Sunday, May 17, 2009

How to Judge Globalism

How does Sen show that globalization is not a “western curse”? By what criteria should “globalism” be judged? What is the “central issue of concentration” in the debate about globalization?
In this text, Sen explains that the west was in fact first to feel the positive affect of globalization coming from the east, “The high technology in the world of 1000 A.D. included paper, printing press.... A millennium ago, these items were used extensively in China-and were practically unknown elsewhere. Globalization spread them across the world, including Europe.” (Amartya Sen, How to Judge Globalism)
He goes on to explain that the west is actually a better place for allowing globalization to take place. “Indeed, Europe would have been a lot poorer – economically, culturally, and scientifically – had it resisted the globalization of mathematics, science, and technology at that time.” (Amartya Sen, How to Judge Globalism)
So naturally, Sen believes that the same applies today. That advancements and there for globalization should be embraced and not something feared. “To see globalization as merely Western imperialism of ideas and beliefs would be a serious and costly error,” (Amartya Sen, How to Judge Globalism)
The criteria for judging globalization is not how well the market expands, but how well democracies are established, elementary education is expanded, or how the social underdogs succeed in society, at least according to Sen.
The central issue in this debate is about how who is effected in the world. The question here is if “the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer” (Amartya Sen, How to Judge Globalism)? Some people argue, “the poor who participate in trade are mostly getting richer” (Amartya Sen, How to Judge Globalism)
However the debate is not over if some poor people are getting richer it is about the fair distribution of globalization, “the central issue in general is not whether a particular arrangement is better for everyone than no cooperation at all would be, but whether that is a fair division of the benefits” (Amartya Sen, How to Judge Globalism).
So the question here is not if somebody gains from globalization, the question is how fairly distributed is the gain of globalization.

Jihad vs. McWorld
What are the key features of “McWorld” and “Jihad”? How does McWorld provide and support Jihad? What does Barber find most threatening about globalization?
The key features of McWorld seem to be anything involved in globalization for example pop culture, technology, global markets, everything modern. While on the other hand you have the Jihad which is a world where “culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe, a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceive faiths against every kind of interdependence” (Benjamin Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld)
If you were like me then your first thought would have been “what does Jihad have to do with McWorld?” After reading this, it is almost painfully obvious. The McWorld is slowly but surely destroying small cultures and all their beliefs and traditions, and by this it is giving the Jihad a reason to exist. The globalization of the world has made us live in a world where you can go to almost every country and find a McDonald’s at every street corner, Barber lists one of the proudest people in his example “In 1992, the number-one restaurant in Japan measured by volume of customers was McDonald’s,” Benjamin Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld)
I think what Barber is most afraid of is that globalization will not only destroy the multicultural world, and turn it in to a monotone world of similar culture but that by losing our individualism we lose our ability to see the world around us clearly. This means that the politicians can slowly but surely take more and more power away from the people, as long as they are occupied with things like I-pods and McDonald’s. Barber described his fear best when he said, “Belonging by default to McWorld, everyone is a consumer; seeking a repository for identity, everyone belongs to some tribe [Facebook, MySpace]. But no one is citizen, how can there be democracy?” (Benjamin Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld)

Bollywood vs. Hollywood

Bollywood is squaring off with Hollywood, according to Tyrell. What does this article tell us about the capacity of non-western countries to resist western culture? Should we expect Hollywood’s domination to decline further in the future? Why? What paradoxes about culture globalization does Tyrell illustrate through the case of the Indian cinema industry?
Western culture is often seen as this big monster that is going to make the world one big bland tasting soup. Bollywood is a perfect example as to why we are not all becoming alike. Non-western countries are not forced to indulge in our western evilness. Sometimes they do not even understand western culture or comedy or tragedy. As you explained in class, Philippines do not understand our movies at times, and people in India simply do not like our movies. People across the world have different cultures, ideas, ideologies, or sense of humor therefore in some countries, western culture will never dominate.
I do not think that Hollywood will decline in the future since the western world loves the movies from Hollywood. Even though a lot of movies are not filmed in Hollywood the still technically are from Hollywood. What will happen is that the film market will grow bigger than ever before. With Bollywood on the up rise and Hollywood not going away their will be more variety in the market. A larger audience can be reached with more than one point of view.
The paradox here is that in the films and TV show seem to have no western influence, however the stations are owned by companies working with the west or companies that are in the west. Another paradox portrait in the book is that the Indian Oscars in 1997 where broadcasted on Sony entertainment which means that maybe our western culture is not being indoctrinated in the people but the west is still the one profiting from India.

