« What's the "harm" in establishments of religion? | Main | Richard Rorty, 1931-2007 »

June 10, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef00df35217aa88833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Wrong Side of History:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

jimbino

The truth is, and someone should start admitting it, that it might be better for worldwide human rights if this country, characterized by such abysmal policies, were to lose the war and subsequently vanish.

GMUSL 3L

Jesus, Geoff. That's one of the most shrill denunciations of the sky falling that I've ever heard, exceeded only by the previous commentator.

We're so evil for not letting gays serve openly in the military -- a change that will come in due time, and one to which I'm not opposed when it comes from within the military as opposed to a blowhard law professor with a record of denouncing the military whenever convenient.

So if that's us, what are most of the countries in the Arab world, and the "palestinians", all of whom don't just bar gays from serving openly in the military, but regularly kill gays by tearing down stone walls (it's a pun that works on so many levels, in a sickly ironic way) on top of them?

Needless to say anything about what they do to women.

But why complain about that rusty spike flying at your face when there's a tiny scratch in the paint of your car?

isabel pietri

Could you pleeeease explain to me how
loosing a war and subsequently vanish would lead to the betterment of worldwide human rights?

The Dude

"The truth is, and someone should start admitting it, that it might be better for worldwide human rights if this country, characterized by such abysmal policies, were to lose the war and subsequently vanish."

Jimbino, that is the most irresponsible thing I have heard in years.

Geoff, is this issue--gays serving openly in the military-- really what we are most concerned with? For instance, I find it far more disturbing that some of these candidates don't believe in evolution. I actually mostly agree with you, but this issue seems less important than hundreds of over issues to me. It seems bizarre and partisan to think history will judge the US on this issue, when many more egregious areas of concern exist.

mclaren

Yes, it's certainly way out of line to say "The truth is, and someone should start admitting it, that it might be better for worldwide human rights if this country, characterized by such abysmal policies, were to lose the war and subsequently vanish."

In fact it's outrageous to say something like that, because it's much too mild.

America has become a nation of torturers
www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/we-got-it-wrong-says-former-torturer/2007/06/10/1181414139791.html
a nation of genocidal mass murderers
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article668362.ece
a nation of sadistic rapists
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5253160.stm
a nation that wildly applauds people who propose launching unprovoked nuclear war against another country that has never attacked us:
agonist.org/topic/usa/usa_campaign_2008

America has become a nation of Ed-Gein-type sadists, a nation of wannabe-BTK killers, a nation drunk with hate and maddened by logic and reason.
reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2007/06/brownback-strikes-back-on-evolution.html

What really needs to happen is that America needs to suffer the same fate as Carthage. If there is justice in the world, all the adult men in America will be executed, all American women will be taken as slaves, all the American cities and towns wil lbe leveled to the ground, and all the American farmlands will be sown with salt and left to the wild beasts.

America was given incredible advantages by geography and history, and its people have turned into a raging crew of hate-mongering lunatics who have defecated on their own constitution and abandoned the rule of law, and now scream hysterically for death and torture and swoon rhapsodically for eternal war against...well...just about everyone, apparently.

Obliteration seems just.

Henry

The post refers to "a time when men burned witches." We always have and always will; the nature of the witch and the punishment just changes. Today we imprison drug users.

Roach

I like the way Geoff condemns all traditional notions of morality as relics from "a time when men burned witches." I guess one could also say that of the Christian and Jewish religions as a whole, the moral concepts of the common law, and the notion of representative government itself. After all, progressives told us that eugenics and fascism were the wave of the future, let's not forget. The history argument cuts both ways.

Second, this argument coming from Stone is kind of a joke. It's clear he views America as basically an evil country until recently. He was not just anti-war but also anti-military during the Vietnam War and he (and those who think like him) have literally zero interest in military effectiveness. The military means nothing to them. They know no one in it. No one in their family serves in it. They don't follow the issues that effect it whether its the deployment of the EFV for the Marines or the Crusader for the Army for whether the BAQ is going to be X or Y in a particular jurisdiction. They know nothing about it and care nothing about it. The military and its members are just props and photos for them. They're little different than Bush, who uses the military as a prop to support his anti-American expansionist foreign policy. Liberals like Stone use the military's members as props to wage a pity campaign against the Iraq War and to support its use as a tool of social revolution at home.

