Post User Polls

Do you think the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' will change morale among troops?

President Obama on Wednesday will sign the landmark repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy before an emotional crowd of hundreds of gay activists and officials.

The signing will not immediately end the law, but instead begins the process of ending the ban on gays in the military. Read the full story.

By Ryan Kellett  |  November 10, 2010; 7:12 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Which D.C. team's uniform do you like best? | Next: Is freezing the salaries of federal workers an effective way to reduce the deficit?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I am quite surprised that so many people voting in this poll are so perceptive about the effect of this. I too said morale will improve because I know, having spent 26 years as a military physician, that there have always been many serving gays with significant morale problems created by the need to hide just about everything about their off-duty lives. Doing that is not easy and takes a lot of one's attention which detracts from both morale and readiness.

As for the rest of the military--those who are not gay--they won't be affected much but those who are mostly understand these days that some of their fellow soldiers are gay now. The only real change for them will be more comfort knowing who is and who isn't and perhaps presenting an opportunity for some discussion of gayness and what it means within the ranks. The notion some older straight people have that young gay men will "hit on" straight colleagues or that those colleagues will fear being hit on are mostly absurd. Gay men do not want rejection just like straight men don't and do not bother attempting relationships that have no chance to develop (and might result in considerable hostility). On the other hand, I think some young straight soldiers will be secretly flattered at the notion a gay man would find the attractive just as they are flattered that women find them attractive.

Posted by: BTinSF | November 10, 2010 10:52 PM

I suspect how much morale is affected and in what ways will depend upon how maturely and professionally those in military service are able to behave and how much of an issue commanders, politicians, and the religious population turn the policiy change into.

The thought that some of the people who bravely face armed opponents live in terror of some of their own comrades-in-arms sure seems odd.

Posted by: ExPat2 | November 11, 2010 1:33 AM

Those people that think that gays will not hit on straight people is nuts. I spend 22 years in the military and it happens. Gays are always on the make for same sex. They will hit on anyone. Those comments by the doctor that they will not hit on straights is I bet is gay himself, trying to defend gays. And you have the ones that will follow you into public restrooms hoping to get a look with your pants down.
Those people are sick, would you want those kinds of people defending you in the military.

Posted by: marvin49 | November 11, 2010 2:24 AM

Morale will definitely change for the better.
The witch-hunt will cease.
Soldiers who have seen good soldiers removed because faceless strangers probed their e-mails have to wonder if their e-mails are next, not because they are gay but for some other specious excuse.
It's time for our soldiers to no longer have this kind of incident plaguing their units.
Discrimination is the very contradiction of the rights guaranteed to all of us under our freedom.
Thank goodness.
Now it's time for Congress to call a halt to this curse.
A military wife of a retired veteran of 33 years service in the US Army in Viet Nam and the Texas Air National Guard.
We both support the elimination of discrimination in the services.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | November 11, 2010 2:58 AM

I want to add one thing.
Command must take a strong and principled stand on the lifting of this ban.
That is very important.
Depending upon the straight-forward administration by command, problems associated with the lifting of the ban will be minimal.
It will be up to the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to take firm control of this change from the top down and it will have little or no effect in the ranks.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | November 11, 2010 3:06 AM

In regard to the commentary written by Mike Cohen ("Social, political Correctness Hurting Armed Forces", which appeared in the Virginian-Pilot on 28 FEB 10), I too attended (and graduated) from the Naval Academy during the time that Admiral Mullen was there . I find it "troubling", to use Mr. Cohen's words, that he thinks that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has somehow forgotten "that an individual's honor is his most important attribute and his own responsibility". It seems to me that the impending change in the "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy is designed precisely to strengthen that concept.

I am certain that the Chairman has considered the "complexities" of repealing the policy. And I am equally certain that he has considered the complexities of not repealing the ban to be far more detrimental to the combat readiness of the Armed Forces, i.e., the continuing distraction of having to deal administratively and legally with a "problem" that American society seems, to a great degree, to have "solved". What the Chairman should now consider is how he can justify the loss of the service of thousands of men and women to a policy that no longer has the support of the American people and, to a large extent, no longer has the support of the military itself.

