Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 7, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL....Legal issues aside, the real problem with the Solomon Amendment is that it shouldn't even be necessary. If the military simply ended its bigoted and unjustifiable ban on openly gay service members, its recruiters wouldn't be barred from universities in the first place.

So how close are we to that? Steve Benen points out that a bipartisan effort to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is up to 109 co-sponsors. We're halfway there.

Kevin Drum 12:56 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (129)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Wow, at this rate, we'll achieve parity with civilized society in only another 57 years.

Go team!

Posted by: craigie on March 7, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, does "don't ask, don't tell" apply to heterosexuals too? Does this mean that Marines will no longer be able to openly lust after Miss February?

Posted by: craigie on March 7, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

OK, what happens when DADT is repealed? Will they go back to hunting gays openly? What is the consequence of repealing? What will replace DADT?

Posted by: POed Liberal on March 7, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Wait, the Marines are straight? Man, and here I thought "jarhead" meant something else entirely....

Posted by: Stefan on March 7, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I can't wait until we get the gays out of our military so our soldiers and Marines can go back to working out, shaving their heads, wearing combat boots and uniforms and polishing their leather gear without any innuendo....

Posted by: Stefan on March 7, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

You are all invited to see my blog

http://leunamiur.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Rui Marques on March 7, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Here is where Al and I will be in all this!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on March 7, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

So does this mean Guckert will be able to pursue his life-long dream of being a Marine?

Posted by: MJ Memphis on March 7, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney, I told you to go fuck yourself, and I mean it!

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 7, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

"If the military simply ended its bigoted and unjustifiable ban on openly gay service members, its recruiters wouldn't be barred from universities in the first place."

Come now, the hate America left would conjure up another grievence to barr the military recruiters.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Can someone please explain to me how an end to DADT is, IN AND OF ITSELF, an end to the military's "bigoted and unjustifiable ban on openly gay service members"?

thanks!

Posted by: cdj on March 7, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Can anyone explain if Don't Ask Don't Tell is more or less bigoted than Affirmative Action commonly practiced at the said universities?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK
Can anyone explain if Don't Ask Don't Tell is more or less bigoted than Affirmative Action commonly practiced at the said universities?

Yes, more; HTH.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 7, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK
Amazing - right after "Taxpayer-Funded Abortions for All!", Rove's talking points for you Dems is "Gays in the Military" - how does he keep doing it?

Posted by: Cheney on March 7, 2006 at 1:04 PM

Heheh... Giving "Fake, but Accurate" a new meaning...

Posted by: J.C. on March 7, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

What does HTH mean?

So, it's more bigoted to disqualify someone based on his/her actions than it is on someone's ethnicity?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK
What does HTH mean?

"Hope that helps." HTH.

So, it's more bigoted to disqualify someone based on his/her actions than it is on someone's ethnicity?

Nope, that's not what I said. But thanks for playing.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 7, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

So, it's more bigoted to disqualify someone based on his/her actions than it is on someone's ethnicity?

AA isn't designed to disqualify. DADT is.

Posted by: cleek on March 7, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

The legislation Kevin is referring to (HR 1059) would allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces.

Posted by: SteveK on March 7, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Another elitist rant from Kevin Drum, who spends hours every week playing tennis at his tennis club with other rich white guys.

Posted by: MountainDan on March 7, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Freedom fighter, the most bigoted institution in America are US universities is that don't allow white people in them, just like the military doesn't allow gays.

I remember looking areound at the student body of top universities and thinking what a shame it was that there were no white people there. I remember thinking to myself as I looked at privileged rich legacy admissions, "if only these kids were white! Then we'd see some racial justice."

That said, why the hell are we throwing gays out of the military? I keep hearing all this "cohesion" bullshit, but I figure if Israel can find a way to integrate gay people, then maybe we can. Of course, given how lightly Israel treats national security, maybe they're a bad example.

[b]Am I the only one who thinks it's a bad idea to sacrifice our national security by turning away qualified men and women in order to appease conservative political correctness?[/b]

Posted by: theorajones on March 7, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Another elitist rant from Kevin Drum, who spends hours every week playing tennis at his tennis club with other rich white guys.

First of all, Drum isn't rich. Second of all, what does this idiot think Andover/Yale/Harvard Business School multi-millionaire tennis-playing Kennebunkport and Bar Harbour-vacationing George W. Bush is if not an elitist rich white guy?

Posted by: Stefan on March 7, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Second of all, what does this idiot think

that idiot isn't paid to think. he's paid to dribble his spew all over message boards in the hopes that they become so encrusted with his foul spunk that people abandon them forever.

Posted by: cleek on March 7, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

First of all, Drum isn't rich.

That's right. Speaking of which, Kev, where's that hundred bucks you owe me?

Posted by: craigie on March 7, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Just what we need - metrosexual bloggers like Kevin Drum setting military policy!

Posted by: BigRiver on March 7, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Another jealous rant from MountainDan, who wishes he could spend hours every week playing tennis at his tennis club with other rich white guys.

Seriously; What part of Kev's post can be considered 'elitist'?

Posted by: grape_crush on March 7, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

what does this idiot think Andover/Yale/Harvard Business School multi-millionaire tennis-playing Kennebunkport and Bar Harbour-vacationing George W. Bush is if not an elitist rich white guy?

He's called MountainDan. He lives in a mountain. He knows about bears and trees and strip mining and lumberjacking (hey, does that mean what I think it means?).