Why does Cowen call cinema “one of the hard cases for globalization”? Why does the production of certain kinds of movies cluster in Hollywood? Does Hollywood contribute to the Americanization of world culture? Does Cowen worry about that issue?
Cowen believes that cinema is a hard case because of the high coast it takes to make movies. It is hard for a non-American culture to produce a movie that would bring in the money that is needed to cover the production coast.
The reason for the clustering has again something to do with money. In Hollywood actors, producers, directors know they will receive the money they ask for. This means that high end movies will be made in Hollywood instead of other places. To make big productions movies in Hollywood simply makes sense. It is the easiest route so clustering is natural.
Cowen seems to have a split opinion on Americanization. One the one hand movies are made by non-American producers with non-American actors in non-American countries, however, the movies are in English and usually portrait American ideologies. We end up with American ideas portrait by non-Americans I do not feel that is Americanization I fell it is American explanation.
Cowen obviously worries about this issue otherwise he would have not written the article but not in a sense that he loses sleep over it. There is nothing wrong with entertaining the people of the world and if the Americans happen to be the best at doing so well then so be it.

More Globalization stuff

What should corporations take responsibility for, according to the Global Compact described by Robinson? Why does she think it is important for corporations to take on broad responsibility for dealing with global issues? How do voluntary initiatives such as the Global Compact relate to government action in addressing global problems?
According to the Global Compact there are three aspects that need to be taking in to consider ration. The first one deals with Human rights and how corporations should not knowingly violate them, “With respect to human rights, corporations should first, ensure that they support and respect Human Rights and second, ensure they are not themselves complicit in human rights abuses.” (Beyond Good Intentions: Corporate Citizenship for a New Century Mary Robinson) The second aspect deals with labor standards, “On labor standards, businesses should uphold freedom of association and collective bargaining and make sure they are not employing underage children or forced labor, either directly or indirectly, and that in their hiring and firing policies they do not discriminate on grounds of race, creed, gender or ethnic origin.” (Beyond Good Intentions: Corporate Citizenship for a New Century Mary Robinson) The third and final aspect of the Global Compact is: “And in relation to the environment, companies should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges, promote greater environmental responsibility and encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.” (Beyond Good Intentions: Corporate Citizenship for a New Century Mary Robinson)
The problem with the Global Compact it seems is that these are promises and not laws. The general population does not believe that big corporations have “hearts” so naturally these promises do not mean much. On the other hand a government action is usually a law that is punished if not upheld. This makes the population feel like corporations are more willing to follow rules. The problem with this is that these government actions are usually written from the perspective of an industrialized government. This means that they will not think about the subcultures in the countries that are having these problems. They will think on the scale of African culture but not on the scale of Chad culture versus Nigeria culture.

What are the “discontents” and the “darker side” of globalization, according to Stiglitz? How does he assess the consequences of market liberalization? What does he mean by “governance through ideology” and what should replace it?
The “discontents” and “dark sides” of globalization is according to Stiglitz is that it is only allowed to work if we (the USA) approve of how it is being used. Even though a country might be doing well, the U.S. government feels that it needs to be involved. As an example this article talks about Korea, they had a very prosperous steel industry, had being the key word. “Financial markets were highly regulated. My research showed that regulations promoted growth. It was only when these countries stripped away the regulations, under pressure from the U.S. Treasury and the IMF, that that they encountered problems” (Globalism’s Discontents, Joseph E. Stiglitz)
The problem with market liberalization is that is screws small countries. Again, we have rules set up that have to be followed and if a small vulnerable country does not follow them then they are screwed. The example that states that best is the following: “the country is borrowing $100 Million from the [U.S.] and lending $100 million to the [U.S.]. But when it borrows, it pays a high interest rate, 20 percent; when it lends, it receives a low interest rate, around 4 percent. This may be great for the [U.S.], but it can hardly help the growth of a poor country.”
I believe what is meant is that the IMF does not consider that democracy is not enough to make a country function. It needs more than a political system it needs everybody in the country to believe in that system. For example in Iraq they had a democratic election, however, I doubt they are ready to function effectively in globalization. The IMF should be replaced with an organization that is willing to take these problems into account.

Six ways Globalization has impacted my life.

