1

The transformation of know-your into carnival-of could be an interesting little wikipedia-like thing. Tres interesting possibilities.

2

"Know Your Carping Wingnuts" could be a sizable series of posts. In fact, I hereby copyright it for myself.

3

Jim "Know Your Carping Wingnuts" could be a sizable series of posts. In fact, I hereby copyright it for myself.

Since I inspired the idea I expect that you to include me in the first installment of the series. ; )

4

2. Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his argument. Example: Person A says, "You do not understand the mysteries of Kant's philosophy. Person B replies, "Of, if it's mysteries you're talking about, I'll have nothing to do with them.

Ah yes, I believe we have a perfect example of that right here at the EO. When we say that it is not unscientific to believe God create the Universe and life in it, the Sophist retorts "Nonsense, there is just as much evidence that life on earth came from alien droppings."

Of course we know that even if life "on Earth" did come from alien droppings we would still be no further in explaining where life "in the Universe" came from.

5

Still, I think it’s a sign of our nation’s misplaced priorities that we spend more money and attention on the role of sexual identity than we do on understanding the importance of virtue and character in our military.

The latter would be the exclusive concern of the federal government. The former is the province of state governments. Hence there's no trade-off between funds spent on military valor on the one hand, and psychological studies into the interrelationship between gender identity and the construction of masculinity.

Your criticism is just off-base.

At any rate, I always thought it was good that academics at universities, y'know, study stuff.

6

jpe The latter would be the exclusive concern of the federal government. The former is the province of state governments.

I’m not sure how you draw that conclusion. Both concern research into personality and identity. Why would sexual orientation be a concern for state governments while virtue the province of the feds. I just don’t follow your logic on that one.

At any rate, I always thought it was good that academics at universities, y'know, study stuff.

Yeah, me too. Especially when it’s important stuff.

Do you truly believe that researching transgendered soldiers (how many can there really be and how would you find them?) is a more worthy research program than studying the traits that instill heroism?

7

As a fully vetted, voting, & tax-paying citizen of CA (and hence the USA), I am most astonishingly delighted that my tax money is going to such a valuable source of information as the "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military". In fact I would be happy to give them more of my tax money. In fact I will. It is a valuable source of information about American History and the Military.

Whats this you say? You don't like the subject matter? Well I'll try not to remember that the next time (which will be soon!) the President comes around with his hand out wanting more of my hard-earned tax dollars to go to funding "faith-based" institutions that I don't like. After all, I wouldn't want to be accused of having any personal bias.

As far as your being "out of touch", I would have to agree. Otherwise how could you have forgotten that "No Marine is as important as the one next to you"? Shouldn't it also apply equally to those members of the Corp that are gay or lesbian? Shame on you.

This is after all, not a question of "special rights". it's about responsibilities. Gay and lesbian Americans, being Americans are also responsible, and they hear the call for defending it (and you and me)from those who wish us harm. Regardless of cost to themselves. And they have been doing so since our great country was founded.

Yet still the Congress and the military have created a "special rights" category of a Marine that is not treated as equal to all others. Regardless of their honor or the excellence of their duty performed.

The law and policy of "Don't ask, Don't tell" asks gay and lesbian servicemembers to never tell another soul, even their parents, that they are gay, and to live loveless and celibate. And on a day-to-day basis when asked by their squadmatess about boyfriends, etc., they have to either lie, be evasive or say nothing in return. So often they have to retreat from their squadmates. This leads to a breakdown of trust in the unit.

In a mad panic over locker-room shyness, bigots in Congress and in the Military created a policy and law that causes the very things it's supposed to prevent. Such as damage to morale and unit cohesion.

Did you know that the majority of gay and lesbian servicemembers come forward voluntarily under the policy? And lest you think that they are trying to take an easy "out", in most cases its due to being harassed and suspected of being gay.

After all, its not as if they can complain about it. The offenders might be disciplined by their command, but of course at the same time an investigation gets started against the one making the complaint. And since there are life-threatening consequences to just living with the harassment and shutting up, (as poor Spc. Barry Winchell found out when they splattered his brain matter on the barracks wall one night) they often end up having to out themselves for their own physical safety.

But a funny thing has happened since 9/11. The number of gay and lesbian servicemembers getting kicked out of the military has plummeted to all time lows. Is that due to less investigations? Nope, as I've said, in the majority of cases, the gay or lesbian servicemember has outed themselves.

Gay and lesbian servicemembers are apparently willing to live with the harassment from their tormentors, even knowing the risk of physical harm, in order to serve their country. -Even before facing insurgents or terrorists.