About rich white guys, he just knows what he's heard on the radio in his truck. And the voice in the radio says that Bush is a regular, brush-clearing kind of alcoholic illiterate draft-dodging momma's boy, so that's jess fine with him.

Drum, on the other hand, is some kind of suburban elitist, and we don't like them much.

Posted by: craigie on March 7, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

If we're forced to succumb to Kevin's elitist affluent caucasian-loving tennis-playing version of tolerance -- maybe we could form an all homosexual battalion that is given all of the risky front line assignments. In the navy they could work the big guns and load bombs and when they have to visit the main camps they could use different drinking fountains and bathrooms.

Posted by: ranaaurora on March 7, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

cleek on March 7, 2006 at 2:01 PM:

they become so encrusted with his foul spunk that people abandon them forever.

Uhhh...Didn't need that visual...Thank you very much, cleek...

Posted by: grape_crush on March 7, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

maybe we could form an all homosexual battalion that is given all of the risky front line assignments. In the navy they could work the big guns

The Navy can always use some good seamen.

Posted by: Stefan on March 7, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

The Navy can always use some good seamen.

I hope you're not billing by the hour for this stuff!

Posted by: craigie on March 7, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

"AA isn't designed to disqualify."

Wasn't Jennifer Gratz disqualified due to her ethnicity? Wasn't that why she had to file a suit?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think that i like the idea forcing this sort of social experimantation on the military. that said, i believe that both israel and britain allow homosexuals to serve openly in their respective military services. could our sevices not study what they have learned and apply it here? i guess that i can't demonstrate that it would work, but why not try to allow as many citizens as possible to serve in the military?

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

"Yes, Freedom fighter, the most bigoted institution in America are US universities is that don't allow white people in them, just like the military doesn't allow gays."

So it's OK to discriminate against whites? I noticed you didn't bother mentioning Asians, who are discriminated more severely than whites by Affirmative Action. Why do liberals hate minorities?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Wasn't that why she had to file a suit?

and the university's implementation of AA was found to be broken.

AA is still intended to qualify, not disqualify.

Posted by: cleek on March 7, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

I've felt for years now that Don't Ask/Don't Tell was among the greatest failures of the Clinton Administration. Now more than ever with our military being stretched out and recuitment levels at all time lows, who are we to say to anyone, be they white, black, male, female, straight or gay, that they can't serve their country? It isn't a conservative or liberal issue and it isn't a straight or gay issue, it is a patriotism issue. Military commanders can talk all they want about integrating open homosexuals into the ranks but bear in mind these are the same basic complaints we heard when blacks & women were trying to get in the door. Would it not be nice to live in a country where everyone is welcomed to give to their country and put their lives on the line in the name of America? And it isn't an elitist rant, it's a matter of common sense.

Posted by: Nathan on March 7, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

"Am I the only one who thinks it's a bad idea to sacrifice our national security by turning away qualified men and women in order to appease conservative political correctness?"

No one is turned away until she disqualifies herself.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

"Don't ask, can't spell."

Posted by: parrot on March 7, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Why do liberals hate minorities?

They don't. Why do you hate minorities? Or does it just drive you insane to see so many black people getting admitted to and graduating from great universities, while you couldn't even get into ITT Tech?

Yeah, it really bothers you.

Posted by: American on March 7, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

I wish MountainDan would return to the holler, marry his sister, and quit trying to play with the big boys.

Posted by: Tripp on March 7, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

BigRiver on March 7, 2006 at 2:03 PM:

Just what we need - metrosexual bloggers like Kevin Drum setting military policy!

God forbid that someone who wants to serve their country through military service be allowed to do so...

Posted by: grape_crush on March 7, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Now more than ever with our military being stretched out and recuitment levels at all time lows, who are we to say to anyone, be they white, black, male, female, straight or gay, that they can't serve their country?

But...gay sex is just so icky. And one of those fags might try to cornhole me in the trenches. That is, if I was actually in the trenches instead of being such a huge pussy.
I serve my country better with my racist comments here. I'll be damned if there's a black person qualified to enter college when they rejected me!

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

"Why do you hate minorities? Or does it just drive you insane to see so many black people getting admitted to and graduating from great universities, while you couldn't even get into ITT Tech?"

Actually, according to Larry Elder, Affirmative Action causes blacks to drop out of great universities at much higher rates than any other ethnicity. So yes, why do liberals hate minorities?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Tripp on March 7, 2006 at 2:36 PM:

I wish MountainDan would return to the holler, marry his sister..

Mountin' Dan shouldn't breed at all, much less with his sister...

Posted by: grape_crush on March 7, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, according to Larry Elder

And according to John Smith, just the opposite. Got any more "evidence" to support your racism?
You're very bad at hiding it.

Posted by: American on March 7, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan,

The thing is once you let the gays defend our country the next thing you know they'll want to get married.

See the thing is we can't let gays get married because then they'd adopt kids and we can't let them adopt kids because gays engage in unmarried sex which is why we can't let them get married. Any studies that pretend to show gays make good parents are too small because we don't allow gays to adopt kids so until they can show examples of successfully adopting kids(which we don't allow) we can't allow it, plus it would simply demonstrate how they don't follow the rules to begin with and so shouldn't be allowed to have the priveleges of normal society.

Also we can't allow them to display any virtue on any level because then if *we* displayed virtue it wouldn't mean anything anymore because we only do the right thing because it makes us special not because it is the right thing to do.

Posted by: Tripp on March 7, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan,

Whoa, we should allow gays in the military now more than ever with our military being stretched out?

