It's Called "Freedom of Speech"

Colman McCarthy thinks (based upon non-scientific sampling he did over 20 years ago) that ROTC courses are easy, and that ROTC should be kept off campus for eternity because, well, because he thinks ROTC is icky.  I've taken ROTC courses, and used that knowledge in my career.  What I know is this: Colman McCarthy couldn't last a day in the boots of the average ROTC graduate. 

Then he goes on to say that  courses in "women's studies, black studies, and gay and lesbian studies" and "peace studies" are sources of pride for ivy league colleges.  Those courses are filled to the brim with mental midgets who know how easy it is to get a passing grade by regurgitating the pablum they've learned about multiculturalism through the years in public school.  A passing grade that, by the way, can't get them a decent job after graduation, thank God.  ROTC courses, on the other hand, are filled with men and women who subject the first four, five, or more, years of their working lives to fighting terrorists worldwide, or supporting the soldiers who are fighting. 

If there is a clear-cut symbol of the decline in western thought and ascendency, it's the social sciences curriculum as defined by college courses in women, black, gay and lesbian and peace studies of which Colman is so proud.  Where once the social sciences taught Western Thought or Classical Literature or Greek Philosophy, they now teach...well, gay studies.  I'm sure that Ginsburg's Howl is read far more often than Plato's Socratic Dialogs.  When the chapter is written on this era in history books, there will be no recognition of the societal improvements brought about by these courses.  Or their professors.  Or their graduates.  There will, however, be references to those who stood up to islamic radicalism and its threat to western thought and culture.  ROTC graduates among them. 

So will Allah give the 72 virgins to the dirtbag muslim suicide bomber who kills old ladies and children, or to the muslim policeman who gave up his life smothering the suicide bomber with his own body so that the death toll was much smaller? 

This is not an insignificant question.  It defines whether islam is a religious or political doctrine.  As an advisor the the Royal Saudi Arabian Army, I had a lot of time on my hands, and so studied the Q'ran and asked the Saudis a lot of questions about the Q'ran and Bedouin society in general (all Sauds claim to be of Bedouin stock).  It is clear with just a little bit of study, and a willingness to go beyond the "sacred" wall that compels all muslims to refrain from questioning the Q'ran as a political and societal doctrine, that it is simply a book that codified the Bedouin/Arab societal norms of the times, using a semi-religious foundation to ensure compliance.  This is not much different from the western Middle Ages' kings claiming divine guidance for their proclamations.  Some of the more benevelent kings used this belief by the peasants to codify rules that were beneficial to their society.  Muhammed, having a lot of time to think this through while he sat alone in his cave on Mount Hira, did the same.  Thus the Q'ran. 

However, since this is now the basis for a religion, and a religion that has sparked thousands of violent terrorist actions over the past years and promises more to come in the future, it is relevent to question whether the imams, those chosen to interpret the Q'ran into current society, will say that the terrorist or the policeman, both killed by the same bomb but for completely different reasons, will get the blessing of Allah.  If the imams cannot say which one will go to a reward in their heaven, or if they chose the suicide bomber as the one to get the heavenly reward, then they are supporting not a religious, but a political book that has no more right to be considered sacred than does Das Capital, or Mao's Little Red Book, or Mein Kampf. 

As long as "reporters" are hired to cover stories that they know nothing about, there will be stories as completely off the mark as this:

U.S. military angers Iran by calling Persian Gulf 'Arabian Gulf'. 

Let's see how many mistakes this moron can make in one article about one thing. 

First, the whole premise.  The terms "Persian Gulf" and "Arabian Gulf" are interchangeable.  The writer wants the reader to believe that it's always been called the Persian Gulf by stating "the name change provoked outrage from the easily provoked government of Iran--which was known as Persia from around the sixth century BC until 1935".  That part is true, and the Persians/Iranians have probably called the gulf the Persian Gulf that whole time.  But during the same millenia, the Arabs have called it the Arabian Gulf.  And westerners have been calling it the Arabian Gulf for hundreds of years as well.  So the premise that there is, and always has been, one correct name for the gulf is false.  And he could have found out how false that premise is simply by googling "Arabian Gulf Maps" and seen some of the ancient maps that show the name as al-Khaleej al Arabi in arabic, or Arabian Gulf in English, Italian, and other western languages.  

