15 Stats That Destroy Liberal Narratives - John Hawkins - Page full

15 Stats That Destroy Liberal Narratives - John Hawkins - Page full

1) “Muslims account for only about 1 percent of the U.S. population but account for about half of terrorist attacks since 9/11. That means Muslims in the United States are about 5,000 percent more likely to commit terrorist attacks than non-Muslims.” -- Mark Krikorian

2) “Consider, for example, that in 1958 a mere 4 percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage. By 2013, that number had grown to 87 percent. In 2012 these once-taboo unions hit an all-time high.
Ku Klux Klan membership has shrunk drastically from millions a century ago to fewer than 5,000 today. The Black Panthers are essentially extinct. While plenty of other hate groups have attempted to fill the void, they have always operated on the margins of society. Black politicians are now common—President Obama’s percentage of the white vote was almost perfectly in line with that received by other recent Democrats, all of whom were white.
Granted, these statistics offer but a snapshot of American society, but the more one looks, the more a trend emerges. America is a lot of things; racist isn’t one of them.”  -- Greg Jones

3) “The harsh reality awaiting these low-income Americans is undeniable: according to 2013 data from a 2014 Merritt Hawkins study, 55% of doctors already refuse new Medicaid patients. According to the HSC Health Tracking Physician Survey, 2008, the percentage of doctors that refuse new Medicaid patients dwarf by about 8 to 10 times the percentage that refuses new private insurance patients.
Such ‘insurance’ from Obamacare not only fails to provide access to doctors, but research in the top medical journals such as Cancer, American Journal of Cardiology, Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation and Annals of Surgery, show that Medicaid beneficiaries suffer worse outcomes than similar patients with private insurance ... all at an added cost of another $800 billion by CBO estimates to taxpayers after the decade.
It is not hyperbole to call Medicaid a disgrace at its annual cost of about $450 billion, and expanding it rather than helping poor people buy private insurance is simply inexplicable.” -- Scott Atlas

4 ) “In other words, all of the disruption, spending, taxation, and premium hikes in Obamacare has only reduced the percentage of U.S. residents without health insurance by 2.7 percentage points, from 13.9% to 11.1%: a remarkably small reduction, and far lower than what the law was supposed to achieve.” -- Avik Roy

5) “Bernie Sanders thinks you can pay for an 18 trillion dollar expansion of the welfare state — to make it align with a Denmark that doesn’t actually exist — simply by taxing ‘the billionaire class.’ There are 536 billionaires in America. Even if you confiscated everything they had — which, by the way, would surely destroy the American economy by triggering the greatest round of capital flight in human history and amount to government seizure of countless businesses — it wouldn’t come close to covering the tab of Sanders’s proposals.” -- Jonah Goldberg

6) “In 2010, 38,329 people died from drug overdoses, twice the number a decade earlier. More people died of drug overdoses than from automobile accidents (30,196), murders (13,000) or gun accidents (700).” -- Ann Coulter

7) “Between 1979 and 2010, for instance, the average after-tax income for the poorest quintile of American households rose from $14,800 to $19,200; for the second-poorest quintile, it rose from $29,900 to $39,100. Meanwhile, per-person antipoverty spending at the state and federal level increased sixfold between 1968 and 2008 — and that’s excluding Medicare, unemployment benefits and Social Security.” -- Ross Douthat

8) “Just last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee received a report that in just four years, 121 illegal aliens who had been released by ICE went on to murder Americans.” -- Mark Krikorian

9) “Officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the food-stamp program has become the country’s fastest-growing means-tested social-welfare program. Only Medicaid is more expensive. Between 2000 and 2013, SNAP caseloads grew to 47.6 million from 17.2 million, and spending grew to $80 billion from $20.6 billion, according to the Agriculture Department. SNAP participation fell slightly last year, to 46.5 million individuals, as the economy improved, but that still leaves a population the size of Spain’s living in the U.S. on food stamps.” -- Jason Riley

10) “Pace Mr. Obama, the state-prison population (which accounts for 87% of the nation’s prisoners) is dominated by violent criminals and serial thieves. In 2013 drug offenders made up less than 16% of the state-prison population; violent felons were 54% and property offenders 19%. Reducing drug-related admissions to 15 large state penitentiaries by half would lower those states’ prison count by only 7%, according to the Urban Institute.