That's a rather unfortunate choice of words don't you think?

Posted by: Tripp on March 7, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 2:38 PM:

Affirmative Action causes blacks to drop out of great universities at much higher rates than any other ethnicity.

Yet, if we don't let black people into college in the first place, the dropout rate goes to zero! Whoopee!...But to be fair, we can eliminate the dropout rate for every ethnicity by just closing every school out there! Freedom Fries, u r such a jeen-yous!...Hey, that also solves the problem of funding disparities between predominately black and predominately white schools! TWO BIRDS! ONE STONE!

Back on topic at 2:31 PM:

No one is turned away until she disqualifies herself.

A person shouldn't have to hide what they are just because you go all queasy at the thought of what they might be doing...Hell, some of your remarks turn my stomach, but I'm not asking you to change your commenting to suit my preferences.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 7, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Got any more "evidence" to support your racism?'

How about this from Larry Elder? Why do liberals hate minorities?

"But preferences, the kind of affirmative action practiced by the University of Michigan, lowers standards to achieve racial diversity, thus discriminating against the more qualified. The Detroit News found that the racial preferences policies of seven Michigan colleges and universities resulted in a disturbing pattern. Many minority students dropped out at a much higher rate, presumably because of lowered standards for admission. "Among black students," said the Detroit News, "who were freshmen in 1994, just 40 percent got their diplomas after six years, compared to 61 percent of white students and 74 percent of Asians"

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

There are lots of folk not allowed to serve. I am thinking of a drill instructor who had consensual heterosexual sex with some recruits and is doing 25 hard years for it. Fat folk get dumped all the time.
ROTC off campus came long before don't ask.
I eagerly wait for the demand that those schools give back the money illegally paid them.
Gay lawyers can all go herd sheep for all I care.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on March 7, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Many minority students dropped out at a much higher rate, presumably because of lowered standards for admission.

Again, not convincing at all. "Presumably" to certain people I'm sure--like you and your fellow racists.

Seriously, David Duke isn't as much of a blatant racist as you are.

Posted by: American on March 7, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

I'm going to leave it to another one of you good people to explain to the racist Freedom Fighter that many other factors--unrelated to academic difficulties--could cause some black students to drop out of college.

In the warped mind of a racist and a homophobe, it must be because of AA, because so many black people couldn't possibly be smarter than the racists like "Freedom Fighter".

Posted by: American on March 7, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

It's one thing to have a girlie man in the White House at this critical time in the war on terrorism, but it is quite another to have girlie men carrying the fight to the enemy.

Nevertheless, get the girlie man out of the White House and replace him with me.

I will terminate terrorism.

They'll never be back.

Posted by: The Governator on March 7, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

"Many minority students dropped out at a much higher rate, presumably because of lowered standards for admission.

Again, not convincing at all. "Presumably" to certain people I'm sure--like you and your fellow racists.

Seriously, David Duke isn't as much of a blatant racist as you are.
Posted by: American"

how is it that taking note of facts makes one a racist?

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

how is it that taking note of facts makes one a racist?

Brian: "presumably" =/= "fact".

Any other questions?

Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

"Brian: "presumably" =/= "fact".

Any other questions?
Posted by: Gregory"

gregory, you misunderstand my post. the fact is that black and latino students have greater dropout rate than white students at most colleges. the reason may be lowered admission standards or it may be due to a number factors. noting a fact is no indicator of racism. got that?

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

"Seriously, David Duke isn't as much of a blatant racist as you are."

In the liberal world view: fairness is racism, fighting terrorism is helping terrorism, undermining the military is patriotism...

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Going to be hard to raise an army when the GOP is consistently working to ensure that:

(1) only Christians can serve;

(2) only heterosexuals can serve; and

(3) only conservatives can serve.

Brian: . . . noting a fact is no indicator of racism . . .

Agreed if and only if there is agreement on the Right that noting facts about Bush's failures in Iraq or the so-called "GWOT", the use of torture by the administration, the dismantling of civil liberties by the administration, and Bush's continued and consistent lies are not treason, not aiding and abetting the terrorists, and not anti-American.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 7, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Poor Freedom Fighter--he's got nothing, so he resorts to projection. Let us know when you find a real link to a real study that supports your very real racism.

Posted by: American on March 7, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom F*cker: In the liberal world view: fairness is racism, fighting terrorism is helping terrorism, undermining the military is patriotism...

In the conservative world, lying is not a lost art but a standard operating procedure, defamation is a useful tool not to be avoided, and undermining our soldiers by denying them body and vehicle armor in order to protect tax cuts for people like Freedom F*cker, denying them appropriate training, trying to deny them hazard pay, trying to hide their dead bodies from the American public, cutting their medical benefits upson retirement, using them as scapegoats for the administration's torture policies, and forcing them to appear at partisan GOP events is supporting those troops.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 7, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

"I don't think that i like the idea forcing this sort of social experimantation on the military."

Yeah, it was bad enough when they were forced to integrate with the darkies.

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

For the campus activists, this wasn't about gays in the military and never has been. It's about a general hostility toward the military. "DADT" was a convenient excuse to hang it on.

"DADT" has been around for some time now. When did the hostility toward recruiters really start?

Posted by: tbrosz on March 7, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

More crazy talk from Kevin: "Legal issues aside, the real problem with the Solomon Amendment is that it shouldn't even be necessary. If the military simply ended its bigoted and unjustifiable ban on openly gay service members, its recruiters wouldn't be barred from universities in the first place."