Finally, on the merits, Stone does not tell us what makes a particular policy or sexual practice immoral or moral, other than his overriding belief in equality (and his unstated belief that no American institution should hurt his lesbian daughter's feelings). But we must have standards in the military and elsewhere. We wouldn't have all kinds of people in the military from the physically infirm to the socially maladjusted to the religiously extreme, for that matter. Discrimination is absolutely necessary for an effective military.

The DADT policy is perfectly sensible and moral. The watchword should always be military effectiveness, not policies that don't hurt the feelings of gays or others who may be excluded.

Militaries do not function along "rationalist" lines alone. Soldiers are men of passion, energy, and prejudice. Not all of those passions and prejudices are bad; we would not want them snuffed out, not least the prejudice in favor of our country, in favor of action, and in contempt of weakness and vice . . . things that draft-dodgers like Stone may not be particularly familiar with.

Our military is more Southern, more conservative, more religious, and more "macho" than the country at large. While some soldiers, no doubt, would work fine with gays, many would not. They would not for the same reason we wouldn't want our wives and girlfriends taking showers in front of a roomful of men; the possibility of sexual attraction and sexual tension undermines the bonds of camraderie and *brotherly* love needed for true unit effectiveness. . . .

Mark my words: it would change the military more than it would change the gay servicemembers and their behavior they were permitted to serve openly. Traditional standards that chafed against their gay style would find themselves in the crosshairs of a new ethic of inclusion, tolerance, and open-mindedness. This has been the pattern of liberalism and its ethic of nondiscrimination in every other area.

First rights are demanded, often quite reasonably, on the grounds of equal treatment, with those making the demands saying they simply want to be treated the same as others and have access to the institution from which they're presently denied.

Once they join, however, they and their supporters move the goal post. The values of the institution are themselves attacked as exemplars of the old order, barriers to the advancement for the newcomers, or as disrespectful to the unique, hitherto unrecognized talents of the newcomers. This has happened most dramatically in the case of underqualified minorities and women in universities and government service, where academic and physical standards are lowered across the board to create a myth that everyone admitted now is equal, though more diverse, than the prior pool. Stone's examples tend to prove this legitimate fear among those of us who don't want to see our country destroyed in the service of good for humanity, like the first poster above has had the honesty to say.

The reason for this situation is the parallel leftist contempt for the inherited culture, as Stone illustrates above. The exclusion of some group from some benefit of that culture in the recent past does not prove to them that an objectively good thing has not been fairly distributed, and that its wider distribution "as is" would be just and beneficial.

It proves, rather, for alienated people like Stone that the dominant culture and its institutions are demented and oppressive and need to be destroyed. This bait-and-switch is the reason why leftism is so corrosive and why conservatives have the sometimes-difficult task of resisting change: lying behind discrete demands for justice--that are often reasonable standing alone--are a series of ever-increasing demands for change that aim ultimately to destroy western civilization itself.

This is just one battle in a bigger war, a culture war between western civilization and the cancerous, self-destroying leftist ideology in its midst that masquerades as the advance of justice.

jimbino

If allowing gays or women in the military and all the concomitant sexual tension is so disruptive, how do the Dutch, Germans, and Israelis get by with it? Maybe we just need to get all our bigoted, narrow-minded Southerners out of our military, or let them in only if they don't tell and learn to speak like a Yankee.

Roach

Most of those other militaries have not been combat tested, with the notable exception of the Israelis. The Dutch? The Germans? What about the friggin' Luxombergers or the brave troops of Laos?

I should add that the British military recently began allowing gays in the ranks, and their execrable performance during the detention of certain members in Iran suggests that the introduction of open gays is part of a broader corroding of morale and fighting effectiveness from the moral relativism and feminized values such a change entails. Militaries exist to fight and win wars. They should not be judged by other criteria.

PS Israel's military has been much weaker since, say, 1980 where it failed in Lebanon (twice) and has had a complete inability to get a handle on Palestinian terrorism since the Second Intefadah. So two garrison militaries and one in decline is hardly proof positive that we can have gays in the military without consequence. We could have mental defects as surgeons too, but lots of people would die. Just because they and the title and uniform wouldn't mean they (and the teams that resulted) would be worth a damn.