It's because they think it's more important to be an American, rather than just a gay or lesbian American. It's shameful, and a moral failure, that the Congress, the Military, and apparently you, don't see it that way too.

Perhaps the "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military" doesn't need to change their name to include "Virtuous Heroes" because its obvious, or should be obvious, to everyone, that often the subjects of their studies are "Virtuous Heroes" already.

A Marine who is gay is still a Marine. In battle they gladly die so that you, their brother, can live. And they have done so. So why can't you, as a brother, give them the small amount of respect and recognition needed to let them live their lives off of the battlefield with honesty and a little human dignity?

As I've said before, the next time some of our guys get blown up in Baghdad, throw all the body parts into a bucket and then see if you can sort out the gay Marine from the straight one. And then go home and tell their mothers and families why you think it's important to make the distinction.

8

As soon as I get permission to quote from its program director, I'll post some interesting information about the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military. The upside: this is a non-story.

9

Patrick Whats this you say? You don't like the subject matter?

I think you’ve missed my point. It’s not that I don’t like the subject matter (though, obviously, I don’t) but that I think it is rather silly to have such a “Center” when there are far more important programs worthy of research funding.

Otherwise how could you have forgotten that "No Marine is as important as the one next to you"? Shouldn't it also apply equally to those members of the Corp that are gay or lesbian? Shame on you.

The difference between you and me is that you see “gay and lesbian” as a category while I see it as a behavior. I personally could care less what “orientation” a person has. But their behavior – even sexual behavior – could be of grave concern.

Yet still the Congress and the military have created a "special rights" category of a Marine that is not treated as equal to all others.

All Marines are treated equally. None of us –- whether we have homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual tendencies – can engage in homosexual behavior. That is not discrimination when it applies equally to everyone.

Perhaps the "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military" doesn't need to change their name to include "Virtuous Heroes" because its obvious, or should be obvious, to everyone, that often the subjects of their studies are "Virtuous Heroes" already.

[rolling eyes] Oh, please. Quit making them out to be martyrs. If you join the military you give up certain freedoms. My freedom of speech and association is limited because I choose to serve. I respect that. If gay and lesbian Americans do not want to have similar limitations imposed on them then I certainly don’t hold it against them if they do not serve. I often criticize capable young people for failing to do their duty. But as long as the present policy remains in effect you will never hear me complain that homosexuals should just “shut up about it and do your duty.” If they think the restriction is too much to bear then I respect that and will honor their decision not to enter the service. But if you join and you know the policy then you are in the same boat as I am – voluntarily restricting my rights in order that everyone may have freedom.

A Marine who is gay is still a Marine. In battle they gladly die so that you, their brother, can live. And they have done so.

Yes, I know. I’ve known Marines who were gay but who had enough respect for the uniform not to engage in homosexual conduct.

So why can't you, as a brother, give them the small amount of respect and recognition needed to let them live their lives off of the battlefield with honesty and a little human dignity?

Because, while I have compassion for homosexuals, I do not see that there is anything worthy of dignity in respecting homosexual behavior.

10

I’m not sure how you draw that conclusion. Both concern research into personality and identity. Why would sexual orientation be a concern for state governments while virtue the province of the feds.

Ah. I misread you, thinking that you were proposing a 'build a better soldier' program or something. my mistake.

Do you truly believe that researching transgendered soldiers (how many can there really be and how would you find them?) is a more worthy research program than studying the traits that instill heroism?

First: the program doesn't research transgendered soldiers. It looks at how military and militaristic practice strongly inform what it means to be a guy. So, since we're so informed by these practices and values, let's look at them. I assume that the militaristic practice bit builds off Foucault's Discipline and Punish, if my academic sniffer still works right - the point is that 'militaristic practice' is interpolated by schools (notably those of the Habsburg empire, I believe), and so is a foundational mode of becoming a 'good, productive citizen' in Western culture.

Presumably, it'll be a history and archaelogy of these virtue ethics that find expression in military, school, etc.

11

JPE The upside: this is a non-story.

Oh, I have no doubt that it's a non-story. After all, we are talking about a non-important research program.

But since it is being funded by California taxpayers it's not of much concern to me. I don't live there so it's not coming out of my pocket. And being a strong supporter of federalism I respect their right to spend their hard earned money however they choose.

12

hmm. my sniffer is off, it seems. After another quick look, the program looks at the identity-formation within the military from a more historical and sociological perspective (rather than the theoretical perspective I guessed at).

Interesting stuff. And, it's a big school. I'm sure there are classes on virtue ethics, y'know.

13

JPE The upside: this is a non-story.

Oh, that doesn't sound like something I'd say. I'm so nosy that everything is deserving of criticism.

14

JPE First: the program doesn't research transgendered soldiers.

It doesn’t? But the mission statement says:

The Center promotes the interdisciplinary analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and other marginalized sexual identities in the armed forces.
[snip]
Analysis of sexual minorities in the armed forces is a critical window into the study of how actors and institutions shape and reinforce understandings of deviance.

How do they analyze trangendered soliders in the armed forces without doing research?

I'm sure there are classes on virtue ethics, y'know.

If I were a betting man (sometimes it doesn’t pay to be Baptist) I would bet my next paycheck that they don’t. I doubt the words "virtue ethics" have ever been found in the syllabus of a queer studies program.

15

That awaited (by me, at least) posting is finished. There's a reason it's a non-story: it's not government-funded.

16

Jim There's a reason it's a non-story: it's not government-funded.

The ISBER is the one that funds the CSSMM. According to their annual report the funding comes from:

The range and diversity of ISBER's clientele are matched by the wide-ranging number and variety of its funding sources. During the past year ISBER worked with a total of 70 different funding sources as well as various royalty and gift accounts. These included:

--14 different governmental sources, including…

[snip]

--14 University of California sources, including 3 at UCSB,,,

So maybe I should be concerned after all…

17

Joe, there's no specific link from particular sources of funding to particular research organizations. An example: If I told you I was given $1000, half from my dad, and half from my mom, and then I told you I gave half of that to my brother, and the other half to my sister, you'd have no way of knowing which half went to either sibling--or if I mixed the halves together.

In the absence of other evidence (which I'm still trying to dredge up), why not assume that the director of the program actually knows what he is talking about?

18

JPE In the absence of other evidence (which I'm still trying to dredge up), why not assume that the director of the program actually knows what he is talking about?

Because I don't agree that there's an absence of evidence. First of all, Belkin is a professor at the university so he is being paid by the school. Second, the site is hosted on the universities website. Do you think they are cutting a seperate check for the bandwith they use? Third, they use campus facilities for the program.

In fact, there is not a single shred of evidence – apart from Mr. Belkin’s claims otherwise – that taxpayer funds are not being used to support the program.

19

"In fact, there is not a single shred of evidence – apart from Mr. Belkin’s claims otherwise – that taxpayer funds are not being used to support the program."

There is the quote on the "How Can I Help" page, which I cited already:

The Center relies on donations to fulfill its mission.... Please make all checks payable to the "Univeristy of California Regents"...
The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.

I emailed to get a copy of their non-profit statement, since that would include a list of their funding sources. That, for me, would settle the question. Belkin is paid by the school, but for his other duties as a professor of political science; there is no indication that he receives pay for his work with the Center, or, if he is compensated, that it comes from governmental funds. Grants can be written for all sorts of things, including technology, facilities usage, monetary compensation, etc.

20

Mr. Ed writes

"Of course we know that even if life "on Earth" did come from alien droppings we would still be no further in explaining where life "in the Universe" came from."

Or where God came from. It's fascinating, Mr.Ed., to watch you struggle.

I'm not suprised that you enjoy wrestling with the nuances of enterocraftic theory. I held off telling about it as long as I could!

"When we say that it is not unscientific to believe God create the Universe and life in it"

I am not sure whether it is proper to characterize a person's "belief" as "unscientific" or not. But I do claim that a theory which purports to explain a phenomenon by invoking awesomely powerful intelligent beings for which no evidence exists is not a scientific theory. As you are perfectly capable of understanding (but not capable of admitting, evidently) such a theory can be used to explain any phenomenon, anytime, anyplace. From a scientific persepective, such a theory is useless.

A better description for such a theory is "religious belief" or "fantasy", depending on how you choose to alter your lifestyle in response to the existence of the proposed beings.

Very simple, very straightforward stuff here. That is why so-called "ID theory" lies in the realm of crank pseudosecience, along with alien abductions, telekinesis, communication with dead. There's nothing subtle or complex about it. It's bogus. Creationism with a not-so-clever name.

Stop smearing science. Enjoy your faith without mocking the honest efforts of others who strive to make your children healthier and your life free of disease. It's surely more Christian than spreading lies, such as those recently spread by the script-reciting Ms. Schafly.

Don't you agree? I know there are many Christians out there who agree wholeheartedly with me.

21

Re the gay soldier stuff, I highly recommened hunting down a tape of the great Huston flick, "Reflection in a Golden Eye" starring the immortal Marlon Brando and Liz Taylor.

Unlike that family of Rwandan refugees, "you won't ever forget it".

22

Is it a sign of virtue that a man abandons his wife and child to go around the world to kill people who are fighting to end the occupation of their country by that man's army?

If so, then those British soldiers who came to the US to kill the colonists in America were virtuous men, indeed.

23

Joe, I'm sorry, but you're not on my list of CW's. But I think I have a new candidate for the first installment...

24

Larry,

Just STFU.

Nobody's giving you any attention because you're just and arrogant condecending ass, so you have to take a contrarian dump on every carpet you see.

Give it a rest, huh?

25

Two words, hobgoblin: Robot Kong.

I also chuckle at the irony of being labeled as "arrogant" when I'm merely defending the proposition that the world's biologists just *might* know what they've been doing for the past 150 years. If that's "arrogant", what do you call the scientifically illiterate people who claim that they know better than all the experts? Are who believe that their theories, unlike those of every other scientist, don't need to be tested but should go straight into public school textbooks? And who spend millions of dollars on trying to make scientists look like fools?

No, in the greater scheme of things, hobgoblin, I'm about as benign an entity as you could wish for.

And besides, what's contrarian about recommending a movie directed by John Huston and starring the immortal Marlon Brando??? Did I mention that Brian Keith appears in a supporting role? Great entertaining stuff, especially if the idea of gays in the military is something that peaks your interest.

26

What does responding to an argument with alternate meanings of a word have to do with Schopenhauer?

27

"The difference between you and me is that you see “gay and lesbian” as a category while I see it as a behavior. I personally could care less what “orientation” a person has. But their behavior – even sexual behavior – could be of grave concern. "

That is indeed the difference. And thats exactly why under the veneer of tolerance, your attitudes, thoughts and feelings toward gay and lesbian people are defined by me as prejudiced. You do not "care less" about sexual orientation, if you did we wouldn't be having this discussion

It's not the sexual activity that gets a gay person kicked out of the military. It's that the activity is considered to be evidence that they are homosexual. It's still the identity of being gay that gets you kicked out, not actions. And that is prejudice against a person. Not a behavior. You were so busy criticizing the "Minorities in the Military" site that you apparently didn't bother to actually read anything there. Fortunatly for you my tax dollars are providing an apparently much needed resource. It's all quite clear in the UCMJ. Go look it up.

Animals engage in behavior Joe. Human beings have identity. You do not grant me and those like me that status. Apparently you see me as some kind of straight person behaving wrongly. Not as who I am. You are unwilling to get your mind around the concept that some people are simply fundamentally different from you at the soul.

Joe, our sexual behaviors, yours and mine, are the least of our differences in comparison to the many vastly different ways in which we think, feel, and perceive the world and other human beings. And genders. And those are not learned things, those are what came in the original package. It's because of a personal, fundamental and unique shape of my soul that I am different from you. Not whether, or even where, that I'm parking my penis for the evening.

Even though you are also fundamentally strange and different to me as I am to you, I do accept you as true equal. Not as a crazy perverted embarrassing uncle who should be kept in the closet out of sight. Or as someone who should be kept in jail or sanctioned against, or even simply ignored because I don't approve of the gender of whom you fall in love with. And certainly not because you are a fellow "sinner".

I respect you instead as human simply because you were gifted by God with that quality. It deserves its respect because of its source. And I do think God's gifts should be respected. Don't you? I didn't get quite the same gifts that you did. But that doesn't mean I didn't get any presents at all. And that they are any less or more valuable than yours. You keep trying to tell me that I've gotten a lump of coal in my stocking when in fact what we both got were diamonds. Just cut on a slightly different bias from each other. Unfortunately you seem to be using your diamonds as rocks in your head. Or as stones mortared into a wall to keep something you are afraid of outside.

28

Peter What does responding to an argument with alternate meanings of a word have to do with Schopenhauer?

Schopenhauer was the one who wrote this list of "38 Ways to Win an Argument." He meant it rather facietiously, of course. But it's an interesting collection of examples, almost all of which can be found on blogs every single day.

29

Joe,

Something seems amiss about these 38 rules, were they re-written by someone later? According to your link, he died in 1860. The Wright brothers did not fly until the 20th century. One of his rules is....