I agree that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military, but to think that these colleges wouldn't find some other reason to bar recruiters from campus is naive to the extreme. Laughable, realy, that someone would think that many of these 'liberal' colleges would have no problem at all with recruiters so long as they allowed gays in the military.

Aren't high schools barring recruiters right now because they "lie to and coerce" innocent young men and women when recruiting? As someone else already pointed out, why wouldn't these same colleges try to bar recruiters because they discriminate against fat people, or people who engage in extramarital affairs, or because they discriminate against tatooed people, or because they only allow women to serve in limited combat duty?

Kevin seems to be excusing the colleges for breaking the law because they had to. Isn't this similar to the argument that the Admin defenders pose regarding NSA? (They had to go around FISA.")

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on March 7, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

I enjoy smelling my own farts. Too bad the military has no use for someone with my skills.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

"Brian: . . . noting a fact is no indicator of racism . . .

Agreed if and only if there is agreement on the Right that noting facts about Bush's failures in Iraq or the so-called "GWOT", the use of torture by the administration, the dismantling of civil liberties by the administration, and Bush's continued and consistent lies are not treason, not aiding and abetting the terrorists, and not anti-American.
Posted by: Advocate for God"

i would tend to agree that critcizing the bush administration is generally not an indication of those things.

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

[Error #232: user 'Freedom Fighter' has exceeded the maximum amount of straw allowed for a single user in a 24 hour period.]

Posted by: The System on March 7, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Thank god sunbeltjerry showed up, I need another moron to deflect some attention.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

[Error #232: user 'Freedom Fighter' has exceeded the maximum amount of straw allowed for a single user in a 24 hour period.]

LOL, I was wondering when he was going to max out.

Posted by: American on March 7, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

"In the conservative world, lying is not a lost art but a standard operating procedure, defamation is a useful tool not to be avoided"

So far, no liberal has stepped up and answered why they are for a racist policy in Affirmative Action that discriminates against minorities. Can you tell me why that is?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: It's about a general hostility toward the military.

Gee, academics are hostile to the leadership of an institution that, among many other immoral actions, embraces and lies about torture, lies about the deaths of fellow soldiers like Pat Tillman, disparages intellectuals, covers up the murder of civilians, uses chemicals on its own rank and file without notice before or after, costs the American public billions of dollars through waste, fraud, and criminal conduct in the procurement process, and lies to recruits.

Whatever are they thinking!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 7, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Yo Advocate:

The issue here is their acceptance of federal monies, isn't it? If the universities have legitimate beefs with military policy then they can go ahead and bar recruiters, provided they don't accept any money.

Problem solved.

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on March 7, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Can you tell me why that is?

because there is no such policy. did someone up your straw quota?

Posted by: cleek on March 7, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

DADT seems such a waste, I was in the Air Force for 14 yrs, I knew plenty of homosexuals of both sexes. It didn't seem to effect their work or unit cohesion. It only seems to bother those who bother themselves.

Posted by: Michelle on March 7, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

noting a fact is no indicator of racism. got that?

That point is not in dispute. The problem is not in noting the fact of the dropout rate. The problem is in trying to pass off the presumption -- not fact -- of lowered admissions standards as the reason as fact. Got that?

Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

"noting a fact is no indicator of racism. got that?

That point is not in dispute. The problem is not in noting the fact of the dropout rate. The problem is in trying to pass off the presumption -- not fact -- of lowered admissions standards as the reason as fact. Got that?
Posted by: Gregory"

i do not make that presumption. i would not be at all surprised if it played a role in the dropout rate, however. it strikes me as intuitive that granting admission to someone who would not merit it without his race playing a factor could increase the probability that he will drop out. i would expect that other factors play a role as well.

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Brian: i would tend to agree that critcizing the bush administration is generally not an indication of those things.

. . . and that noting facts about corporate dishonesty and greed, the negative effects of conservative economic policy on the poor, and the disparate treatment of minorities when it comes to the death penalty, etc, etc, etc, is not race-baiting or class warfare . . .

. . . or that noting facts about scientific discoveries or findings, about the predatory actions of some religious leaders with regard to their flocks, or about the discriminatory nature of laws based on the religious principles espoused by the religious right is being anti-religion . . .

I suspect for every charge that the Left reflexively chants racism when confronted with certain "facts" that might be seen as reflecting negatively on minorities, there is, at the very least, an equal and opposite valid charge about the Right reflexively chanting "anti-American", "anti-religious", "pro-terrorists", "anti-military", etc, etc, etc.

Indeed, just read tbrosz above for an example of the last specific item in the list of perjoratives above.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 7, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

aint yew figgered it owt, Duhbya n' Arnold dunt wanna bunch of gurlie men knowin how two fight.
Sheet kno.

Duhbya kan't even whoop a pretzl n Arnold is lookin bout healthey as DiKK or TerdBlozzom.

so that aint no tuff steak yer chewin on

Posted by: one eye buck tooth [X^B on March 7, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom F*cker: Can you tell me why that is?

I can't tell you why something is if that something isn't.

Your proposition, to which your question applies, appears to contain a false premise.

You might as well ask me to explain why the Clinton administration discriminated against unicorns - I couldn't, since the proposition contains two false premises, namely that unicorns exist and that Clinton discriminated against them.

Try, try again.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 7, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

sunbeltjerry: . . . The issue here is their acceptance of federal monies . . .