Frederick Hamilton

Debate it in Congress and put it to a vote. The policy was put forth by President Clinton, passed by Congress in 1993. The policy was drafted by a black man (Colin Powell), so much for the racist black analogy.

There are legitimate reasons for the policy and the Supremes stomped on Professor Stone and the law professors for claiming they could violate the law because of DADT (FAIR v Rumsfeld).

So, in the vernacular of the popular culture: Professor Stone get a life. If your view is correct, get it approved by the public, the military, the Congress and signed into law by a president.

As a point of fact missing in the discussion, homosexuals can and do serve in the military, they simply can't talk about it or engage in homosexual behavior in a military setting and absent a reason, the military can't ask about their sexual preferences. Pretty decent compromise I would think.

Tim Muslim

Yeah, then the Islamists can take over so men can kill 17-year old girls by repeatedly throwing stones at her head while other men laugh and videotape it with their cell phones (which of course were invented with the ingenuity allowed by the freedom of our country). Were it not for us, those Islamists would be licking sand all day without having a cell phone camera to video tape their mass rape/murder with.

Jeez, that comment is so outrageous that indeed I am too deflated to even take the time to write a better response.

Smart folks here will get my point.

Here is is in summary: Muslim men believe it is okay for a group of animals (aka Muslim men) to kidnap a 17-year old girl from her family and then kill her with stones in front of her mother while videotaping it, because the poor girl committed the crime of having a crush on a boy from another "tribe." There are better things to worry about than the "rights" of gays.

Erasmussimo

Halleluiah! At last, at last, balance has been achieved! Mr. Roach's opinions are cleanly balanced by Mr. Jimbino's. It is my hope that these two scorpions will fully engage each other, leaving the reasonable correspondents free to discuss the issues.

I disagree with the intensity of Mr. Stone's assertions on this point. While I agree that it is a sorry performance on the part of the Republican candidates, and I agree that gays should be permitted to serve openly, I do not feel that this issue is important enough to require us to cram it down the throats of that portion of our society that is slowly catching up with the 21st century. Gays are slowly becoming more visible in our society. People are starting to realize that the pharmacist, the mailman, the guy they go hunting with, and their next-door neighbor are gay and they're nice people. We can afford to give them time to come to terms with reality.

David

Eras-etc.: What are your counterpoints to everything Roach just wrote, other than "gays are nice people"? I guess calling him a fanatic is a lot easier than actually thinking through and logically responding to his very reasonably stated views.

BAC

By endorsing DADT, the Republican candidates were not approving "a belief forged at a time when men burned witches," but a 1993 policy implemented during the Clinton administration.

I'm curious whether Prof. Stone thinks Mr. Clinton's enactment of DADT puts him in the same segregationist camp as Faubus, Barnett, and Thurmond. My guess is that the good Professor reserve this hyperbole exlusively for Republicans, and will gladly play the Clinton apologist.

Prof. Stone also has me thinking about the unfairness of DADT. And as an act of protest and solidarity, I would propose a series of posts in which we all join together in asking and telling. Call it a mea culpa of sexual proclivities. The law school community can all ask and tell together so that some day soon our men and uniform can do the same. Straight sex, same sex, no sex, spankings, bondage . . . let's get it all out in the open by both asking and telling.

Erasmussimo

OK, David, let me answer a few of Mr. Roach's grander assertions:

"I like the way Geoff condemns all traditional notions of morality as relics from "a time when men burned witches.""

Here Mr. Roach equates condemnation of gays with "all traditional notions of morality".

"After all, progressives told us that eugenics and fascism were the wave of the future, let's not forget."

Total balderdash -- and of course, no substantiation for this crazy claim is offered.

"he (and those who think like him) have literally zero interest in military effectiveness."

Another wild and patently false claim.

"Liberals like Stone use the military's members as props to wage a pity campaign against the Iraq War and to support its use as a tool of social revolution at home."

Gadzooks, are you actually going to defend this drivel?

"lying behind discrete demands for justice--that are often reasonable standing alone--are a series of ever-increasing demands for change that aim ultimately to destroy western civilization itself."

In other words, western civilization doesn't comport with justice? And liberals are out to destroy Western civilization?

"This is just one battle in a bigger war, a culture war between western civilization and the cancerous, self-destroying leftist ideology in its midst that masquerades as the advance of justice."