The first thing I thought of was the toys I bought this Christmas for my niece they are all made in places where labor is cheap and therefore manufacturing is less expensive, than toys mad in the US.
This is a dilemma each year since I would like to buy toys made in the US simply because the chance that they contain lead paint is very low, however I am happy that they toys are so cheap because that way I have more money to spend on all the other people in my life.
The second way globalization effects me is that all my clothes are made somewhere in Asia. Again we have the same reason why I am happy about this is because it is cheaper if the clothes are made in China or Taiwan but on the other hand every now and then I do think about the sweat shops that they probably where made in, and the little to no wage the makers of my clothes received. I also benefit when buying shoes out of the same reasons.
As a German, I am very happy about globalization since I can order all the foods I miss on the internet. I am able to do business with people on the other side of the world in a minutes’ notice. For the most part it makes me happy, but diet wise it is a bad thing since many German food products are very unhealthy.
The forth way that globalization benefits me is that I am able to chat with all my friends around the world. Since we decided in class that the internet is a big help to globalization I figure that keeping in touch with people all over the world is an affect. But if it is not’ then I do benefit from the fact that companies can now do business thanks to video conferences and therefore make deals faster, which for me, means that I can receive an I-pod faster.
Because of the internet, I am thankful for the fifth way globalization affects me. As someone who grew up in a different part of the world I am glad that I can simply check international news sites and see what is happening back home. Also as somebody living in Europe, it is important to know what is going on in the US since many political decisions can effect Europeans in their everyday life.
This leads to my sixth reason. As Ex President Bush decided to attack Iraq, Germany got a heads up warning that this will most likely lead to oil being more expensive and consequently many products that depend on oil for production will be more expensive. It did not surprise the people as the above stated happened. We were still not happy about it but we knew it was coming. Summed up, because a country far away started a war with another country also far away everything in Germany became more expensive.