Mr. Cohen is concerned about how the Pentagon will deal with the issues related to gays serving openly in the Service. So am I. And I agree with Mr. Cohen that Admiral Mullen "has a clear responsibility to both his subordinates and the nation to deal with them". It will be a difficult undertaking, no doubt, and mistakes will be made. But undertaking difficult challenges is what leadership is all about, and we have good leaders in abundance. Good men and women who will find the way - as we have in the past with racial and gender integration. Surely the Armed Forces are stronger now because we have met those challenges in the past.

I disagree with Mr. Cohen's assertion that (repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will not) "enhance our military capabilities" and would be "divisive". I believe that the continuing drain on our personnel resources related to this policy at a time when only 25% of all high school students are eligible for military service is totally unacceptable and a true waste of the taxpayers' money.

There was a time when "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" made sense. Admiral Mullen has come to the conclusion, along with former JCS Chairmen Generals Colin Powell and John Shalikashvili, among many others, that that time has passed. I agree with their assessment. It is time to move forward and take full advantage of the willingness of all our Service Members to contribute to the defense of the nation without regard to sexual orientation. The American people should demand no less.

Posted by: navylooking | November 11, 2010 3:23 AM

The opposite of don't ask don't tell would be must ask must tell. I guess under a new policy the military will either billet everyone togather reguardless of sex or orientation or, provide 4 different billets and facilities when not in a combat situation. The change will work fine for a volunteer military but, if we ever start the draft again there will be trouble there is no getting around it.

Posted by: thasam | November 11, 2010 3:55 AM

The opposite of don't ask don't tell would be must ask must tell. I guess under a new policy the military will either billet everyone together regardless of sex or orientation or, provide 4 different billets and facilities when not in a combat situation. The change will work fine for a volunteer military but, if we ever start the draft again there will be trouble there is no getting around it.

Posted by: thasam | November 11, 2010 3:58 AM

"Those people that think that gays will not hit on straight people is nuts. I spend 22 years in the military and it happens. Gays are always on the make for same sex. They will hit on anyone. Those comments by the doctor that they will not hit on straights is I bet is gay himself, trying to defend gays. And you have the ones that will follow you into public restrooms hoping to get a look with your pants down.
Those people are sick, would you want those kinds of people defending you in the military."

Marvin, if you just could grow some opposable thumbs and get rid of that unibrow, I'm sure your life would be a lot easier.

Posted by: nicekid | November 11, 2010 5:01 AM

This is a no-brainer. Gays have been serving in the military, and they will eventually be able to serve without people like Martin49 spontaneously making up things in their head to keep them out.

Posted by: DAK4Blizzard | November 11, 2010 5:20 AM

One must wonder at how many veterans of military service have participated in this poll. By its seeming slanted results, I would doubt very many.

Unless things have changed dramatically since my time in the army, allowing openly homosexual troops to serve in the armed forces will result in massive resignations of the most highly motivated troops, especially in the most important branches having to do with active combat. This is why so many in the military oppose a change of the present policy. Especially now, it would seem a stupid move motivated by perceived liberal political corectness.

For those who think differently and have never worn a uniform, consider; you may be the butt of 'Isabella's Axiom': "Sir, you seem most assured of that which you know the least."

Posted by: johnrbomar | November 11, 2010 5:54 AM

Nothing is made up. Gays do not belong in the military. And that comment about young straight soldiers being flattered if notice by a gay person, it would be an insult. Thats how trouble starts.
Most gays in the military that I have seen work in Offices. The only way this might work in the military is to have separate rooms, showers, barracks. Gays and most straights do not hang out with each other after work. I do not care where you work.


Posted by: marvin49 | November 11, 2010 6:04 AM

oh jezus please no one will resign from our services, perhaps a few homophobic old timers but thats ok, we want equality for all americans now, for gays and straights.

Posted by: willemkraal | November 11, 2010 6:44 AM

"Unless things have changed dramatically since my time in the army, allowing openly homosexual troops to serve in the armed forces will result in massive resignations of the most highly motivated troops, especially in the most important branches having to do with active combat. "

Really? Our soldiers are such poor patriots that they'd rather give up defending our nation than serve alongside gay soldiers?

I got news for you. They already serve beside gay soldiers. Both in our own military (just not open) and with open soldiers with nearly every NATO military out there (including several serving with us in Iraq and Afghanistan).

But if they are truly such poor patriots that they will quit serving the country over this then I'd have to question how good of soldiers they are in the first place.

Then again, bigots said the same thing when blacks were allowed to serve equally. Turns out there were very few resignations. And those that did resign - we were better off without them.

Posted by: TheHillman | November 11, 2010 8:00 AM

Those people are sick, would you want those kinds of people defending you in the military.
POSTED BY: MARVIN49 | NOVEMBER 11, 2010 2:24 AM

Yes, and I'm glad you're out of the military, bigot.

Posted by: donspecht | November 11, 2010 8:02 AM

Twice in high school and once again in college, I found myself alone with male acquaintances who turned out to be queer. On all three occasions, I was physically accosted in a rough manner with clear intent. (Yes, I was a very young-looking, "cute," late teen male.)

I gave each of these sick fools the same advice: "Get away from me or I will come back and kill you." They chose the former.

These types of situations we do NOT need in our military.

Posted by: qoph | November 11, 2010 8:03 AM

Judging from most of these comments and the vote in general, I suspect few of those professing improvement of morale either have served or are straight. It will be interesting to see how things proceed and especially how officers and enlisted who may now profess to be gay are respected by and promoted by those who are not.

Posted by: GordonShumway | November 11, 2010 8:06 AM

"Gays and most straights do not hang out with each other after work. I do not care where you work."

I'm gay. But most of my friends are straight. That was the case when I was in the fire department. It's the case now.

Same for my partner. He was military, and even then most of his friends were straight military guys, all of whom knew he was gay.

Times have changed. Gays and straights socialize together quite a bit now.

Posted by: TheHillman | November 11, 2010 8:14 AM

Anyone who is, or has served (as I did Navy '74-'82) knows the truth. Stop DADT. If you can't handle serving with gay folks, don't enlist, or when your tour is up, don't re-enlist.

OOPH: Show me an example of this having happened in the services. As usual those that haven't served always have an opinon. There are numerous examples of heterosexual rape and harrassment.

Posted by: jckdoors | November 11, 2010 8:20 AM

I am a soldier, and I welcome the service of any other soldier, gay or straight, who volunteers himself for the rigors that life in the modern US Army offers. We are professionals, and our focus is our mission.

Posted by: afws | November 11, 2010 8:50 AM


As a leftist I often masquerade as a soldier, a Republican, or even a medical doctor, to lend my left wing opinions some undeserved false credibility.


Posted by: screwjob22 | November 11, 2010 9:06 AM

Well. . .we (USA and its citizens) have come a long way, baby. Even so--we're not where we should be.

Those who love the USA know that inclusion and tolerance have only changed us for the better. Let's stick around and change it for the best!!

Peace out.

Posted by: wwIIbaby | November 11, 2010 9:07 AM

This is a wonderful thing that is going to happen soon. Stopping DADT. Now can we discuss the real problem? That real problem is rape. Thousands of women soldiers are raped and threatened so they will not report the crime. Lets take care of the REAL problem that has been going on for years and getting worse every year.

Posted by: jgp38 | November 11, 2010 9:18 AM

I think that the "metro" generation that now occupies the rank and file of the military has a lot less problem with gay coworkers and friends than when their parents were young.

When I was in the Navy, I can say in all honesty that it was too exhausting to even think about sex, with many 18 hour days (due to the way duty cycles rolled out). It was more important to try to find a couple hours of sleep than worry about who was thinking about what!

If I had been in a combat situation, I am very sure that I wouldn't give a darn about someone's orientation, just whether or not they could shoot accurately! And I am pretty sure that is what they would be expecting from me as well.

On a final note, the idea that a gay person will follow a fellow soldier into the bathroom to watch him urinate sounds silly. That is something that happens in public parks (thanks largely to the stigma of being gay-thus forcing it into dark corners of society).

In the military, the living conditions are not for the shy. There is virtually no privacy, and it would be reasonably risky to be checking anyone out in an obvious manner, not to mention disrespectful to your fellow soldiers/sailors.

If it's not happening now, it won't happen with the end of the policy either. I agree that ending this policy will help morale in the long run, because keeping secrets is one of the best ways to destroy trust in another person, and that's something that is more important than anything else in the military.

Posted by: bryangalt1 | November 11, 2010 9:45 AM

@JohnRBomer: I'm tired of this whole "you didn't serve, you have no say" bullcrap. Once DADT is repealed, you will learn just how many of us (myself recently included) have been serving alongside you all this time.

While folks like Marvin get to denigrate gay patriots in public, and straight servicemembers and veterans can blast DADT repeal arguing "you didn't serve", gay servicemembers-- who most certainly are serving their country as we speak-- aren't allowed to defend themselves.

@QOPH: sexual assualt is a crime, regardless of the victim or subject. That will not change with DADT repeal. Furthermore, many young men are sexually assaulted in the military-- often by straight men-- but do not report the assault for fear of being "outed" as gay.

Just one example: a couple years ago a young man stationed in Bahrain was repeatedly assaulted, but did not report the incidents because he was gay. He finally reported the attacks after another victim commit suicide. The gay servicemember was discharged under DADT; his (straight) tormentor was demoted. Tell me again how that was good for unit cohesion and morale?

@Screwjob: You're more than welcome to examine my discharge papers.. that is.. if you're willing to say who you are. I didn't think so.

Posted by: siwen | November 11, 2010 10:05 AM

To "marvin49" -- do you reside in the modern world...gays are everywhere and in every profession. No separate cadre for gay doctors, gay lawyers, etc. -- just professionals. Wake up and live

Posted by: fairness3 | November 11, 2010 10:25 AM

Face it MARVIN49: you are a gay magnet! I wonder why their gaydar keeps going off when you are around...

Posted by: steve1231 | November 11, 2010 10:27 AM

The recently released DOD survey of currently serving military indicated that 70% of them had no problem with ending Don't Ask--Don't Tell. End of story--except for the homophobes writing nonsense on this comment log.

Posted by: commonsense101 | November 11, 2010 10:34 AM

Reading Marvin49's comments makes me wonder whether he in fact did spend any time in the military. Remember that anyone can pretend to be anything to stir up acrimony on these anonymous posts.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | November 11, 2010 10:34 AM

Hey marvin49!
Who were you hitting on?

Vietnam Vet

Posted by: knjincvc | November 11, 2010 3:11 PM

A fighting force that represents the best that the country can be, has no business forcing people to lie and cheat in order to defend our country.

Not needing to do so, and supporting a culture in which that is no longer necessary can only help everything the military is supposed to do.

If only craven politicians would step aside and stop fanning flames of ignorance in order to help themselves get elected, this entire situation would be a yawner.

Posted by: ethanquern | November 11, 2010 3:49 PM

70% of Americans and now apparently 70% of soldiers. But still, thugs and baggers beholding to the christian right will not get ride of DADT. What is wrong is wrong and still these creatures will not end it. Tell me again about Baggers wanting to implement the American people's desires? Not if it disagrees with their own hate.

Posted by: mjcc1987 | November 12, 2010 7:24 AM

The military must replace 20% of its personnel every year, largely from 18 year old recent high school grads and 22 year old recent college grads.

Studies show that 18-25 year olds overwhelmingly favor gay rights and are offended by anti-gay bigotry. This is even more true of the college graduates who make up the potential officer pool.

DoD risks alienating its recruiting pool with its homophobic policies. Imagine if you were invited to work for a company that wouldn't hire Jews.

Posted by: AxelDC | November 15, 2010 10:57 AM

How many gays and non military voted vs. the several hundred thousand currently in the military fighting forces. This was ridiculous.

Posted by: louisewilson1 | December 1, 2010 6:31 AM

As someone with over 20 yrs of knowledge about the Military Justice system, my concern is that if a gay service member is disciplined for the kind of misconduct we would discipline any other service member for, the service will be pilloried for "hunting gays" under a different means. That will cause morale problems; creating the impression of a double standard within the service.

This will require training for military commanders but also for outside GBLT groups to give the military time to make the changes and not just have a hair trigger toward every disciplinary action.

Posted by: WinterDog | December 1, 2010 7:17 AM

One of the concerns voiced by a small minority is that psuedo Christians who follow a message of division and hatred of homosexuals will be put off and wont enlist or re-enlist. So repeal has a double bonus of making our military more reflective of our founding values and getting rid of the fringe element who undermine US policy by trying to pretend the US is a "Christian" nation, and one that discriminates.

Posted by: John1263 | December 1, 2010 10:44 AM

For the guy complaining about gays hitting on him --- maybe they realize something about you that you are supressing. Just saying. There is a really funny spoof of this phenom in the Onion titled something like "These gays Keep S%@# My C*&k..."

Posted by: John1263 | December 1, 2010 10:48 AM

Question is worded incorrectly for a news organization. "Will" means it is going to happen. "Would" means it may happen. Repeal of DADT is not assured yet, unless the Washington Post has some news that Ameri-Serfs aren't permitted to know about yet.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 1, 2010 10:55 AM

Homophobia is the latest crock to die of its own stupidity.

Think back a little more than a decade to the Ellen show. Ellen was driven off the air because of a same sex kiss on that program. gingrich, always the defender of American values, dubbed her "Ellen Degenerate." The usual suspects of right wing hate all jumped on the bandwagon organizing hate-based boycotts and such. All so very Christian.....

Fast forward to today. It is almost a requirement to have a gay character on a show. Blacks and Hispanics are still largely absent.....and all those groups end up usually being stereotyped - the funny flamboyant gay, the hard working black, the wise cracking Latino, the studious Asian...but at least they are present. A big step forward.

The tea-oh-pee wants to return the United States to what they imagine it was like in 1850. However, they forget that the reason we are not like that anymore is because for the most part life in 1850 s u cked.

Posted by: John1263 | December 1, 2010 11:23 AM

I served in the Army for four years, knew there were gay soldiers in my unit and NEVER had one hit on me. Not once, ever, in four years. So those that are claiming this is a problem need to provide examples (with proof) or admit they are just SUPPOSING.

Posted by: Freethotlib | December 1, 2010 11:23 AM

This is a Law that should have never been passed in the first place. In the 90's Republicans in Congress were doing the bidding of the Pseudo Conservative Christian Right. Here we are 17 years later and they are still carrying Water for the same people.

Gays have been serving in the Military as long as this as nation has existed, and regardless of the out come of the Repeal they still will serve in the Military.

I noticed none of these "NEOCONS" aren't signing up to go and fight in a War.

"CHICKEN HAWKS".

Posted by: austininc444 | December 1, 2010 12:30 PM

Oh Noes!! Not teh GAYS!!! Whatever will we do with these riffraff invading the services to stare at dudes in the shower and attack them when they least suspect it??

Puh-lease... There are homosexuals in all branches of the military and after DADT is repealed, they'll STILL be held to the same standards as any other member. Perhaps the people who can't stomach the thought of "them gays" serving in a volunteer military that's currently at war should pull their heads out of the sand and wake up to reality. "Them gays" are everywhere, and they're probably checking you out right now!!!

Posted by: HappyArmyWife | December 1, 2010 1:24 PM

If the DADT survey were conducted by a college sophomore, the instructor would rate methods and questions unacceptable to validate any findings. Read the question relative to “ability to carry out mission” and the response categories. A response rate of 70% is invalid for little or no effect because the question also included mixed.

U.S. troops responded based on mixed effects on carrying out the mission? Openly gay in the military will have significant affects on the chain of command required to be trained on accommodating gays and education non gay troops. Gay rights for a small number in the armed forces will disproportionately require massive changes.

The findings of the DADT survey written and interpreted in political bias for a prescribed outcome of openly gay will cause little problems for the armed forces. Survey should provided answers to relevant questions such as would you object to sharing a room with an openly gay soldier. Would it make a difference if a member of your platoon was openly gay or DADT?

Write Congress to challenge the result of the DADT survey and require testimony from certified research Ph.D.s to evaluate the methodology and valid of findings. What are the rights of heterosexuals to file lawsuits against the military for openly gay harassment and violations of sexual privacy?

Posted by: klausdmk | December 1, 2010 3:05 PM

"Will of the People" my @$$. You -really- mean the "Will of Me."

Not revealing you are gay doesn't make you straight. Gays are already in the military. You served with gays before, you will serve with gays after. The only thing that COULD change is your level of ignorance to the fact.


