala to syphilis in ghoulish medical experiments conducted during the late 1940s. As soon as the story got out, President Barack Obama phoned President Alvaro Colom of Guatemala to apologize. Colom called the experiments “an incredible violation of human rights.” Colom also says his government is studying whether it can bring the case to an international court.

The revelations came about through research conducted by Wellesley College medical historian Susan Reverby on the notorious Tuskegee syphilis study. The two former U.S. government research projects, in Tuskegee, Ala., and Guatemala-equally noxious-are mirror images of each other. Both point to the extremes to which ethics can be disregarded in the pursuit of medical knowledge, and serve as essential reminders that medical research needs constant supervision and regulation. . . . .

Researchers are quick to point out that such practices are a thing of the past and have led to strict guidelines ensuring informed consent of subjects. Yet efforts are being made to loosen restrictions on medical experimentation in prisons. We need to ask what “informed consent” means inside a prison, or in a poor community when money is used as an incentive to “volunteer” for research. Medical research should only happen with humane standards, informed consent and independent oversight, if the lessons of Nuremberg, Tuskegee and, now, Guatemala are to have meaning.

Paul Krugman: If the Choice Is a CEO, Obama Should Say No

There has been a great deal of speculation in the media lately about whether President Barack Obama will, or should, decide to appoint a former chief executive officer to take over for Lawrence H. Summers, the director of the National Economic Council.

Mr. Summers announced in late September that he will be leaving at the end of the year.

Now, obviously, Mr. Obama should simply choose someone who can do a good job as his top economic adviser. Forget about image, or the message the appointment would supposedly send – there are about 600 people in the United States who care, and most of them are paid to care about these sorts of things.

Is having been a successful C.E.O. a good qualification for this job? The answer is no.

Bob Herbert: That’s Where the Money Is

It’s beyond astonishing to me that John Boehner has a real chance to be speaker of the House of Representatives.

I’ve always thought of Mr. Boehner as one of the especially sleazy figures in a capital seething with sleaze. I remember writing about that day back in the mid-’90s when this slick, chain-smoking, quintessential influence-peddler decided to play Santa Claus by handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists to fellow Congressional sleazes right on the floor of the House.

It was incredible, even to some Republicans. The House was in session, and here was a congressman actually distributing money on the floor. Other, more serious, representatives were engaged in debates that day on such matters as financing for foreign operations and a proposed amendment to the Constitution to outlaw desecration of the flag. Mr. Boehner was busy desecrating the House itself by doing the bidding of big tobacco. . . .

The U.S. is in terrible shape right now because far too much influence has been ceded to the financial and corporate elites who have used that influence to game the system and reap rewards that are almost unimaginable. Ordinary working Americans have been left far behind, gasping and on their knees.

John Boehner has been one of the leaders of the army of enablers responsible for this abominable state of affairs.

David Sirota: D.C. GOPers Attack Conservative Voters for Questioning Pentagon Waste

Over the last few months, we’ve seen some serious — and potentially groundbreaking — fractures in the old consensus over defense spending. In particular, we’ve seen the rise of rank-and-file conservatives  who have been more willing to connect their deficit grievances with the bloated Pentagon budget. Indeed, I saw this firsthand when I interviewed top-tier Republican congressional candidate Ryan Frazier on AM760 — a veteran, he said that we need to look seriously at defense spending cuts.

Joan Walsh: Christine O’Donnell is not me!

And neither was Linda Tripp. Another troubled GOP woman finds solace in saying, “I’m you” — but we’re not buying it

The folks at Crooks and Liars beat me to it,  but I meant to blog last night about that crazy Christine O’Donnell commercial, where she declares, “I’m you!” Because those of us who remember the Clinton impeachment as the previous low point in our political culture (at least in my adult lifetime) were all, apparently, creeped out in exactly the same way. Those were the very words Monica Lewinsky betrayer Linda Tripp used after her infamous grand jury appearance in 1998. . . . .

At least Tripp didn’t have to start with, “I’m not a witch” (although the woman Time magazine dubbed “The friend from hell” might have used another word that rhymes with rich, given her appalling treatment of Lewinsky, a young woman who confided in her.) . . .

I honestly thought O’Donnell’s makeover ad was another parody when I first saw it.  But the best stylists can’t flat-iron the kookiness out of the candidate. Rock on, Christine — but please stop pretending you’re me!

Melissa McEwan: Sex in the US: the shocking truth

The way a survey is reported, you’d think it’s a surprise anyone’s having any. This hypocritical puritanism poisons public discourse

The profound disconnect between who we are and who we regard ourselves to be would be amusing if it weren’t so dangerous. The persistent narratives that we keep our bits buttoned-up and locked-down, only allowed fresh air for dignified attempts at Jesus-sanctioned reproduction attempts, that kids shouldn’t be having sex because they’re irresponsible, that same-sex sex is for deviant weirdos, are the damnable propaganda that underlie some of the most destructive, woman-hating, gay-hating legislation in this nation.

The lies we tell ourselves about who we are in the bedroom (or on the kitchen floor, or the conference room table at work, or the backseat of the car) are why we still argue about funding comprehensive sex education in public schools, why we are still fighting the slow but steady erosion of the conferred rights of Roe v Wade in state governments, why we are still having the absurd debate about whether we should allow to serve openly the gay, lesbian and bisexual soldiers who are willing to die for this country, in spite of its stubborn insistence on treating them as second-class citizens. . . .

Sex is different for different people. If only that weren’t still a radical statement in America.