My issue is with tbrosz and what he posted regarding academics' hostility towards the military.

You and others seem to be addressing a much broader issue.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, however: what if President Hillary Clinton sends federal officials to hand out literature listing abortion providers, describing federal assistance available to women seeking abortions, and encouraging young women to make use of such providers if the circumstances warrant - allow them on campus, even on a Catholic university campus like Notre Dame, or do without federal funds to any portion of your university.

I'm not saying I don't agree with the outcome of the Supreme Court case, but conservatives crowing about this may not like every result that arises from the decision.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 7, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fighter prove that there are racist policies at universities. Examples please.

Posted by: Neo on March 7, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

"Freedom Fighter prove that there are racist policies at universities. Examples please."

Affirmative Action.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

What? I don't exis...poof!

(disappears in a puff of smoke)

Posted by: the now-mythical unicorn on March 7, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom F*cker: Affirmative Action.

Bhzzzz. Wrong.

Try, try again.

BTW, you were challenged to "prove" there are racist policies at universities, not simply list ones you think are.

Try not to be so moronic.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 7, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

If you believe that affirmative action is wrong then sue.

Posted by: Neo on March 7, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Brian: i would tend to agree that critcizing the bush administration is generally not an indication of those things.

. . . and that noting facts about corporate dishonesty and greed, the negative effects of conservative economic policy on the poor, and the disparate treatment of minorities when it comes to the death penalty, etc, etc, etc, is not race-baiting or class warfare . . .

. . . or that noting facts about scientific discoveries or findings, about the predatory actions of some religious leaders with regard to their flocks, or about the discriminatory nature of laws based on the religious principles espoused by the religious right is being anti-religion . . .

I suspect for every charge that the Left reflexively chants racism when confronted with certain "facts" that might be seen as reflecting negatively on minorities, there is, at the very least, an equal and opposite valid charge about the Right reflexively chanting "anti-American", "anti-religious", "pro-terrorists", "anti-military", etc, etc, etc.

Indeed, just read tbrosz above for an example of the last specific item in the list of perjoratives above.
Posted by: Advocate for God"

afg,

i suspect that you and i would disagree on some of the "facts" to which you allude, as well as the policies related to them.

you cite negative effects on the poor of conservative economic policies. if by that you mean that not using taxpayer funds for various wekfare programs would hurt the poor, i suppose you are correct as long as you agree that requiring all who are able to support themselves do so is harm. i don't think that it is.

do those on either side the political spectrum try to attack their adversaries with silly arguments? certainly thay do. i don't believe that this a more of a conservative tactic than a liberal one, however.

as an aside, i never cease to be amazed at people who are completely rational in all other aspects of their lives insisting that overwhelming scientific evidence should be ignored because it clashes with that which they wish to believe because of their reigion.

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

that last word should have been "religion." (said captain obvious.)

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

i do not make that presumption.

...followed by...

i would not be at all surprised if it played a role in the dropout rate, however. it strikes me as intuitive that granting admission to someone who would not merit it without his race playing a factor could increase the probability that he will drop out.

"not be at all surprised" ... "strikes me as intuitive" ... are you sure you aren't making that presumption?

But anyway, it isn't a question of whether you're making the presumption. Larry Elder, as quoted by Freedom Fighter, did, and tried to pass off said presumption as fact, hence the criticism you questioned.

Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

"i do not make that presumption.

...followed by...

i would not be at all surprised if it played a role in the dropout rate, however. it strikes me as intuitive that granting admission to someone who would not merit it without his race playing a factor could increase the probability that he will drop out.

"not be at all surprised" ... "strikes me as intuitive" ... are you sure you aren't making that presumption?

But anyway, it isn't a question of whether you're making the presumption. Larry Elder, as quoted by Freedom Fighter, did, and tried to pass off said presumption as fact, hence the criticism you questioned.
Posted by: Gregory"

do you think that lowered admission standards could play a role in dropout rates?

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Brian: you cite negative effects on the poor of conservative economic policies. if by that you mean that not using taxpayer funds for various wekfare programs would hurt the poor, i suppose you are correct as long as you agree that requiring all who are able to support themselves do so is harm. i don't think that it is.

Your statement appears to contain the false premise that all poor people are able to support themselves.

I don't think that is true and I suspect that actual facts would tend to back me up, as does the Bible, even though I am "agnostic" as to both its literal truth and its origins.

One way, btw, that conservative economic policies threaten the poor, that has nothing to do with welfare (why do conservaties always think its about welfare?), is adopting a policy that favors businesses over consumers by allowing credit card issuers to escape the negative consequences of bad marketplace decisions when deciding to whom they will issue cards.

Conservatives believe businesses should live and die by the market, except when they don't so believe.

Normally, a bank that lends to a known bad credit risk pays the free market price - not so any more!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 7, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

do you think that lowered admission standards could play a role in dropout rates?

"Could?" Of course. The proximity of a 24-hour free video game parlor "could" also play a role in dropout rates, as "could" economic factors that forced students, especially poor ones, as "could" a sudden and mysterious rash of alien abductions.

Saying that something "could" be among the factors that affect something else is, of course, a far cry from presuming that it's the sole cause.

None of the above, of course, changes the fact that Elder attempted to pass off the presumption that the dropout rate was due to affirmative action as fact, the fact that "Freedom Fighter" quoted him approvingly, the fact that he/she/it was justly criticized for doing so, or the fact that you're apparently having a hard time accepting these facts.

Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Brian: . . . do you think that lowered admission standards could play a role in dropout rates?