My view on pearl

Julia Boudreaux
Ms. McLane-Higginson
Composition and literature 121-015
19-Apr-09
Pearl, a revolution against Puritans
Little is said directly in Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter about Pearl’s significance. Pearl is the human reflection of the scarlet letter on Hester’s chest. Also she represents the joy that Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale should have felt as they started their relationship, which presented them with a child. Hawthorne created Pearl to demonstrate how the Puritan ways where wrong. Pearl refuses to be confined into the Puritan way of life and thought.
Early on in the book it is noted that if anybody other than a Puritan had been at the prison release of Hester Prynne they would have seen:
in this beautiful woman, so picturesque in her attire and mien, and with the infant at her bosom, an object to remind him of the image of Divine Maternity’ which so many illustrious painters have vied with one another to represent; something which should remind him, indeed, but only by contrast, of the sacred image of sinless motherhood, whose infant was to redeem the world, (42 Hawthorne).
However, “[m]any critics who focus their analysis on Pearl define her as the sin-child, the unholy result of Hester Prynne's and Arthur Dimmesdale's fall from grace,”(Cindy Lou Daniels 221). What the Puritans saw was a woman that deserved to be burned at the stake. Not only was Hester evil, her child, Pearl, was viewed as demon spawn.
The Scarlet Letter gives one the feeling that Pearl is not even a real person. “[S]he becomes nothing more than the scarlet letter personified,” (Cindy Lou Daniels 222). Hawthorne himself even writes it so that Hester views the child and the letter as interchangeable: “She clutched the child so fiercely to her breast, that it sent forth a cry; she turned her eyes downward at the scarlet letter, and even touched it with her fingers, to assure herself that the infant [Pearl] and the shame were real,” (44).
Pearl refuses early on in The Scarlet Letter to comply with the guilt that is supposed to be felt by her and her mother Hester. As Hester is being yelled at and pleaded at, to tell the name of the father of the child, Pearl screams as loud as she can “[t]he infant during latter portion of her ordeal, pierced the air with its wailing and screams; she strove to hush it, mechanically, but seemed scarcely to sympathize with its trouble,” (Hawthorne 50). The fact that Hester feels for her child shows that she knows what she did is not a mortal sin, it was biology and lust. The character Pearl is displayed as someone who cannot be bent in to compliance by the Puritans: “Pearl, on the other hand, is left unmarked by the patriarchy, for the Puritan community assumes Hester will carry on its traditions. Hester, though, cannot bring herself to quell her daughter's wild spirit, despite the restrictions placed upon her both emotionally and physically,” (Cindy Lou Daniels 223).
Pearl was created to display the problems between human life and religion. According to Puritan views, Pearl should not be happy since she is born out of sin. This notion does not seem to bother Pearl, when one considers, that Hester never finds any darkness in Pearl’s soul: “[d]ay after day she looked fearfully into the child’s expanding nature; ever dreading to detect some dark and wild peculiarity’ that would correspond with the guiltiness to which she owed her being,” (Hawthorne 61). The Puritans believe that Pearl should not have a happy individual self worth, however, Pearl’s sense of moral, right, and wrong is more of a philosophical nature than a religious nature according to Richard Hull:
law-breaking (i.e., the Puritan view) and the Enlightenment philosophy which emphasizes autonomy and values an order peculiar to an individual. In Pearl, the notion that individuality is disorder is already giving way to the Enlightenment view, that individuality gives access to the highest truth. (149).
Hawthorne, In his book The Scarlet Letter uses Pearl to mock the Puritan way of belief and life at least when it comes to adultery: “[t]hough much is said about sin, little of this discourse is directly presented, and what Hawthorne does give us bears little resemblance to Puritan theology,” (Nina Baym 210). The religious belief is displayed wrong which could mean that Hawthorne basically thought of it as pointless and easy to misunderstand. Nina Baym writes it best when she discusses the idea of heaven and sin: “[o]n the one hand, there is no vivid sense of Hell, and on the other, there is a doctrine which appears to suggest that man is bound to heaven unless and until he commits a sinful act,” (Nina Baym 210). The way Hawthorne presents this idea in The Scarlet Letter shows the either he or Hester misunderstood the Puritan ways: “[s]he knew that her deed had been evil; she could have no faith therefore, that its results would be good,” (61). Hester is condemning Pearl as evil even though nothing in her Puritan religion says that she has to. The reason it is say Hester’s Puritan way is because Hawthorne created his own type of Puritan believe system:
Hawthorne’s Puritan community considers its own laws the ultimate moral framework of the universe to the point where such laws define, rather than reflect or contain, morality as well as good and evil. This community invokes God to sanction its own social system and to enforce the general will on individual members of the group. In sum, The Scarlet Letter Hawthorne has created an authoritarian state, (Nina Baym 213-14).
Pearl is a child based off of Hawthorn’s own children which would explain why Pearl is portrayed the way she is. Hester is a self portrait of Hawthorne. Mark M. Hennelly, Jr said the following: “but such parental pride turns to self-pity as Hawthorne chronicles his own limitations: ‘For my part, I felt very inactive with this lazy benumbing cold, which hangs on longer than usual,’” (532). This can be seen as a portrait of Hester: “[h]er mother with a morbid purpose that may be better understood hereafter, had bought the richest tissues that could be produces, and allowed her imaginative faculty its full play in the arrangement and decoration of the dresses which the child wore, before the public eye,” (Hawthorne 62). Hawthorne like Hester was quite a gloomy person, while their children were their pride and joy in life.
Hester did everything in her power to make her child a beautiful, bright child, which Hawthorne shows when he wrote: “So magnificent was the small figure, when thus arrayed, and such was the splendor of Pearl’s own proper beauty, shining through the gorgeous robes which might have extinguished a paler loveliness, that there was absolute circle of radiance around her on the darksome cottage floor,” (Hawthorne 62). This, in a sense, is defying what the child was supposed to stand for. Pearl is supposed to be the human version of her mother’s sin. However, the way that Pearl acts and is dressed is showing that Hester is not sorry, nor ashamed of her actions. Hester lets her rebellion against the religious dictatorship show through her child. Which is what Hawthorne‘s plan was all along. He raised his own children with a happy and proper sense of the world, “‘I venture to assert that there can be no physical health without play; and there can be no efficient and satisfactory work without play; that there can be no sound and wholesome thought without play,’” (Mark M. Hennelly, Jr. 533).
Another instance where one can see that the characters of Pearl and Hester are derived from Hawthorne and his children is when Hester and Pearl are in the town:
Pearl saw, and gazed intently, but never sought to make acquaintance. If spoken to, she would not speak again. If the children gathered about her, as they sometimes did, Pearl would grow positively terrible in her puny wrath, snatching up stones and fling at them, with shrill incoherent exclamations, that made her mother tremble, because they had so much the sound of a which’s anathemas in some unknown tongue, (Hawthorne 64).
This quote is particularly interesting because one can see the difference between mother and daughter very clearly, Hester feels lonely and wishes for human contact while Pearl has no interest to be friends which the hypocritical Puritans who are angry at her mother not for the adultery but because she will not quench their nosiness. The contrast that one sees between Hester and Pearl is something that Hawthorne experienced as his mother died; it shows how children can be so inherently different from their care givers when placed in the same situation.
As he keeps watch at his mother’s deathbed, which he called ‘the darkest hour I ever lived,’ he hears the ‘shouts, laughter, and cries of [his] two children’ playing outside in the yard. Within the ‘strange contrast,’ Hawthorne ‘seemed to see the whole of human existence at once’ as an ‘interval between extreme youth and dying age,’ (Mark M. Hennelly, Jr. 534).
Pearl’s whole outlook on the sin is so different from that of everybody around her. She plays with the scarlet letter on her mother’s chest because it carries no sinful meaning to Pearl. The whole idea of religion is rejected by Pearl, “Hester's interpretation of her child, and Pearl's claim that she has no Heavenly Father!” (Richard Hull 144). While her mother thinks she is heaven sent, Pearl believes no such thing, “‘He did not send me!’ cried she, positively. ‘I have no Heavenly Father!’” (Hawthorne 67).
The reason some believe that Pearl is so distant from the Puritan religion is because she is a child of nature. Pearl was left to herself by her mother, which means she was playing in the world of the natural, “he [Hawthorne] thought that intimacy with nature exercised ‘the essential passion if the heart’ and prepared the child for human and spiritual affections, so that moral truths might be received.” (Abel 192). One has often heard or thought that Pearl is evil for taunting her mother for the burden she chooses to carry, however, this is not true based on Hawthorne’s believes according to Darrel Abel: “Hawthorne supposed that a pure Child of Nature would lack the most essential human quality, that of moral awareness.” (Abel 193).
The last importance that Pearl carried is she was what tied Hester and Arthur together throughout the story. She caused both—mother and father— to feel the guilt that the Puritans wanted them to feel. With Hester is obvious as to how she points and plays with the scarlet letter, but with Arthur it is not so obvious,
[t]he spirit child communicates her disapproval in another way, one exquisitely appropriate to Dimmesdale’s sensibility—through a silent, indirect, subjective language. In the entire scene at the brookside she does not speak to him with her human voice at all. She addresses him indirectly through her persistent rejection of his advances and through actions ostensibly directed toward her mother. (McNamara 69).
It is safe to say that Pearl is actually trying to be mean towards Arthur since he is the reason for her mother’s suffering. Dimmesdale realizes this through simple questions, like: “[a]nd will he always keep his hand over his heart?” (Hawthorne 136). With this question she is teasing her mother and father that regardless what they do, Dimmesdale will always feel guilty as explained by McNamara: “[s]he clearly implies that guilt will plague Dimmesdale even if he succeeds in the plans for escape which he and Hester are now formulating” (69).
In the end however, Dimmesdale turns Pearl into a functioning person who is capable in living with society, by finally confessing to the world that Pearl is his daughter:
He meets his problem by subjecting Pearl to a kind of psychic shock when Dimmesdale, in his expiation scene, recognizes her as his daughter and awakens through suffering all her human sympathies, thus sweeping her into the community of men. Before this she was unable to obey civil and divine law. Now she may, if she will, (Eisinger 326).
After all is said and done and both men that were in Hester’s and Pearl’s life are dead. Hawthorne gives a look at what life Pearl chose, “[t]his inheritance [land, money] gives Pearl both paternal legitimacy and wealth. She and Hester then leave Boston for Europe. Hawthorne suggests that Pearl eventually marries into an aristocratic family and has children of her own,” (Hunt 30).
Pearl is many things to many people, to some a demon child, to others a symbol that is not real. Pearl saw no reason to feel guilt, instead she decided to show the conflict between human life and religion. Hawthorne wrote The Scarlet Letter, for one to display his own life, and two, to mock the puritan society. With Pearl, Hawthorne created a child of nature, one that shows the people what is really important, for example love, happiness, freedom. This ending suggests that Pearl was no demon spawn but simply a child who refused to be dressed for something that was not natural to her. However in the end Hawthorne did write that she married of and had children of her own. What would be interesting to know is if Pearl raised her children in a religious belief? It should be safe to assume however, that they are free spirited individuals like her.

