Jarrod Chlapowski

The Path Forward

Filed By Jarrod Chlapowski | October 29, 2010 8:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Servicemembers United

I know, I know, everyone is worried about the elections on Tuesday. We have a ton of work to do, however, and a very small timeframe in which to do it. We need to be ready to start on Wednesday.

What follows is the path forward on repealing DADT this year. It is not a sure thing. It is complicated. And it will take a lot of heavy lifting. But we have to try.

Watch it, absorb it, repost it, retweet it, share it, spread it. It's long, but definitely worth your time.

United, we can do this.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

This isn't a "path forward" it is a fundraising pitch.

We don't have 60 votes. We have 56 LGBT-supportive US Senators. On November 3rd we will have only 53-54. In January, 2011 that will likely be down to 51 or 52.

Nicholson says "we have to apply pressure in the right places, not in just the places it makes us feel good, but where it really matters." Then more of the same useless "calls, letters and emails." (plus that new i-phone app!) Maybe Nicholson can tell us how many calls and emails will do the trick? 1 million? 10 million? What number of emails forces a Senator to change their mind?

I'm sure they have some data about the value of calls compared to faxes and emails? Is an actual call 5 times as effective as an email? We need to know so we can apply pressure in the right places with the best tools available.

Servicemembers United is using "false hope" to raise money. Nothing in this boring video provided any strategy on securing 60 votes, because we can't.

Alright, Andrew, this borders on harassment. I'm serious.

Anyway, where in the video was a fundraising ask made? We should have done a pitch - we need the money, sorely - but we didn't. We're very transparent that we make no profit from this, that we survive on very small paychecks. You know this. Stop wasting my time, everyone's time, on whatever vendetta you have against SU, because it's ill-informed, nasty, and the perfect example of trolling.

It's not just SU, Jarrod. There's no group out there that Andrew is happy with. He's been banned from most site's comment sections now and we're re-examining our comment policy currently to see how to handle folks like Andrew that just try to spark fights in the comments sections.

Until we come to a decision, just ignore him. That's always the best option.

When I give my opinion about whether or not something is effective, that is simply accountability. I don't think we should send people off on useless endeavors.

Pam's House Blend is the only site that has blocked me. She did that because I simply expressed that I did not believe GetEQUAL's publicity stunts helped and that they probably hurt us (we'll see November 2nd). Spaulding is a recalcitrant cheerleader for direct action - she has even apologized for one of her favorites, Dan Choi. That's fine. I don't think there is a discussion of ideas on her site. That's her business.

GLAD, Trevor, PFLAG, LAMBDA and many local, state organizations do fine work. Most of Gay Inc. does not and it is a waste of resources. That, too is about accountability.

In open public discourse any group that claims a "path forward" or strategy deserves our scrutiny. Not just mine, but everyones. Nothing I discuss is personal, but directed only at tactics, methods, strategies and organizations.

Sooner or later we have to be willing to be honest and objective about everything we do - without regard to the source.

If Jarrod and Alex and others are volunteering for SU, that's great and we need more contribution/participation. But that shouldn't discount objective feedback. Intent is one thing, accountability is another. Both are important.

My comment was directed at the so-called "path forward" and my belief that it is "false hope."

I used math in my analysis and you could return the favor. There is no harassment or any SU vendetta. That claim is absurd.

You may think it's okay to ignore the reality of needing 60 votes, I do not.