In federal prisons—which hold only 13% of the nation’s prisoners—drug offenders make up half of the inmate population. But these offenders aren’t casual drug users; overwhelmingly, they are serious traffickers. Fewer than 1% of drug offenders sentenced in federal court in 2014 were convicted of simple drug possession, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Most of those possession convictions were plea-bargained down from trafficking charges.” -- Heather Mac Donald

11) “The conservative Heritage Foundation estimated unlawful immigrant households paid $39.2 billion in 2010, but received $93.7 billion in government services.” -- Oliver Darcy

12) “On Wednesday, a Washington Post article announced that ‘The San Bernardino shooting is the second mass shooting today and the 355th this year.’ Vox, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, this newspaper and others reported similar statistics. Grim details from the church in Charleston, a college classroom in Oregon and a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado are still fresh, but you could be forgiven for wondering how you missed more than 300 other such attacks in 2015. At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four ‘mass shootings’ this year, including the one in San Bernardino, and at least 73 such attacks since 1982.” -- Mark Follman

13) “As Pew Research cheerfully reports, previous immigrants were ‘almost entirely’ European. But since Kennedy's immigration act, a majority of immigrants have been from Latin America. One-quarter are from Asia. Only 12 percent of post-1965-act immigrants have been from Europe -- and they're probably Muslims.
Apparently, the ‘American experiment’ is actually some kind of sociological trial in which we see if people who have no history of Western government can run a constitutional republic.
As of 1970, there were only 9 million Hispanics in the entire country, according to the Pew Research Center. Today, there are well more than 60 million.” -- Ann Coulter 

14) “No fewer than eight major studies from around the world have found homosexuality is not a genetic condition.
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says that these numerous, rigorous studies of identical twins have now made it impossible to argue that there is a ‘gay gene.’ If homosexuality were inborn and predetermined, then when one identical twin is homosexual, the other should be, as well.
Yet one study from Yale and Columbia Universities found homosexuality common to only 6.7 percent of male identical twins and 5.3 percent of female identical twins.
The low rate of common homosexuality in identical twins – around six percent – is easily explained by nurture, not nature.
Researchers Peter Bearman and Hannah Brueckner concluded that environment was the determining factor. They rejected outright that ‘genetic influence independent of social context’ as the reason for homosexuality. ‘(O)ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.’
‘Less gendered socialization’ means, a boy was without a positive father figure, or a girl was without a positive mother figure.
In light of the evidence, Sprigg said simply, ‘No one is born gay.’” -- Mark Hodges

15) “Over the last year, only 1.3 million Americans of working age have entered the workforce, even as the population of this same demographic increased by more than 2.8 million. Just over 1 million members of this group found jobs. That's right -- of the new additions to the working age population, less than four in 10 found jobs.
The newspapers touted the reduction in the unemployment rate to 5.3 percent as a cause for celebration. Yet for every three Americans added to the working age population (16 and older), only around one new job (1.07) has been created under Obama. At this pace, America will soon officially have a zero unemployment rate. But that will only be because no one will be looking for work.” -- Stephen Moore

College Sexual Assault Rules Trample Rights of Accused Campus Rapists | New Republic

College Sexual Assault Rules Trample Rights of Accused Campus Rapists | New Republic

 I was curious to know what a lawyer outside the university system would make of one of these codes. So I sent the document to Robin Steinberg, a public defender and a feminist.
A few hours later, Steinberg wrote back in alarm. She had read the document with colleagues at the Bronx legal-aid center she runs. They were horrified, she said—not because Columbia still hadn’t sufficiently protected survivors of assault, as some critics charge, but because its procedures revealed a cavalier disregard for the civil rights of people accused of rape, assault, and other gender-based crimes. “We are never sending our boys to college,” she wrote.
Columbia’s safeguards for the accused are better than most. For instance, it allows both accuser and accused to have a lawyer at a hearing, and, if asked, will locate free counsel. By contrast, Harvard, which issued a new code in July, holds investigations but not hearings and does not offer to obtain independent legal assistance. But Steinberg, like most people, hadn’t realized how far the rules governing sexual conduct on campus have strayed from any commonsense understanding of justice.
Most colleges that do allow lawyers into sexual-misconduct hearings or interrogations do not permit them to speak, though they may pass notes. Students on both sides must speak for themselves. This presents a serious problem for a young man charged with rape (and in the vast majority of campus cases, the accused are men). On one hand, if he doesn’t defend himself, he’ll be at a disadvantage. On the other, if he is also caught up in a criminal case, anything he says in a campus procedure can be used against him in court. Neither side may cross-examine witnesses to establish contradictions in their testimony. A school may withhold the identity of an accuser from the accused if she requests anonymity (though it may choose not to). Guilt or innocence hinges on a “preponderance” of evidence, a far lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” test that prevails in courtrooms. At Harvard, the Title IX enforcement office acts as cop, prosecutor, judge, and jury—and also hears the appeals. This conflation of possibly conflicting roles is “fundamentally not due process,” says Janet Halley, a Harvard Law School professor whose areas of expertise include feminist legal theory and procedural law.....So what should colleges do about sexual assault? In February, RAINN, the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, wrote to the White House task force to argue that complaints should be dealt with by the police. Victims’ rights advocates counter that the criminal justice system is insensitive to rape victims and bad at securing convictions. Either way, universities view it as their right and educational mission to create internal justice systems for their communities. The quickest fix would be to upgrade their procedures: to ensure that the rights of both parties are equally protected and that every administrator or faculty member involved is properly trained. If nobody trusts the process—and right now, nobody appears to—campus unrest will only grow.
What’s happening at universities represents an often necessary effort to recategorize once-acceptable behaviors as unacceptable. But the government, via Title IX, is effectively acting on the notion popularized in the 1970s and ’80s by Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon that male domination is so pervasive that women need special protection from the rigors of the law. Men, as a class, have more power than women, but American law rests on the principle that individuals have rights even when accused of doing bad things. And American liberalism has long rejected the notion that those rights may be curtailed even for a noble cause. “We need to take into account our obligations to due process not because we are soft on rapists and other exploiters of women,” says Halley, but because “the danger of holding an innocent person responsible is real.”

Colleges can’t play cop in sexual assault investigations - Opinion - The Boston Globe

Colleges can’t play cop in sexual assault investigations - Opinion - The Boston Globe

Much-publicized personal narratives of sexual assault are likewise plagued by fuzzy definitions, ranging from violent rape to intoxicated sex in which the woman feels she was too drunk to properly consent. A recent letter in The Harvard Crimson from an anonymous student who failed in her quest for redress illustrates these gray areas. The letter describes a drunken encounter in which the woman never said she wanted to stop, only telling the male student to “stop kissing [her] aggressively,” and “obeyed” when he asked her to satisfy him. When the account was posted on Slate, the liberal online publication, even many commenters usually sympathetic to rape accusers felt the man’s behavior sounded boorish but not criminal.

At Yale, as an official memo released last summer reveals, the definition of “non-consensual sex” in disciplinary proceedings is so broad that it includes reciprocating a sexual act without an explicit signal to go ahead — even if you stop immediately when asked to stop. Ironically, this creates a Catch-22, as universities find themselves criticized for insufficiently harsh punishments for nonconsensual sex.

Universities are under strong pressure from activists, backed by the federal government, to use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard in adjudicating sexual assault complaints. This is the lowest legal burden of proof, often defined as meaning that it’s more likely than not that the assault occurred. (Traditionally, disciplinary charges by students have been judged by the higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence.”) But what does that mean in practice, especially in he-said/she-said cases? Since anti-rape activists insist that wrongful accusations are extremely rare (and demand that college investigators and “judges” be trained in that dogma), the goal seems to be a presumption of guilt for any accused student, unless there is strong proof of innocence.

Obviously, this is not a question of sending people to prison. Nonetheless, it means that a student may be expelled from college, with a black mark that will follow him to other schools and places of employment, and in some ways acquire the equivalent of conviction for a very serious crime without any of the safeguards of a trial.

While the media have focused on women’s claims of the universities’ inadequate response to sexual assault complaints, there is also a growing number of lawsuits by male students who say they were railroaded by kangaroo courts. This trend will no doubt continue if schools are strong-armed into a more hard-line approach.

But no matter how tough colleges may get on sexual assault, real victims are also ill-served by having such offenses treated as college disciplinary violations rather than crimes. Emma Sulkowicz, who is suing Columbia University after what she says was a badly botched rape investigation, describes a terrifying, painful, violent attack. If true, the answer is not to kick the perpetrator out of school and leave him free to seek victims elsewhere; it is to put him in jail. Yet Sulkowicz never went to the police, apparently believing the university process would be more victim-friendly.

Victims of sexual assault should be encouraged to report these crimes to law enforcement and document the evidence. While colleges certainly have a role in ensuring student safety, they should not be playing cop or judge — or set themselves up as a morals police regulating non-criminal sexual behavior.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent - Reason.com

Link: http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/17/guilty-until-proven-innocent

Last February, one year after the encounter, the other shoe dropped: Yu was informed that Walker had filed charges of "nonconsensual sexual contact" against him through the college disciplinary system. Two and a half weeks later, a hearing was held before a panel of three faculty members. Yu was not allowed an attorney; his request to call his roommate and Walker's roommate as witnesses was denied after the campus "gender equity compliance investigator" said that the roommates had emailed him but had "nothing useful" to offer. While the records from the hearing are sealed, Yu claims his attempts to cross-examine his accuser were repeatedly stymied. Many of his questions (including ones about Walker's friendly messages, which she had earlier told the investigator she sent out of "fear") were barred as "irrelevant"; he says that when he was allowed to question Walker, she would start crying and give evasive or nonresponsive answers. Yu was found guilty and summarily expelled from Vassar.