Here Mr. Roach identifies his own beliefs with "western civilization" while liberal beliefs are inimical to western civilization. Gad, man, do you really consider this 'reasonable'?

In a later post, Mr. Roach suggests that the discipline shown by the British military in their recent encounter with the Iranians is in fact a weakness, due in some way to their inclusion of gays in the military. Not only does Mr. Roach mistake discipline for weakness, he suggests a causal relationship that has no substance.

I don't bother pointing out Mr. Roach's insanities because they are patent to any reasonable person.

Frederick Hamilton

Good point BAC. Clinton proposed DADT after promulgated by Powell. Therefore Clinton and Powell are also racist bigots like Faubus, Barnett and Thurmond. Makes sense to me. And to think, Clinton was our first black president and a racist to boot. What is it that addles a law professors brain? To much time in the ivory tower do you think?

Joan A. Conway, also known as "Curve Ball"

A behavorial scientist would be the first to step up to the plate when it comes to the verification of such policies as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell!" as 'b__ls__t.'

But allowing the Gays and Lesbians to serve openly in the military to serve the purpose of needed personnel, suggests more at wanting these young men and women to join the ranks of those that have gone before them, under equal justice!

The problem with this idea is that their mode of operation, "MO", is disruptive in the discipline of our forces, and it denies the inner-conflict amongst our armed services, not just in the dug-out, but in the latrine, bunks, and dining halls.

Many Gays and Lesbians are difficult to tolerate in public life, because of their need to demonstrate they can have children too, while the child never lifts her head out of her adopted mother's lap, and interfers with adequate bus protocol to accommodate a demanding mother's perceived privileges as a mother.

I get it, but many do not get it!

Many are long suffering individuals, who have a grudge against the straight world and use their children and their positions to get a measure of pay back for the slights they have endured.

I feel sorry for their children.

I don't want to feel sorry for our armed forces.

After a recent epidsode with a young gay male in my apartment building, who had a different boyfriend every week-end, with nightly brawls at 4 a.m., and comments like, "that hurts, and get out!"

I have decided I have seen enough of the excesses of the Gay and Lesbian Life to satisfy me that society has enough problems with addressing young behavior let alone erratic ones gone wild.

The Republican candidates are inferior ones, with the exception of Mitt Romney, who I won't vote for because of his affiliation with the Morman Church.

The Democratic candidates are inferior ones, too.

So I suggest we choose them one the basis of another criteria, like the filling of Justice Stevens' and Ginsbergs' Supreme Court seats.

The war against terrorists has been fueled by a failure to take heed that they were coming to America before 911, and failure to appropriate enough resources for the get go towards intelligence and ground troops to military equipment and water to air support.

The blame falls on President George W. Bush's administration, and his V.P., Dick Cheney. You and I would probably be dead by now if we had Cheney's health. He has been kept alive, because of his aggressive conduct towards establishing a pro-American Iraq, in spite of the fact that the religion and ethnic groups in Iraq were given little alternative but to take up arms against the administration's policies.

I recommend reading "George Tenet, The Center of The Storm, My Years in the CIA" to get the facts straight on any Slam Dunk philosophy about Gays and Lesbians in the Military.

BAC

"The policy I am announcing today is, in my judgment, the right thing to do and the best way to do it. It is right because it provides greater protection to those who happen to be homosexual and want to serve their country honorably in uniform, obeying all of the military’s rules against sexual misconduct. It is the best way to proceed because it provides a sensible balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the military to remain the world’s number one fighting force."

Pres. William J. Clinton, 7/19/1993.

But when a Republican stands by the policy, it is "deeply irrational" and "grounded in ignorance, intolerance, and immorality."

Frederick Hamilton

BAC,
Isn't it amazing when you demonstrate the thinking of the Democratic President who proposed DADT how the naysayers retreat? Gosh darn that racist Clinton. What a scum bag he must have been to be in favor of how homosexuality is treated today in the military.

BAC

Very true FH.

But I am a little disappointed because I was hoping to goad someone into trying to exonerate Clinton from Prof. Stone's misfired tantrum. Hilarity would ensue.

LAK

I think both Clintons would agree it is a failed policy that was a babystep in the right direction of slowly acclimating even the military to the reality that there are lots of homosexuals out there that participate in all aspects of social life, including serving in the military. Don't ask don't tell is better than an outright active discriminatory policy, but it is worse than just having a policy where everyone grows the fuck up and stops caring who people want to bang outside of work and duty.

