Conservative radio personality Bob Lonsberry claims to have details of Eric Massa's previous history of sexual harassment in the Navy. It is from two unnamed sources, so there it is, for what it's worth.
You made me read the first few paragraphs of Lonsberry. I feel dirty.
Thu, 03/04/2010 - 13:06 — keuka (not verified)
Lonsberry is slime masquerading as a human.
Thu, 03/04/2010 - 14:34 — Rottenchester
I hear what you're saying, but I'm not going to pretend it's not out there...
Thu, 03/04/2010 - 18:34 — Iron Mike (not verified)
There is a sad story here – a man torn between his two halves – a wife in utter shock – kids with lots of new questions – and the validation of a long-established and well-working military policy:
I agree that it was sad, but the conclusion is backwards. If Lonsberry's charges are true -- a big IF -- it's clear that DADT enabled sexual harassment, made the situation worse, hurt unit cohesion and helped Massa continue a pattern of self-destructive behavior.
Let's just make this a hypothetical. If you're officer X, a closeted homosexual, your shipmates who you harass have a stark choice. As soon as any of his fellow officers or enlisted men reported X, he would have been discharged under DADT. This means that everyone faced with his approaches has two choices: end X's naval career or keep quiet.
If DADT were repealed, and homosexual behavior were treated like any other sexual behavior, the sailors involved could report X without ending his career. His superior officers could have availed themselves of a whole range of disciplinary action, and if he did it a few times, the pattern would be disclosed. The existence of punishment other than discharge would have protected sailors and forced X to face the contradiction in his life.
Instead, X's behavior can be out of control yet his fellow sailors don't want to use the nuclear option of outing X.
So much for hypotheticals. I think we'll eventually find out what Massa did when the Ethics Committee reports.
Comments
You made me read the first few paragraphs of Lonsberry. I feel dirty.
Lonsberry is slime masquerading as a human.
I hear what you're saying, but I'm not going to pretend it's not out there...
There is a sad story here – a man torn between his two halves – a wife in utter shock – kids with lots of new questions – and the validation of a long-established and well-working military policy:
http://rabidrepublicanblog.com/2010/03/04/eric-massa-just-had-to-ask/
I agree that it was sad, but the conclusion is backwards. If Lonsberry's charges are true -- a big IF -- it's clear that DADT enabled sexual harassment, made the situation worse, hurt unit cohesion and helped Massa continue a pattern of self-destructive behavior.
Let's just make this a hypothetical. If you're officer X, a closeted homosexual, your shipmates who you harass have a stark choice. As soon as any of his fellow officers or enlisted men reported X, he would have been discharged under DADT. This means that everyone faced with his approaches has two choices: end X's naval career or keep quiet.
If DADT were repealed, and homosexual behavior were treated like any other sexual behavior, the sailors involved could report X without ending his career. His superior officers could have availed themselves of a whole range of disciplinary action, and if he did it a few times, the pattern would be disclosed. The existence of punishment other than discharge would have protected sailors and forced X to face the contradiction in his life.
Instead, X's behavior can be out of control yet his fellow sailors don't want to use the nuclear option of outing X.
So much for hypotheticals. I think we'll eventually find out what Massa did when the Ethics Committee reports.