The federal war on campus rape is unfolding amid a revival of what Katie Roiphe, in her landmark 1994 book The Morning After: Sex, Fear and Feminism on Campus, dubbed "rape-crisis feminism"-a loosely defined ideology that views sexual violence as the cornerstone of male oppression of women, expands the definition of rape to include a wide range of sexual acts involving no physical force or threat, and elevates the truth of women's claims of sexual victimization to nearly untouchable status. This brand of feminism seemed in retreat a few years ago, particularly after a hoax at Duke University drew attention to the danger of presuming guilt. (In 2007, the alleged rape of a stripper by three Duke lacrosse players sparked local and national outrage-until the case was dismissed and the young men declared innocent.) Yet in 2013, the concept made a strong comeback with a sexual assault case that gained national visibility in January and went to trial in March. This one was in Steubenville, Ohio.

 

The Anti-Male Craziness at Yale

Link: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2013/09/another_anti-male_move_at_yale.html (via shareaholic.com)

What is "nonconsensual sex"? Rape, right? Not at Yale, where the term can be applied to a variety of acts generally accepted as minor offenses or non-offenses in the real world. Since 2010 Yale has become the national center of efforts to whittle away the due process rights of students accused of sexual assault in campus hearings. Those efforts, undertaken to appease "activists" who want more males convicted in campus proceedings, have included Orwellian word games to expand the definition of rape. One of the first signs that this was happening came in 2011, when Yale concluded that causing someone to worry could come under the heading of sexual assault. In a footnote in a lengthy 2012 report on this new process, issued by deputy provost Stephanie Spangler, Yale conceded that the university uses "a more expansive definition of sexual assault than is commonly understood." Claiming that a "worry" constitutes sexual assault is expansive indeed.

This issue, alas, seems unlikely to be explored by the Yale Daily News. Campus newspapers can play an important role in standing up for students' rights--an excellent example is the Duke Chronicle, whose coverage of the lacrosse case was consistently on-target, and whose articles and editorials demonstrated an impressive mastery of the importance of due process.

The Yale Daily News, unfortunately, doesn't appear up to the task. In an editorial last Friday, the paper complained of the "University's ineffective and embarrassing response to sexual violence, as we learned that those guilty of sexual assault remain on our campus." Had the editors actually read any of the Spangler reports, or Yale's own policies, and discovered that at Yale, being found "guilty of sexual assault" doesn't mean the same thing that it does anyplace else in New Haven?

The editorial asserted that "the preferred punishment for nonconsensual sex at Yale must be expulsion." Again, keep in mind that Yale's definition of "intimate partner violence" includes threatening your roommate with "economic abuse." The "preferred punishment" for such an offense, according to the student newspaper, "must be expulsion." Expulsion for withholding money from a girlfriend or causing her worry? That ought to satisfy the "activists."

From the comments:

the solution, Yalies (and at many other liberal campus locations) is not to date the women there. Don't speak to them, don't look at them. Leave the room when they come in, if possible.
Make the femenazis and their collaborators own it.

Posted by garrett | September 11, 2013 1:26 PM

Posted on September 11, 2013 13:26

Bill Lawrence:

What happens when men give up on Yale? Do we lose out on some career advantage or does Yale stop being taken seriously as an institution?

Posted by Bill Lawrence | September 11, 2013 1:58 PM

a liberal gets embarrassed when same-sex liberalism becomes personal

Link: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/10550 (via shareaholic.com)

Because she is liberal, I was surprised to hear my friend divulge that she was embarrassed about her daughter's same-sex relationship.  I suggested that it could be a passing phase.  After all, our state pushes homosexual behavior.  No doubt the liberal arts college her daughter attended taught the kids all about liberal love.  Plus, her daughter was hanging out with friends in same-sex relationships.  Far from being genetic, sexual orientation was fluid, especially for girls.  Perhaps she was simply looking for intimacy? 

Before I hung up, I assured her of my love for both her and her daughter.  But afterwards, I felt puzzled.

If a right wing evangelical conservative learned that her son joined the Air Force, she would no doubt be proud, not humiliated.  If her daughter were "saving herself" for marriage, would she be ashamed?  So, if my friend's daughter embraced the very lifestyle that for years they promoted with votes, why the embarrassment?  Why this disconnect between abstract and reality, between politics and home? 

Where did their gay pride go?

Advice Goddess Columns

Advice Goddess Columns
 http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2005/10/fetal-attractio.html

Fetal Attraction
Five months ago, I slept with a woman I dated for a few weeks. She said she was on the pill, so I didn't use a condom. Last week, out of the blue, she called and told me she's pregnant and is having the baby. When I asked how it could be mine, she said she lied about being on the pill because she's 36 and desperately wanted a child. I suspect she doesn't know who the father is, but hopes I'll be a good guy and "do the right thing." I'm not trying to shirk responsibility (I'm a committed father to a 4-year-old daughter I had with my ex-wife), but I caught this woman in several lies while dating her, so I can't help worrying I'm being played. What should I do?

--Parent Apparent

Surely, you've heard some of the names for a man whose only form of birth control was the word of a woman he barely knew: "Daddy," "Da-da," "My Old Man," and "The Dupe Who's Gonna Pay My Kid's Tuition To Harvard."

The mere prospect of having sex often reduces even a man of genius-level intelligence to one with all the sense of a sand flea. If only men were more frank about this tendency, they might arm themselves with wallet-sized translators like tourists use to keep from accidentally ordering fish nostril sashimi. These, however, would convert sexual fantasy phrases to reflect the likely post-sexual reality: "Hey, baby, wanna get naked and make twins?" Or, "Something tells me you're into the real phreaky stuff, like bankrolling a full set of braces and eight years of birthday clowns."

In no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked. While you don't mention being forced at gunpoint to have sex without a condom, potentially getting socked with two decades of hefty fines for being a careless idiot seems a bit like being sentenced to 100 years hard labor for stealing a muffin. The law is not on men's side. Matt Welch reported in Reason magazine (2/04) that welfare reform legislation forces some men to pay child support for kids who aren't theirs -- sometimes, kids of women they've never even met -- unless they protest, in writing, within 30 days, that they're victims of a daddy-scam.

Do We Have an Epidemic of Sexual Abuse? » Publications » Family Security Matters

Do We Have an Epidemic of Sexual Abuse? » Publications » Family Security Matters
Not compared to places like Afghanistan. Only they don't call it "abuse".

On Marcus Bachmann and “conversion therapy”

On Marcus Bachmann and “conversion therapy”: "

Before I post on the accusations leveled against the “Christian counseling business” of Michelle Bachmann’s husband Marcus, an outfit that (allegedly) uses “a controversial therapy that encourages homosexual patients to change their sexual orientation,” let me reiterate my views on such outfits.

First, Christian groups have every right to set up such companies, provided they do not coerce anyone to enter treatment.

Second, critics of such outfits continue to have the freedom to question the methods of said companies and should continue to exercise that freedom.

While many programs do claim some success in “converting” their charges, they are dealing with a self-selected group; those who have “succeeded” in changing their orientation may have already been disposed to such change, that is, their sexuality is more fluid that it is for most of us.  Whereas in their youth, they found themselves drawn to their own sex, as they age, they find themselves drawn to the other sex.

Could it be that they didn’t so much convert them as they helped them accept the change that has already taken place?

The only objective studies I have read of such programs show they have a “success” rate (as defined by them) no greater than 33% (and even that number is likely inflated).  And that, let me stress, is not 33% of all gay people, but 33% of those who seek counseling in such facilities. Some who seek out such treatment may feel uncomfortable describing themselves as “gay” because the label which once worked for them no longer does so, that is, their feelings have changed.

All that said, that doesn’t diminish my skepticism of the “ex-gay” movement.  Those who parade about telling about how they were “saved” from their homosexuality seem to be trying not so much to convince the world about the merits of their ministry, but to convince themselves of the effectiveness of its therapy.

If it had been so effective, why would they need to talk about it so much?

RELATED: Alexander’s Erotic Impulses & Human Sexuality"

“Reparative Therapy” & the Fluidity of (Some People’s) Sexuality

“Reparative Therapy” & the Fluidity of (Some People’s) Sexuality: "
In a thoughtful critique/commentary of my post on On Marcus Bachmann and “conversion therapy”*, Jim Burroway explores those programs’ supposed one-third success rate.  Let me stress that in my post, I provided multiple caveats because I believe it to be inflated.
While I don’t agree with everything Burroway says in that post, I do recommend it as he raises a number of important issues.
In his first paragraph, he writes that I “didn’t exactly defend ex-gay therapy per se”.**  I trust he recognizes that my expression about the right of Christian groups to set up such programs stems from my basic libertarian principles, the rights of individuals to establish their own organizations and associate with whom they please.
That said, as per my previous post, I remain dubious about the effectiveness of these programs.  I believe it is an open question whether their “therapy” is even effective in the handful of successful “conversions.”  Were they successful in changing these individuals sexuality or would that change have occurred organically, that is, without their intervention?
Given the complexity of human sexuality, I lean toward the latter view, that some people have a more “fluid” sexuality than others.  And these individuals seek out such programs because they feel that while the word “gay” once described their emotional/sexual longings, it no longer works to describe their changing emotions.
*I should perhaps have used the term “reparative therapy” in quotes.
**In a subsequent post, I will address his point about coercion.
FROM THE COMMENTS:  rusty offers an observation well worth considering:

Frankly, I find that a gay person’s degree of self-loathing and personal insecurity is directly related to their vehemence against reparative therapy. It’s almost as if they have to demonize it as an excuse for their own inability to accept their own choice and responsibility for their behaviors.

If we’re comfortable in our own sexuality, why would we feel threatened by “reparative therapy”?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Argue

The crowd at The Weekly Standard is sharply divided on the repeal of DADT

The Marines, the Media and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' John R. Guardiano

Why DADT Has to GoJohn Tabin

Re: Why DADT Has to GoJohn R. Guardiano

Thoughts on DADT RepealAaron Goldstein

Re: Thoughts on DADT RepealW. James Antle, III

Goldstein Misunderstands DADT John R. Guardiano

Guardiano Misunderstands Goldstein Aaron Goldstein

DADT and ‘Hard Empirical Evidence’ John R. Guardiano

DADT and Left-Wing Intellectual Bigotry John R. Guardiano

Re: DADT and 'Hard Empirical Evidence' Aaron Goldstein

The Problem with Debating DADT John R. Guardiano

...this is a difficult and complex issue that is all too easily caricatured and distorted, and by the extremes on both sides of the debate.

OMG: There Are Gays in the Military

OMG: There Are Gays in the Military: "

One of the issues that always comes up is sharing showers. The reason the gay guys in the shower aren’t grabbing anyone’s ass is not because there is a DADT rule, it’s because they aren’t ass grabbers. Changing that rule isn’t going to lead to mass ass grabbing in the showers. There is a word for people who like to have sex with people who don’t want them to, that word is rapist. Somehow I must have missed the epidemic of homosexual rape in the British/Canadian/Aussie armies. It didn’t happen there and it won’t happen here. Of course there will be some concerns and difficulties in implementing this, but it won’t be long before it becomes old news.

In that case, why not have men and women shower together in the military, as they did in that "Starship Troopers" movie? What possible objection could there be?"

Judge Walker and CDD

Gay Patriot deems Judge Walker clueless about the history of marriage.

While Judge Walker is right about one thing in his discussion of marriage, but dead-wrong about another:

Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. . . . Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

“Miscegenation” laws prohibiting marriages between individuals of different races were a statutory invention. The historical (as well as literary, see, e.g., Othello) record is full of such marriages.

Sex difference, however, has always been at the core of the definition of marriage – long before governments recognized such unions. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you study the marriage rituals of any culture; you’ll find that each treats the bride and groom differently.

Or, look at the cultures which have recognized same-sex unions. They either called them something other than marriage or required that one spouse live in the guise of the opposite sex — at a time when sexual roles were far more stratified that they are today. In Native American cultures (called either berdache or Two-Spirit), that meant that in male-male unions partner not only had to dress like a woman, but perform or social roles as well.

The Native American culture is frequently cited as an example of a culture recognizing same-sex marriage. What this is evidence of is a culture that based sex differentiation on something other than genitalia.

The Abolition of the Family

That's the title of this piece at The American Thinker. The premise is that government programs are failing to support families, and essentially setting them up, if not to fall apart, to never form in the first place.

In my forthcoming book, The Idea of the Family, I demonstrate that it is not "the traditional view" of masculinity that instills in a man the desire to provide for his family. I prove, rather, that work for the male is a biological, psychological, and even philosophical necessity for the preservation of the family.

Once his participation in coitus is over, the man plays no biological part in the creation of his offspring. Unlike the woman, who carries her baby to term and then nourishes the newborn infant at her breast, the man's role in the family is necessarily ideal. He is biologically and psychologically separated from the procreative process. The man needs a reason to stay with his wife and family. If he is to remain with his family, his role (at least initially) can only be that of provider and protector ^[ii].

The surest and quickest way to eliminate the family is to make certain that a young man (who might wish to marry and start a family) does not have access to a job. This ensures that the young man has no reason to remain with an impregnated female.

It is not by accident that over 70% of black children in America are born out of wedlock. Almost 50% of young black men in America are unemployed. And without a job, a man has no incentive to start or remain with his family.

The Obama administration has done next to nothing to stimulate those parts of the economy that provide employment for young men and, therefore, protect and strengthen the family.

---

^[ii] This does not mean that a man cannot eventually become the caretaker of his children and his wife become the provider -- or that the tasks of provider and caretaker cannot be shared. But the man's initial role in the family, during and shortly after the procreative process, can only be that of provider and protector. Otherwise, there is no reason for a man to stay with his family. Men cannot give birth.

I'm having an argument over same-sex marriage in another forum. When I point out various social harms that can arise, the people who disagree with me are all far from the margins. They're high-intelligence, successful, loyal, and were raised to believe in bonding with a spouse and contributing to a family. They don't consider the marginal cases and how quickly those cases can become the norm.

Gays in the Militaries

Bret Stephens writes in the Wall Street Journal: Gays in the Militaries

Also worth pondering is the experience of countries in which gays and lesbians serve openly. Britain and Canada are often cited as cases in point, though the deteriorating overall capabilities of their armed forces do not inspire confidence. A better comparison is the Israeli military, which hasn't yet been deemed incompetent or pusillanimous even by those who otherwise routinely defame it.

Israel is not the U.S. It has a conscription-based army that can't idly turn people away. It has its own set of cultural assumptions. The most religiously Orthodox Israelis are the least likely to serve. But it remains an instructive case, especially to those who have sincere and reasonable doubts about the effects of lifting the policy and aren't persuaded by the cheap accusations of "bigotry" that pass for reasoned argument on the subject. As Capt. Raz says, "by not treating it as an 'issue,' it doesn't become one. That's the bottom line."

Bottom line, though: I think the decision should be made by the military, not the social workers or activists.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Do Argue

Ongoing arguments over gays in the military, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, here: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and Don’t Even Pretend to Be Fair–Part I: Don’t Ask | NewsReal Blog

Regardless of whether you are for or against open homosexuality in the military, you have to be dismayed at how badly biased media coverage of this issue has become. Indeed, it seems that, to the Big Media, there is only one legitimate and morally correct point of view, and that is to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and to allow gays to serve openly within the ranks.

The Washington Post, for instance, published a symposium on Feb. 7 entitled, “How to Change ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” Not one of the Posts’s six contributors defends the current policy of permitting gays to serve discreetly, but not openly – and none of the contributors even tries to grapple with the arguments and reasons for keeping the U.S. military free of open homosexuality.

Instead, the contributors all blithely assume that every bright and reasonable, good and decent person must be all for allowing gays to serve openly — and that opponents of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” must be reactionary reprobates.

In fact, one contributor, Michael Buonocore, dismisses supporters of the current policy as mere obstructionists who have “petty concerns,” which the senior brass would do well to immediately bulldoze over and destroy.
....
...before we change a policy that most soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines believe has been successful, how about having a free and fair, open and honest, informed and substantive, freewheeling and robust debate?

Shouldn’t such a debate, in fact, be required before changing any successful and longstanding military policy? And shouldn’t the media help to effect (instead of stymie) such a debate?

DADT: A Reasonable Compromise

Max Boot calls Don't Ask/Don't Tell... A Reasonable Compromise

Special Forces is one of the areas in which women are still not allowed to serve even though most jobs in the military have been opened to them. Why not simply extend to gays the same policy applied to women? That is, let gays serve openly in most billets but not in a few combat designations. It seems like a reasonable compromise.

Gays in the Military

Cassandra at Villainous Company quotes Colin Powell on Dont Ask, Don't Tell: Colin Powell on DADT: Then and Now, then offers some comments of her own.

[In testimony before Congress on gays in the military], I said, “I think it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline to try to integrate gays and lesbians in the current military structure.” Congresswoman Pat Schroeder quoted a 1942 government report and claimed that the same arguments used then against racial integration in the military were being used against gays today.

She had her logic wrong. I responded, “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."

His words bear repeating. They also deserve an honest attempt to grapple with the inconvenient truth he wasn't afraid to speak when he wasn't swimming against the tide of public opinion. Human sexuality - whether female or male, heterosexual or homosexual - is a fundamental and extremely powerful driver of human behavior. To elide past this basic truth requires an almost willful act of blindness.

My own opinions about both women and gays openly serving in the military have undergone a radical shift during the last thirty years. I began by seeing no reason why both women and gays shouldn't be able to serve anywhere they wished to. What changed my mind over the years, contrary to the bigoted assertions of close minded individuals who refuse even to entertain ideas that challenge their world view, was not misogyny or fear of Teh Gay.

It was over 30 years of observing real human behavior. What changed my mind was repeated demonstrations of a basic fact: in real life (which is a very different realm from the utopian, best case scenarios of would be reformers), people don't always behave well. And though most people are good, decent, and responsible it takes only a small number who behave otherwise to cause significant problems for the rest of us.
....
What is so bizarre to me about the arguments of those who don't even want to discuss the real life consequences of having gays serve openly in the armed forces is that they insist that considering anything but the best case scenario is de facto bigotry. But their fear fueled name calling doesn't stand up to close inspection. There are rational objections to allowing gays to serve openly and they aren't based on the assumption that homosexuals behave differently than heterosexuals. They are based on the assumption that gays are no different from you and me. How is that bigotry?
....
Any company or battalion commander could tell you that disciplinary issues related to sex have a significant impact on unit morale and readiness.

And this occurs even though men and women do not share the same quarters.

Which raises an interesting question. If we take the non-bigoted approach and assume that homosexuals have the same drives heterosexuals do; assume they are no more likely to act on these drives, but no less likely either; if we assume they are just like us; is it not reasonable to predict a similar increase in rape accusations and allegations of sexual harassment, fraternization and adultery?

Again, these assumptions are not based on demonization of gays, nor upon the assumption that they are less moral or dedicated that heterosexuals. They are based on the assumption that, in the aggregate, gays are every bit as moral and dedicated as heteros but also that the same temptations and weaknesses that cause discipline problems when men and women are in close quarters would be present when billeting men and women who are sexually attracted to their own sex together.

This is not fear. It is not homophobia. And it is certainly not hatred or bigotry. It is common sense.

For Reference:

Questions About Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

From This Ain't Hell blog, Unanswered Questions About Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Lets go over some of the questions that nobody in the Obama administration or Congress has addressed in regards to repealing DADT:

Will there be seperate barracks, berthing, and living quarters for homosexuals?

...Mandating that homosexuals have their own living quarters (like some colleges and universities do) will require new construction of barracks and a complete rearrangement and reconfiguring of hundreds of naval vessels. On the other hand, allowing homosexuals to live with heterosexuals, will cause a whole different set of headaches for military commanders.

2. Will homosexuals be allowed to serve in combat arms units?

Women are forbidden by Congress to serve in combat arms units (infantry, arty, tanks, etc.). Some of the same issues surrounding women serving in combat units are present in the debate over gays serving openly in these same units.

3. Will people discharged under DADT be allowed to reenlist/recommission in the military if the policy is repealed?

I don’t know how many people who were discharged under DADT would want to reenter the military, but there are even more questions that need to be answered if they are allowed to reenter. Will they retain their same rank/billet regardless how long they have been out? Will they get retroactive promotions?

4. If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, will the military recognize and award benefits to gay marriages or civil unions?

5. Will each service be allowed to craft its own policies regarding homosexuals?

6. How much money is repealing DADT going to cost?

Everytime the military changes a policy, it costs money.

People may differ over how much of a problem each of these may be, or how concerned the military should be about each item. For example, many will see no problem with recognizing civil unions. I think, all else being equal, why not? I suspect the military takes into account matters like blood relation between brothers and cousins, simply because the brothers and cousins are almost certain to.

(Of course, the comments are open for corrections.)

Scarlet number?

Clayton Cramer has a piece at Pajamas Media on a proposal that wedding-related businesses that won't cater to same-sex couples be forced to display a sign saying so.   Cramer likens it to signs on stores in Germany reading "Juden".

It’s not quite as blunt as “Juden,” but the purpose is the same. Over at Volokh Conspiracy, professor Dale Carpenter of the University of Minnesota Law School speaks approvingly of professor Culhane’s proposal — and it’s not surprising. As one of the commenters explains: “I kinda like the idea about forcing them to post it if they are going to discriminate. Then all the young people like me, who are both more likely to be the ones having weddings and more likely to be supportive of gay marriage, will boycott the bigoted florists/dressmakers/bakers/etc. and they will all go out of business.”

Just like the goal in Nazi Germany: make a religious minority suffer financially until they go out of business.

I have always been of mixed feelings about anti-discrimination laws. On the one hand, I’m horrified that government is telling private businesses with whom to do business. I wouldn’t shop at a store that discriminated based on race, religion, sex, or national origin — but they have that right, because a government strong enough to prohibit such discrimination is also strong enough to require it. And that’s the reason why I am, in principle, opposed to such laws. But in practice, I have been prepared to tolerate them, at least with respect to race.