Abel, Darrel. “Pearl: “The Scarlet Letter Endowed with Life.” The Moral Picturesque: Studies in Hawthorne's Fiction. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1988. 190-207. .
Baym, Nina. “Passion and Authority in The Scarlet Letter.” The New England Quarterly
43.2 (1970): 209-30. .
Chester E. Eisinger. “Pearl and the Puritan Heritage.” National Council of Teachers of English 12.6 (1951): 323-29. .
Daniels, Cindy Lou. "Hawthorne's Pearl: woman-child of the future." The American Transcendental Quarterly 19.3 (2005): 221-37. Academic OneFile. Gale. Truxal Library, Anne Arundel Community College, Arnold, MD. 14 Apr. 2003 .
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. “The Scarlet Letter and other Writings.” Ed. Leland S. Person. Norton Critical Edition. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 2005. 36-166.
Hennelly, Mark M., Jr. "A Play-Day for the Whole World?" The New England Quarterly 61.4 (1988): 530-54. .
Hull, Richard. "Sent Meaning vs. Attached Meaning: Two Interpretations of Interpretation in The Scarlet Letter." The American Transcendental Quarterly 14.2 (2000): 143. Academic OneFile. Gale. Truxal Library, Anne Arundel Community College. 12 Apr. 2009 .
Hunt, Constance C.T. "The Persistence of Theocracy: Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. (Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter)." Perspectives on Political Science 38.1 (2009): 25-33. Academic OneFile. Gale. Truxal Library, Anne Arundel Community College, Arnold, MD. 12 Apr. 2009 .
McNamara, Anne Marie. “The Character of Flame: The Function of Pearl in The Scarlet Letter.” On Hawthorne: The Best from American literature. By Edwin Harrison Cady, Louis J. Budd. Durham: Duke University Press, 1990.65-81 .

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Knowledge is depressing power?


This is going to be my last blog since this class (Gender and Pop Culture) will be over next week. I would like to reflect on the knowledge that I have gained. The media is being controlled by a small group of white men which explains the miss representation and under representation of all other people.
I have learned that regardless what show or book or magazine one sees and looks at one will always find some inequality. I have wondered "is the world really this bad?" and realized it kind is. This is some depressing knowledge. However, should this stop someone from enjoying life and TV and magazines? Should I stop watching action movies because women are always the damsels in distress and violence is promoted? Should I not read Cosmopolitan anymore because it is sexist? No we should not. We should keep doing these things and learn from them. We should learn and teach the next generation why these things are not ideal. People who are bothered by this should come up with ways to change it.
Because the ones at power now have no reason to change it. They are in power making money. The audience does not seem to mind either since we keep watching and reading.
So do not be discouraged or depressed about the fact that you are not able to blissfully watch sexist TV without realizing that it is sexist anymore. Simply realize it, share the thought and knowledge and do your part to change it.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Don't ask Don't tell.......


Are we as Americans ready to have an openly gay military? Possibly, however are our soldiers ready for openly gay military members? One would hope so, but reality looks different. As for some history on what exactly the "don't ask don't tell" policy is "1993 was not a good year for LGBT equality. President Clinton signed into law a policy that effectively bans gay, lesbian, and bisexual service in the military. Clinton approved Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) which purported to be the compromise that promised two things while appeasing the conservative opposition to openly gay service: first, that the safety of gay servicemembers would be better protected and, second, the law gave gays a means to dodging the traditional discrimination in order to enlist.
It is a bad compromise because the message is clear: you can be gay in the military...only until someone finds out that you are gay in the military. DADT lacks intellectual integrity. The architect of the policy, Professor Charles Moskos of Northwestern University, still stands behind this law that claims that being gay is not a bar to service, only grounds for dismissal.
Discrimination and oppression are inherent to DADT. A gay soldier must lie and hide his or her true identity on a daily basis. Gay servicemembers who live openly and share information about their spouses, significant others, or dating life risk investigation and involuntary expulsion. Under DADT, any statement that one is gay -- to anyone, at any time, before or after enlistment -- can be reason for investigation and discharge. Your life is a constant liability to your career when you are gay in the military." (http://www.soulforce.org/article/808)
The problem is technically most Americans support gay people in their rights to equality as long as it is not in their own personal space. However, what i find funny is that having a gay bunk mate would lead to lower moral and discomfort. If one thinks about that response one must wonder, why do people feel that would happen. The reason I believe is because people have this misconception that gay men will "make straight men gay" or "come on to them" or that gay man are not as "trust worthy" as straight men. What this tells me is that we must work harder in educating our service members and let them know that gay men and women are just as able as straight men and women in serving in the military. One might even argue that they are more capable because they had to deal with the stress of realizing that their sexual partner is not the norm that society expects. Which means that they would be potentially better at handling stress situations.
Unfortunately, because of the bad economy the topic don't ask don't tell was put on the back burner of President Obama. A spokesperson of the obama administration had the following to say "There are many challenges facing our nation now and the president-elect is focused first and foremost on jump-starting this economy." (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/14/obama.gays.military/)I guess the equality of people is less concerning than the money of people.