"16. When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it
inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions or
lack of action. Example: Should your opponent defend suicide, you
may at once exclaim, "Why don't you hang yourself?" Should the opponent
maintain that his city is an unpleasant place to live, you
may say, "Why don't you leave on the first plane?""

How could he be speaking of planes before their were planes?

Color me confused.

30

Eric & Lisa,

This Rule 16 of yours is a wrong translation.

German: Oder er behauptet z. B., Berlin sei ein unangenehmer Aufenthalt: gleich schreit man: »warum fährst du nicht gleich mit der ersten Schnellpost ab?«

English: Should he maintain that Berlin is an unpleasant place to live in, you may say, "Why don't you leave by the first train?"

Source: http://omziff.deep-ice.com/schopenhauer/http/erist16.htm

31

How do they analyze trangendered soliders in the armed forces without doing research?

What I meant was that that's not the sole purpose. Saying that it's a center for studying transgendered soldiers makes it sound wackier than it is. It's focusing on gender formation, gay issues, etc.

If I were a betting man (sometimes it doesn’t pay to be Baptist) I would bet my next paycheck that they don’t. I doubt the words "virtue ethics" have ever been found in the syllabus of a queer studies program.

The university has classes on virtue ethics. This program probably doesn't, but why should it? I'll bet they don't have classes on accounting, either, but that's pretty irrelevant. Their focus is neither philosophy nor accounting.

32

What I meant was that that's not the sole purpose. Saying that it's a center for studying transgendered soldiers makes it sound wackier than it is. It's focusing on gender formation, gay issues, etc."

The center was formed in the wake of the of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" fiasco of the Clinton years. The policy itself after all was made in absolute ignorance of whether there would be a problem with integrating gays and lesbians into the military or not. The congressional hearings held at the time by Nunn were among the most twisted, stacked-against-the-deck media stunts ever pulled in the chamber. They only reported on vague opinions of dubious objectivity and knowledge, with little to no data to back those opinions up. Basically SOP for the Senate.

The center seeks to provide data. It does have a point of view. It can be considered in some respects an advocate for lifting the ban. However it has chosen to conduct studies and do research and provide information toward that goal rather than lobby or direct political activity. It's sort of a think tank. You may criticize this, but in order to do so fairly, you should examine their methods of collecting and reporting data for integrity. Which is sound.
And of course, if the center were only funded by gay and lesbian donors, you would view it as strictly a PR campaign, which it is not.

Joe said earlier that he didn't think the topic is worth studying. Thats too bad. I think it's actually a good idea to study things about which you know nothing, just on principle, whether you are interested in them or not.

And the problem is of course that otherwise the topic may not get studied at all. But that's not a neutral outcome, since it's supportive of those who are prejudiced against gays and lesbians serving in the military. It permits those opponents to continue to state ignorant and prejudiced ideas within a vacuum about the issue without there ever being any data either pro or against to back it up.

The center also acts as a clearing house for a great deal of historical information. Its always in the best interests of a society to remember and preserve it's past. Gay and Lesbian Americans are also a part of that past, whether you like it or not.

Gay and lesbian history is a part of the greater story of this country, and research and preservation of it should be supported by the country as a whole.

Actually it's rather too bad Joe has so little interest in the topic. A discussion of homoeroticism and traditional "crossing the line" rituals might be rather interesting.

33

Niom,

Thank you for clearing that up!

34

Barracks life is highly communal, and privacy is very limited, which fosters the camaraderie and unit cohesion that is vital to the proper functioning of the military. The presence of known homosexuals disrupts the trust among unit members and puts good order, discipline, unit cohesiveness in jeopardy. Cohesiveness and discipline are vital to the military, and if you can't realize these simple facts, you have no buisness even discussing the matter.

35

The fact that California taxes go to fund the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military rather than for, oh let’s say, a “Center for the Study of Virtuous Heroes in the Military” doesn’t really surprise me.

Well, duh. What in the name of all that is rational and sane and real do you think we fund the Army War College, West Point, the Naval Acadamey, etc. for?????

36

Still, I think it’s a sign of our nation’s misplaced priorities that we spend more money and attention on the role of sexual identity than we do on understanding the importance of virtue and character in our military.

"Virtue" and "virility" share the same root (so does "werewolf." ) In a sense, sexual identity is "virtue" and "character." Of course, sexual identity "by itself" isn't. But the human without a sexual identity is also, literally, without virtue and character either.

It seems that sexual identity is just not an aspect of character that some folks seem to find comfortable.