Joan A. Conway, thrown a Curve Ball.

LAK, June 13, 2007, at 11:52 A.M.: "Don't ask don't tell is better than an outright active discriminatory policy, but it is worse than just having a policy where everyone grows the fuck up and stops caring who people want to bang outside of work and duty."

Your remark reminds me of my sentiments prior to a certain "Barry", my former neighbor, who was all of 21-22 years old, bleached blond, tall and extremely thin, homosexual student in a film school, who practiced bad sex with many stranger men on weekends that usually ended in furniture being thrown around his studio, and him sending the stranger on his way, after they paraded around the neighborhood in tantum-step to call attention to their union. He was always given 5-Day Notices for being late in his rent. He threatened me on one or more occassions not to be a Good Samaritan if I had a call of distress to coerce me to contribute to his existence in our building. He opened and closed his door everytime I existed or entered my apartment to catch me leaving the door unlocked to steal from me.

Then there is the Neighboring Lesbian, who parades her daughter as a "slave" to her forcing her presence on the rest of us, from protective status entering and existing a building, to obtaining seats on the bus, to offending us with carrying on at the bus stop that her daughter did not want to have a seat on her mother's lap so that she could put her head on her mother's stomach, suggesting oral sex.

Who needs to grow up, me, my neighbors, people who share bus benches, people who ride buses, people who enter business establishments, people who exist business establishments, people who have children who don't sit with their heads on their mother's stomach or use their child as a foil in achieving special treatment, or these characters of the homosexual population?

I appears to me my tolerance just got stretched too far after knowing "Barry" and a dominating Lesbian and her dutiful child.

Joan A. Conway, thrown a Curve Ball.

The right thing to do does not enter into the formula for what are the goals of our armed forces, the MARINES, the SOLDIERS, and the SAILORS.

They alone must speak as to who they want fighting with them, commanding them, and ordering them around. They must feel TRUST in the leadership that they commit their lives to while serving our country. GOD BLESS these remarable men and women. I could never see me volunteering for what they have given me. I feel indebted to them for their service.

Somehow these sentiments do not always go up the career ladder to the Generals, the Bush Adminstration, after it became extended into Iraq, with the rally around the flag pole of feared WMD,and bluffing Hussein; and not the obvious terrorist training camps and discovered biological and chemical facilities found in Iraq.

Yes, we had a reason to be in Iraq, but I don't think our reason to be in Iraq is the same one that Bush and Cheney had for entering into Iraq.

This is a case of the Physican in spite of himself!

The war effort over mankind's existence is responsible for our evolution and probably it can be offered as a reason to include the homosexual population into the barracks, bowls, and cockpits of our military, but a price has to be paid for this inclusion.

Do we want to pay this price at this time in our history, or wait for a more conventional war against a known country, as our enemy, rather than an unknown country with a worldwide affiliation of terrorists.

Life has just got too complicated for me to want the gays and lesbians in the military, but let's say a gay or a lesbian decides to shot a person doing grievious harm to me, I of course will bow my head in thanks.

Like most of society, I now see many bad characters in the homosexual community, than I do in the straight community. Is this at this time just a coincidence, or is the homosexual community less oppressed and demonstrating their freedoms to our disqust and dismay.

BAC

LOL LAK, I knew you couldn't resist.

So what Clinton said DADT was "the right thing to do and the best way to do it" he meant to say it was a "baby step in the right direction."

When Clinton said DADT was "the best way to proceed because it provides a sensible balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the military" he meant "at least it's better than outright discrimination."

LAK

Well yea. I think in poltico speak (best way to proceed?) that is what he was saying at the time. Hey I'm no Clinton fan. I'm no fan of pragmatic baby steps in policy either. If it were up to me I'd tell the military to deal with it.

Hell, I don't understand why anyone would want to join the military in the first place, let alone gays. Or why they would want to be boy scouts. Or republicans. I don't understand any of it. But if you are dumb enough to enlist in the military, we should encourage it no matter who it is you like to F, right? I'm sure a couple homos in the enlisted ranks is a lot better for cohesiveness than a couple of uneducated psychopaths, which seems to be where we are going to recruit these days.

The comments to this entry are closed.