Posted by: trident420 | December 1, 2010 3:16 PM

This may be polarizing. People hang with people who are most like them, and share their values. It carries over to job.
And, how about the gay DI that becomes the surogate male figure. This won't be a factor?
What about AIDS fears, which are still widespread? Do you want to be soaked in the blood of someone you might think has AIDS? Will this carry over to the battlefield? Will there be tests for everyone to certify they don't have AIDS? Is gay a life style? What does that mean? WIll gays hang out together? If your lover is caught in a bad situation in the battle field, do you do what your emotion tells you, and put the squad at risk, or do you maintain discipline under these conditions?
I think that admin, medical, and logistical occupations are fine for openly serving gays. I do not share the opinion that they can be integrated into combat units. Is it really more important to achive what some call social justice at the risk of dead sons or daughters, all in the name of social justice? Just sayin...

Posted by: doc20 | December 1, 2010 4:31 PM


Directly from the DoD report on repeal of DADT that was released yesterday:

56.1% of Marines say that just having a known/suspected homo in their unit negatively affects the unit's ability to work together.

Only 39.9 percent of Marines said that having homosexuals in their unit affects morale "not at all".

47.3 percent of Marines, nearly half, reported that repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell would impact their trust of open homosexuals in their unit "negatively" or "very negatively".

According to the report 56.1% of Marines say that just having a known/suspected homo in their unit negatively affects the unit's ability to work together:

See questions 40, 43, 50 and 68c

Posted by: screwjob22 | December 1, 2010 5:17 PM

60% of marine and army combat troops say repeal will hurt moral. LA Times, NY Times , Odummy wont print that. The troops are getting shafted big time by Odummy and liberals. Yes, gay men will be on the make just like heterosexual men, except unlike gays, hetero's dont get to shower with females. Gays are just out to clear there social agenda with no real thought on consequences. You want to be gay, great just dont keep sticking it in our faces. Keep whats in yr bedroom to yourself, its none of my business.

Posted by: snapplecat07 | December 1, 2010 5:26 PM

Long term moral will rise, short term it will drop.

Once folks who are opposed find out the guy whose life he saved, and who has saved his life is gay they'll start to realize they have more in common than not.

Posted by: shadow27 | December 1, 2010 6:18 PM

As someone who has a CIB so has actually served in a Combat Unit in combat and under fire, I understand why 60 percent of Army and Marine Corps combatants voiced strong reservations about the effects on readiness of allowing open gays in the ranks.

This is one of those times when only those who know of what they speak have a right to an opinion. If you've never served in combat under fire in a combat unit, I'd prefer you just said "thank you" and be on your way.

Posted by: A-COL | December 1, 2010 7:36 PM

Bradley Manning a "gay man in an awkward place" = wiki leaks.

And there is even a discussion about DADT?

Face it, most gay men are emotionally disturbed drama queens and not suitable for military service. Not all mind you but... most.

It's not discrimination in the purest sense either as gays are neither a race, color, creed or religion.

Posted by: Straightline | December 1, 2010 7:50 PM

I served in the Army for four years, knew there were gay soldiers in my unit and NEVER had one hit on me. Not once, ever, in four years. So those that are claiming this is a problem need to provide examples (with proof) or admit they are just SUPPOSING.

Posted by: Freethotlib | December 1, 2010 11:23 AM

-------------------------------------

Sorry to hear that! Never hit on even once? I know you must have been very disappointed. Well chin up Freehotlib, it's not your fault that your as ugly as a mud fence.

Posted by: Straightline | December 1, 2010 7:58 PM

Military Physician first poster said -"The only real change for them will be more comfort knowing who is and who isn't and perhaps presenting an opportunity for some discussion of gayness and what it means within the ranks."

Oh right!!! As the Army Rangers and Marines come back from a firefight they're going to sit around with their buddies and discuss, what is it? "Gayness?" Are you for real?!!! Let me guess - you're Navy right?

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | December 3, 2010 11:23 AM

DADT is a homophobic, unconstitutional law that forces people to forgo integrity and lie about who they are. How could repealing it not improve morale?

Posted by: AJBF | December 3, 2010 12:17 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company