Since I am under the impression, created by the popular media and embraced by a number of conservative commentators, that retention standards have also been lowered, it's not clear that lowered admission standards are playing a role in the dropout rates.

In any event, ultimately the question will not be whether they are playing a role, but whether that role is significant, especially with respect to other factors.

BTW, I think we're all waiting for Freedom F*cker's link to something, anything, that proves that minorities are subject to lower admission standards and what that really means, even if true.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 7, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

"noting a fact is no indicator of racism. got that?

That point is not in dispute. The problem is not in noting the fact of the dropout rate. The problem is in trying to pass off the presumption -- not fact -- of lowered admissions standards as the reason as fact. Got that?
Posted by: Gregory"

i do not make that presumption. i would not be at all surprised if it played a role in the dropout rate, however. it strikes me as intuitive that granting admission to someone who would not merit it without his race playing a factor could increase the probability that he will drop out. i would expect that other factors play a role as well.

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 4:09 PM

But Freedom Fighter explicitly did make that statement, based on an unsupported and poorly reasoned claim by John Elder. You are the one that chose to respond to attacks on FFs posts as if they were directed at you.

Posted by: tanj on March 7, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Brian: you cite negative effects on the poor of conservative economic policies. if by that you mean that not using taxpayer funds for various wekfare programs would hurt the poor, i suppose you are correct as long as you agree that requiring all who are able to support themselves do so is harm. i don't think that it is.

Your statement appears to contain the false premise that all poor people are able to support themselves.

I don't think that is true and I suspect that actual facts would tend to back me up, as does the Bible, even though I am "agnostic" as to both its literal truth and its origins.

One way, btw, that conservative economic policies threaten the poor, that has nothing to do with welfare (why do conservaties always think its about welfare?), is adopting a policy that favors businesses over consumers by allowing credit card issuers to escape the negative consequences of bad marketplace decisions when deciding to whom they will issue cards.

Conservatives believe businesses should live and die by the market, except when they don't so believe.

Normally, a bank that lends to a known bad credit risk pays the free market price - not so any more!
Posted by: Advocate for God"


actually, i don't believe that everyone who is poor can support himself. i believe that many can and choose no to do so. they can make this choice because thay can, to some extent, expect the rest of us pay their way.

i am ambivalent about last year's bankruptcy bill. (i think your point about banks and redit cards refers to that.) while i like the idea of making people pay bills to which they are contractually obligated, i find it very hard to work up any sympathy for banks who issue credit cards to people who are known to be serious credit risks.i tend to think that your instinct to let market forces work is probably the best solution in most cases. that said, letting the market work might preclude any sort of allowance by the state for clearing one's unpaid debts. if i may ramble on further, the worst part of that bill is the provision allowing people to set aside assets that really should be accounted for in bankruptcy.

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

US lowers standards in army numbers crisis

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Saturday June 4, 2005
The Guardian


The US military has stopped battalion commanders from dismissing new recruits for drug abuse, alcohol, poor fitness and pregnancy in an attempt to halt the rising attrition rate in an army under growing strain as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
An internal memo sent to senior commanders said the growing dropout rate was "a matter of great concern" in an army at war. It told officers: "We need your concerted effort to reverse the negative trend. By reducing attrition 1%, we can save up to 3,000 initial-term soldiers. That's 3,000 more soldiers in our formations."

You would think they would take anyone regardless.

Posted by: Neo on March 7, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

i believe that many [poor people] can [work] and choose no to do so. they can make this choice because thay can, to some extent, expect the rest of us pay their way.

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but the basis of this belief would be...?

Suffering cats, next thing you know, we're going to be hearing about Welfare queens....

Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

"i do not make that presumption. i would not be at all surprised if it played a role in the dropout rate, however. it strikes me as intuitive that granting admission to someone who would not merit it without his race playing a factor could increase the probability that he will drop out. i would expect that other factors play a role as well.

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 4:09 PM

But Freedom Fighter explicitly did make that statement, based on an unsupported and poorly reasoned claim by John Elder. You are the one that chose to respond to attacks on FFs posts as if they were directed at you."

tanj,

that's a fair point. i may not have distuinguished the difference as well as i should have. however, i'm not at all sure that larry elder's claim "unsupported and poorly reasoned." do you think that lowering the admission standards for certain individuals could play a role in their higher dropout rate?

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

i may not have distuinguished the difference as well as i should have.

Indeed, you repeatedly questioned those who called out Elder on his assertion of his presumption as fact, and showed much obtuseness -- feigned or otherwise -- when the difference was pointed out to you.

however, i'm not at all sure that larry elder's claim "unsupported and poorly reasoned."

Then you haven't been reading the ripostes in this thread, obviously.

do you think that lowering the admission standards for certain individuals could play a role in their higher dropout rate?

Asked and answered. I don't know what point you're trying to make with an admission that lowering the admission standards for certain individuals could play a role in a higher dropout rate, but I have little doubt the admission -- which is obvious, really, and yet not at all what Elder asserted -- doesn't make the point you think it does.

Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

"BTW, I think we're all waiting for Freedom F*cker's link to something, anything, that proves that minorities are subject to lower admission standards and what that really means, even if true."

How about this?

http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/D-Souza.html

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

"i believe that many [poor people] can [work] and choose no to do so. they can make this choice because thay can, to some extent, expect the rest of us pay their way.

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but the basis of this belief would be...?