Second, the writer uses the term "Navy Flacks" to describe a Navy spokesman who states why they use the term.  Explaining something correctly isn't what a flack does.  What a flack does is write an entire article based on a false premise to carry out a narrative already established to falsify or detract.

Third, the writer states; "This isn't the first time that the U.S. government has agitated parts of the Arab world with a word choice."  Iran isn't part of the "Arab world" and they would be angry about that statement.  More angry than the use of the term Arabian Gulf.  So stating that Iranians are part of the Arab world only shows the writers ignorance of the both the middle east in general, and Iran in particular.  

So in a seven paragraph article, the writer gets the main premise wrong, then uses a derogatory term for others that describes him perfectly, then makes the very same mistake, only worse, that he's accused the US Navy of.  This is the type of article that now  dominates the old news media.  Full of innacuracies and innuendo, but right on the mark for meeting the journalistic narrative that the Left wants to see in all articles. 

The survey of servicemembers concerning gay and lesbian servicemembers is being touted by the press as revealing general support by current active duty servicemembers for the repeal of DADT. 

Unfortunately, there is no such support given by respondents in the entire survey, because no such question is asked.  There is a series of questions on what the impact was when they perceived they had a gay servicemember in their unit.  There is also a series of questions that ask what that particular servicemember might do, and how their unit might be affected, assuming that DADT is repealed.  There isn't a single question asking whether they think repeal of DADT is a good idea or not.  So there is no way, other than very indirectly, and very unscientifically, to come to the conclusion that a majority of servicemembers support the repeal of DADT. 

Some may say that it is easy to infer that a majority support the repeal, but there is no studies that I know of that correlate how gay servicemembers will conduct themselves under DADT vs. under UCMJ and ARs enacted without DADT.  Is there such a survey that has been conducted by DoD or any other organization?  If not, that then becomes a "known unknown" (to use Rumsfeld's terminology), and a big one at that.  I'm not stating that gay servicemembers will conduct themselves differently, but isn't that the whole reason for repeal of DADT, so that gays in the military can conduct themselves differently that they do now under DADT?  If they aren't going to conduct themselves differently, then why the hell repeal it?  No one has any reason to believe that the conduct of gays under DADT will be statistically insignificant from the conduct of gays after the repeal of DADT.  Therefore, there is no reason to believe that when servicemembers say that gays have very little effect on anything going on in their unit under DADT, they will say the same thing about the effect gays have on their unit when DADT is repealed. 

 

When you read about poor Harry Reid screwing up the DADT repeal, or anything at all about the DADT repeal written by a Leftie, the main point is always that a majority of Americans support a repeal of DADT. 

I must be confused here.  Prior to the passage of Obamacare, a majority of Americans were opposed to the bill.  Every poll prior to the vote showed a huge majority of Americans opposed the passage of Obamacare.  And at that time, Leftists couldn't have cared less what the Americans were saying; Reid and Pelosi were ramming it through anyway.  In fact the public is still opposed to Obamacare, and a majority believe it will be bad for the country, and support its repeal.  But as far as Obamacare is concerned, Leftists and Democrats don't give a flying fuck what the public believes or wants. 

So if a majority of Americans wants the repeal of DADT, Lefties say that's a huge factor in why it should be repealed.  But if a majority of Americans want the repeal of Obamacare, Lefties say Americans can go fuck themselves. 

I can't decide whether it's easy to be a Leftie because there's no more reasoning needed for any position other than "it feels right", or if it's hard to be a Leftie because in the final analysis, there is no intellectual foundation for any of their beliefs. 

There's a web store for Leftards called My Democratic Store.  They've got a shitload of tshirts, mugs, frisbees, notepads, etc., with the motto:

A Woman's Place is in the House...as Speaker

Ya gotta wonder what they'll do with all that crap now that Pelosi has been shoved aside as Speaker by both the American people, and most Democratic Representatives. 

Obama can't take criticism.  The more criticism he gets thrown at him, the less presidential he looks.  In fact, his presser on the tax deal he cut with Republicans showed him to be petty, snarky, and quite honestly, a very little man. 

On the other hand, the more criticism that is thrown at Sarah Palin, the better she looks.  After being called a joke by every single media person in America and Europe and every single Leftard worldwide, she's doing just fine with a slew of political victories this last Nov, and her own show on the Discovery Channel.  Even the small things, like her use of the term "death panels" has been proven correct, and Obama's (along with, again, every single media person and all Leftards) has been proven wrong. 

Do a thought experiment here.  When Obama is thrown out of office in 2012 as ingraciously as Carter was in 1980 because he too, like Carter, is an intellectual midget that dislikes Americans, do you think you'll see his smiling face on a Discovery Channel show, or do you think it's more likely that he'll become a prickly old sot?  I'm guessing he'll be a prickly old sot, times ten.  He and Michelle can go back to not being proud of America, and we, vice versa. 

Really?  Michelle Obama wants to tell us parents what we can and can't sell at a school fund raising event?  Like she's baked anything for a bake sale, fattening or healthy.  How much money does she think an event can raise selling arugula lettuce to kids?  Maybe a shitload...that is, if it's sold to the privileged dweebs at Sidwell Friends, where her kids go.

Keep an eye on this, as you'll know what kind of education your kids are getting if your school toes the line that Michelle set from her throne, or decides to do what is good for the kids and school locally and tells the First Lady to go fuck herself. 

There are many hundreds of thousands of American Leftists who dislike America.  Barack Obama and Michelle Obama being just two.  Hillary Clinton and many on Barack's cabinet as well.  They many not hate America, and they may even come to like America if they can just change it over to a Euro-style socialist country.  But right now, today, they certainly don't like the America they see.  Religious.  Patriotic.  Strong.  Wealthy.  A superpower. 

And there are probably tens of thousands of American Leftists, American Anarchists, and American Communists who hate America as it is today.  They also may hold some weird idea of what America could be if only they could produce a dictator, a Fuehrer of sorts, to push America into the "progressive" fold. 

So someone who has been given a way of life that most of the world can only dream of, is capable of disliking, or hating, or even wanting to destroy, that country, that system of government, that made such a way of life possible.  And yet if you read any Leftist sites, you can see that the more a Leftist hates America, the more they cannot envision anyone else (a muslim, say) hating America without America having done something to them first.  They can rationally hate America when this country has  given them the opportunity to have a great life (and the freedom to hate), but the idea that anyone else could hate America simply because it is religious, rich, strong, free...is simply too much for their mind to understand.  You can read such a distinct disconnect in any running commentary on islamic terrorism or even the more recent Wikipedia disclosures.  There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of comments on these sites that contort America as being attacked, both from within and from without, because it is evil incarnate.  Not a one of these Leftists can imagine that America could be hated by terrorists or traitors simply because America is what it is.  The hatred they feel, felt by others, had to have some beginning with an American act of...whatever it is they think America did.  Even though their hatred had no beginning other than that they thought America should have given them something more than it did.  A job, a free ride to graduate class when it was raining, a paid up mortgage, a bigger window in their mom's basement.  It doesn't really matter where their hatred comes from.  What matters is that it is there, and yet they cannot understand that anyone else somewhere in the world, could have that same hatred for America with no better reason than they themselves have. 

Strange, I know.  Stranger still is the fact that most of what these Leftists hate about America, will be manifest ten-fold if the enemies they support were to win against America, or the styles of government they deem better than a republic were to be formed in America.  Or a financial system they dream of that is better than capitalism were to be instituted here.  America is not a classless society, but class distinctions were far worse in all the Socialist and islamic states of the past and present.  No one in America is put to death by the state because they were too low of a social class, but that is exactly what has happened is the Soviet Union, China, Laos, North Korea, Iraq (under Saddam), Iran, Afghanistan (under the Taliban).  America may have a strata of wealth under capitalism that is too great for the tender feelings of American Leftists, but it is far greater in countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kuwait, and all the countries listed before.  We may not get perfect representation for the citizenry by our elected officials, but it certainly is more representative than say, a dhimmi has in an islamic country or a peasant has in a socialist/communist country. 

The Left in this country believe we live in a world where unicorns eat rainbows and poop butterflies...or we could, if only America wasn't, say, America.  It is really the second greatest failing of leftist thought (the greatest failing is the belief that "smarter" people need to be in control of "dumber" people for the world to work correctly).  They fail to realize that their dislike, or hatred, of America has no more intellectual foundation than that of America's enemies abroad, whether they be existential enemies or not.  Ask any Canadian (full disclosure here, I'm the son of a Canadian mother, and married to a Canandian) that dislikes America why they dislike America, and they will come up with reason after reason that has absolutely no effect on their well being, their life, their community, their prosperity, their...anything.  It will all be just a feeling with no real attachment to their world.  Ask an islamic terrorist, and it's the same, only much stronger, but still the hatred has no attachment to their real world.  Ask an American Leftist, and they will quote some NYT financial columnist, or something they read in the Huffington Post, or lately, some diplomatic cable on Wikileaks.  But it will all have nothing whatsoever to do with their life.  Nothing.  Whatsoever.  It takes a break from reality to be a Leftist, and sometimes that break is fixed, when they move out of their mom's basement.  And sometimes that break is permanent, like in the case of President Obama or Noam Chomsky.  But it is a break nonetheless, and one that makes them incapable of seeing that America has enemies that want to destroy the country, not because of anything that America has done, but simply because, like them, it exists. 

There are legitimate reasons to question whether DADT should be repealed and replaced with UCMJ rulings that allow gays to openly serve.  Some appear to be taking sides over PFC Manning's traitorous actions because he's gay.  I believe that has nothing at all to do with his acts; he's simply and completely a dirtbag who deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars.  Gay or not. 

However, I haven't seen a lot of discussion about how the military branches will handle gays.  Will there be separate barracks?  Separate areas on board ships?  Separate tents in the field?  Will gays who have been married in states that recognize gay marriage be given married quarters?  Will they get dependent pay?  Will their gay partner be given a dependent ID card and will they be using military facilities?  If the gay couple comes from a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, will they be allowed to sue for the above amenities when they are on federal ground (i.e. the military facility)?  What about gays that are married but serving in states where gay marriage isn't allowed?  There may be local laws that interfere with a gay's rights as recognized by the Services.  How will the Services "fix" that?  

There are a lot of things that affect the military that have nothing to do with patriotism or ability to fight an enemy.  I'd be the first to recognize that gays have, do, and will continue to serve honorably for this nation and the citizenry.  But just saying that gays serving openly will have no effect on the combat effectiveness of the military is a long way away from saying that gays serving openly will have no effect on the military.  I'd love to say that the military's main concern in all this is how it will affect combat readiness, but having served 22 years in the Army, I know that combat effectiveness is secondary to a lot of social engineering.  Hasn't always been that way, but attend any IG, EO, EEO or CO2 class in the Army, and you'll recognize right away that there are many, too many, people who view the Army as a social experiment and not a fighting force that is designed to fight and win America's land wars.  These people, almost all civilians, can fuck up anything that Congress designs for a smooth transition from DADT.  And they will, for sure. 

All I'm saying is that there's no reason to believe that Congress and the Services will be able to know to any degree, what openly serving gays will mean to the overall performance of any of the Services.  It may be an experiment worth taking today, in the middle of two wars.  That's open to debate.  But what is not open to debate is the fact that if there is a way to screw this up for both gay and straight servicemen and women, Congress and the DoD nannies will do it.