Suffering cats, next thing you know, we're going to be hearing about Welfare queens....
Posted by: Gregory"


i suppose you might look here: http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/haskins/20050210.htm

or maybe here:http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues2004/welfare.cfm#FF

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Say Gregory:

I don't want to get involved with your dispute with that other guy (you seem to be getting the better of it), but I would like to comment on your post:

"believe that many [poor people] can [work] and choose no to do so. they can make this choice because thay can, to some extent, expect the rest of us pay their way. ..... the basis of this belief would be...?"

I think the other guy's argument is silly and I have great empathy for the poor, especially the working poor, but I can vouch for the truthfulness of his statement. And the basis would be, you know, actual real people who have told me this. (Visit Long Beach, CA sometime and try to tell me that people, thousands of people, aren't working simply because they don't want to and they are getting support from the system.) I'm thinking of the unwed father who doesn't want to work because the mother of his children can collect aid (across the street). I'm thinking of the teen who didn't want to work, his parents kicked him out, so he applied to the city for housing vouchers (my nephew). I'm thinking of the friend who lied about carpal tunnel to go on disability (a former workmate). I'm thinking of the unwed teen who lived in my neighborhood in my youth who told me she wanted more kids so she could get paid, etc.

This all sounds horrible, and might make me sound like some kind of evil conservative who hates the poor, but these are real people who have really bilked the system because they know others will pay ... perhaps I misunderstood your post ... ?

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on March 7, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

The basis of Brian's belief would be ... the Heritage Foundation.

'Nuff said.

Seriously, Brian, your point, if you have one, would be?

Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

"i believe that many [poor people] can [work] and choose no to do so. they can make this choice because thay can, to some extent, expect the rest of us pay their way.

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but the basis of this belief would be...?

Suffering cats, next thing you know, we're going to be hearing about Welfare queens....
Posted by: Gregory"


i suppose you might look here: http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/haskins/20050210.htm

or maybe here: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues2004/welfare.cfm#FF

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

"The basis of Brian's belief would be ... the Heritage Foundation.

'Nuff said.

Seriously, Brian, your point, if you have one, would be?
Posted by: Gregory"

a bit touchy, aren't we?

if info comes the heritage foundation, is automatically suspect? i'll just assume that your answer is "yes." how about info from the center for american progress?

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

these are real people who have really bilked the system because they know others will pay ... perhaps I misunderstood your post ... ?

If you're reading it as a denial that some people game the system because they'd rather not work -- and into that mix we might also throw insurance frauds and con men, as well -- then you do misunderstand.

Brian asserted that "many" poor people can work and choose not to. Bearing in mind that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data," I questioned the basis of that belief, and frankly, I don't agree that you can vouch for its truthfulness.

It also goes without saying, I hope, that children born into poor families neither choose their lot nor can do anything about it.

By the way, you said "I have great empathy for the poor, especially the working poor." Given that the system really hoses the working poor, it shouldn't be surprising, in a capitalist society, that some individuals conclude that their best profit lies in not working and gaming the system. Bearing this in mind, I am much more interested in improving the lot of the working poor than in changing the welfare system.

Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

if info comes the heritage foundation, is automatically suspect?

In a word, yes.

how about info from the center for american progress?

That's my point. What information are you referring to?

Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

"By the way, you said "I have great empathy for the poor, especially the working poor." Given that the system really hoses the working poor, it shouldn't be surprising, in a capitalist society, that some individuals conclude that their best profit lies in not working and gaming the system. Bearing this in mind, I am much more interested in improving the lot of the working poor than in changing the welfare system."

you have mistaken me for someone else. when did i say "I have great empathy for the poor, especially the working poor."?

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

"if info comes the heritage foundation, is automatically suspect?

In a word, yes.

how about info from the center for american progress?

That's my point. What information are you referring to?"

i provided two url's for you. what more do you want?

once again, in info from the cap as suspect to you as info the hf?

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom F*cker: http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/D-Souza.html

You merely point to an individual who makes the same unsupported claims you do.

That is not "proof".

Bhzzz. Wrong again.

Try, try again and again, but it is obvious you are pulling this stuff out of your ass, which must be enormous to hold all the disinformation and misinformation you retrieve from it.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 7, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

"You merely point to an individual who makes the same unsupported claims you do."

Did you even bother to read the article? How typical of liberals to dismiss out of hand reasoned arguments froma brown person. Why do liberals hate minorities?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 7, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

"Amazing - right after "Taxpayer-Funded Abortions for All!", Rove's talking points for you Dems is "Gays in the Military" - how does he keep doing it?"

Yes, Dickless Lynne, we Democrats support you and Freedom Fucker serving in the military.

Although I'm not sure that FF could pass the ASVAB e.g., "...Asians, who are discriminated more severely than whites by Affirmative Action...". He's here. He's illiterate. Get used to it.

Posted by: solar on March 7, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Did you even bother to read the article?

I did, and it doesn't prove the racist point you're trying to make.

I ask again, Freedom Fighter, why are you such a homophobic racist?

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

obviously, i did not post the immediately above nonsense. some leftist dumbass who can't defend his witless ideas must think that he is terribly clever. typical lefty loser, i suppose.

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

i provided two url's for you. what more do you want?

I want you to state what you think those URLs prove. Funny how you keep evading that question...

Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

you have mistaken me for someone else. when did i say "I have great empathy for the poor, especially the working poor."?

That you once again respond to a post addressing someone else doesn't say much for your powers of reading comprehension.

Believe me, I am not mistaking you as someone who has empathy for the poor.

Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz asked: When did the hostility toward recruiters really start?

Vietnam.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 7, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

"i provided two url's for you. what more do you want?

I want you to state what you think those URLs prove. Funny how you keep evading that question...
Posted by: Gregory"

what's the matter? can't you comprehend them? i'd still like to know if you hold the cap to the same standard that have for the hf? funny how you refuse to answer that question....

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

what's the matter? can't you comprehend them?

I can comprehend them just fine. I just want to know what you think they're proving, or if they were just the first two links you pulled off of Google without reading.

i'd still like to know if you hold the cap to the same standard that have for the hf?

No, I don't. Of course, the fact that one of your two sources is credible is irrelevant if you don't know what you think you're proving.

funny how you refuse to answer that question....

I just did. Now let's see if you can answer mine.

Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK
DADT seems such a waste, I was in the Air Force for 14 yrs, I knew plenty of homosexuals of both sexes. It didn't seem to effect their work or unit cohesion. It only seems to bother those who bother themselves.

I often see comments like this.

Every time I do my "liar alert" alarm starts flashing.

Let's start by following the standard assumption that 10% of people are gay.

Now, it seems reasonable that the military will have a smaller percentage - let's say 5%.

Now, given the impact on one's career of letting people know you are gay it also seems reasonable that the vast majority of gay people in the military will keep this very private. For the sake of argument, let's say that the average homosexual would let five other military members know his/her orientation over the course of a career.

In that case on average each member of the military will know only .25 gay members of the military.

Obviously you have to adjust this based on length of service - a long serving member is more likely to have known more gays over time - and probably expressed attitudes - a service member who runs around complaining about "fags" is less likely to find out that someone he knows is a "fag" than a service member who is openly liberal and claims to have nothing against homosexuals.

Still, it seems hard to believe that any military member would know enough homosexual service members to qualify as "many".

Posted by: Michael Friedman on March 7, 2006 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, that's a big stack of unjustified, pulled out of your ass assumptions on which to call someone a liar.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 7, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

OK, CM.

You do the numbers your way and tell me if you think it makes sense.

I don't need to look up a science text to know someone has his head up his ass if he tells me a beach has only a trillion grains of sand - I just do the numbers with rough orders of magnitude.

That's basic math - the kind of stuff any highschool grad should do by second nature.

Posted by: Michael Friedman on March 7, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

No, Michael Friedman, that actually is a 'big stack of unjustified, pulled out of your ass assumptions', just like cmdicely stated...

If you post qualifies as basic high school math, then we're in a world of hurt.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 7, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

Gays and lesbians who are open about it will eventually be accepted in the military. The reason for acceptance will sadly be because the Army is not meeting its recruiting quotas. But shared sacrifice is the key driver in this, not lowered recruiting standards. Young male heterosexuals should not have to bear the burden of shedding blood for this country. Homosexuals should help with that burden also.

Posted by: jim58 on March 7, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Heh... another innumerate.

If you don't like my assumptions pick others.

Try to find reasonable assumptions on the basis of which it is reasonably likely to find service members who know many active duty gay service members.

If you can't then I'm probably right

Posted by: Michael Friedman on March 8, 2006 at 4:09 AM | PERMALINK

Michael Friedman on March 8, 2006 at 4:09 AM:

If you don't like my assumptions pick others.

Okay...I'll assume that Michelle's original comment is truthful, and therefore creating a big stack of unjustified, pulled out of your ass assumptions is unnecessary.

Wow. Making assumptions is easy...and a bit lazy. Do try harder next time, Michael.

If you can't then I'm probably right

I just did; according to your own logic, you must be wrong...

Posted by: grape_crush on March 8, 2006 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

Gee, academics are hostile to the leadership of an institution that, among many other immoral actions, embraces and lies about torture, lies about the deaths of fellow soldiers like Pat Tillman, disparages intellectuals, covers up the murder of civilians, uses chemicals on its own rank and file without notice before or after, costs the American public billions of dollars through waste, fraud, and criminal conduct in the procurement process, and lies to recruits.

Whatever are they thinking!
Posted by: Advocate for God

Left out: creates vast environmental cesspools and wholesale murder of cetaceans via sonar.

Posted by: CFShep on March 8, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Advocate For God, you neglected to mention that academics don't like evangelizing by government employed people at, say, the Air Force Academy. This is,of course, unreasonable of them.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 8, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

grape_crush:

Excellent. I was about to post a much more long-winded rebuttal, but you did it so much better.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 8, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

"what's the matter? can't you comprehend them?

I can comprehend them just fine. I just want to know what you think they're proving, or if they were just the first two links you pulled off of Google without reading.

i'd still like to know if you hold the cap to the same standard that have for the hf?

No, I don't. Of course, the fact that one of your two sources is credible is irrelevant if you don't know what you think you're proving.

funny how you refuse to answer that question....

I just did. Now let's see if you can answer mine.
Posted by: Gregory"

two things, g.

first, stop being intentionally obtuse. both studies back my upthread argument about welfare recipients.

second, dismissing info from the hf while accepting info from cap solely because you like the results you get from the cap better makes it very hard to take anything you say seriously.

sorry to take so long to get back to you.

Posted by: Brian on March 8, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

I'm amused.

Grape Crush, you would make a great fundamentalist - who cares if the Bible is not internally consistant and contradicts well known facts, you'll just assume it's telling the truth.

Posted by: Michael Friedman on March 8, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map

Posted by: 454545 on March 9, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly