An “alternative” US military?

Who knew? The following headline arrived this morning, in the customary breathless manner of the Family Research Council/Focus on the Family/CitizenLink syndicate:

Dueling Reports Released on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’; New CitizenLink Report

“Dueling reports”? We’ve been hearing quite a lot about the long-awaited Defense Department report (PDF) recommending repeal of the dumb, discriminatory, and failed so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, released yesterday. I was unaware of a second report. One would think that this would be news, what with all the media attention surrounding the issue.

Oh. As it turns out, the other “report” is the creation of yet another wackadoodle hate group, otherwise known for calling on George W. Bush to engage in nuclear genocide in Iraq and then declare himself “President for Life” in order to deal with the “inadequacies of democracy.” Seriously, this essay was recovered for continued public enjoyment through the magic of Google cache. This piece was not a regrettable aberration, either. Another, earlier one, also scrubbed from the website, contains this passage (Warning: Extremely offensive content):

Mexico is now colonizing America and imposing its language and culture on it. Though the Americans still have the strength of understanding to recognize that the Hispanic invasion should be stopped, they are unable to take the measures required to achieve this end. The very least that must be done to halt the Hispanic invasion is the mass enslavement, or execution, of the invaders, which must be followed by an American invasion of Mexico to enforce American language and values upon the Mexicans. But the citizens of the USA recoil from such ruthless violence embracing delusion instead.

Just to be clear, the “Center for Security Policy” and its arm “Family Security Matters” introduced this earlier essay by saying it was “a realistic view of our precarious predicament,” and only scrubbed this filth from its website once it received negative attention. So that’s the source – along with its own affiliated hate group “Family Research Council” – that CitizenLink cites as having produced this irrelevant “report.”

Let’s not be too hard on them, though; they did quote an especially horrifying passage from the actual Defense Department report that proves their point:

They An (sic) important message of repeal needs to be servicemembers “will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different views and beliefs.” (Bolding in original)

How dare the brass require such a thing of servicemembers fighting for the interests of the United States of America? You would think that our nation was founded on the principle of individual freedom, or the idea that we are all created equal.

The Pentagon, we are further told, is bending to “political correctness.” Had that useless phrase been in existence during the racial integration of the armed forces, I suppose those on the wrong side of history would have applied it to them then, too. From the real report:

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, our military took on the racial integration of its ranks, before the country at large had done so. Our military then was many times larger than it is today, had just returned from World War II, and was in the midst of Cold War tensions and the Korean War. By our assessment, the resistance to change at that time was far more intense: surveys of the military revealed opposition to racial integration of the Services at levels as high as 80–90%. Some of our best-known and most-revered military leaders from the World War II-era voiced opposition to the integration of blacks into the military, making strikingly similar predictions of the negative impact on unit cohesion. But by 1953, 95% of all African-American soldiers were serving in racially integrated units, while public buses in Montgomery, Alabama and other cities were still racially segregated.

The report also notes that “the Working Group expects recruiting and retention expenses related to repeal to be negligible,” although Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that the findings “do lead me to conclude that an abundance of care and preparation is required if we are to avoid a disruptive and potentially dangerous impact on the performance of those serving,” and that he therefore wants the repeal to be ordered legislatively rather than through the courts.

This suggests to me the recognition that there is a small core of ideologues within our armed forces who will be actively encouraged by hate groups like the FRC and “American Family Association” to create disruption, and that this reality will require special disciplinary attention. Given other evidence of problems with illegal proselytizing and infiltrators who believe they are fighting a “holy war” against Islam, this shouldn’t be surprising – but it’s all the more stark in contrast to the integration that took place in the very different social context of 1953. Every military person with whom I have discussed this is simply amazed that implementation would be an issue; regardless of personal feelings or opinion, in the military when an order comes down the chain of command, that’s the end of it. If there is an “alternative view” of command held by some within our armed forces, that really does need some attention.

Weirdest of all, this will be how history ultimately remembers Senator John McCain: The most visible face of a ridiculous, retrograde pandering to bigotry, steadily contradicting himself and losing his credibility until in the end he turned against even the military in which he found his identity. And for what? It’s an inexplicably humiliating end to a career.

Posted in Commentary, News | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Bullied: A Student, A School And A Case That Made History

Screening and panel discussion
Saturday, December 4, 2-4:00 pm
Handley Library Auditorium
100 W. Piccadilly St., Winchester

You may have noticed recently the remaining anti-gay fringe imploding in a phantasmagoric backlash, managing in the process to get some more of itself identified as hate groups. It’s children and young people who bear the brunt of this backlash, and we owe it to them to protect them. Sanctioned bullying of the powerless is not something that anyone should be asked to “tolerate.”

Bullied is the story of a student who fought back, and who has made it known that what happened to him should never happen to anyone else. It’s excellent, and timely.

Below is more information about the showing in Winchester, and a showing in Loudoun is date TBA. You can read more about the documentary (available at no charge to any school) at the above link, but I wanted to highlight this question and answer from the discussion guide:

Why is a film on anti-gay bullying necessary?

Some educators are wary of raising issues relating to sexual orientation or gender identity because the subject is seen as politically or religiously charged. While they would promptly take action in the case of bullying based on race, religion or ethnicity, they may hesitate when bullying is based on sexual orientation or the perception that a student is gay.

“They may hesitate.” Because, incredibly, there are people who claim for themselves a right to abuse children who are, or are perceived to be, gay, lesbian, bisexual or gender variant. As much as some might want to think that zero tolerance for bullying (or employment discrimination, for that matter) “for any reason” is a sufficient remedy, the truth is that there will always be bullies who falsely believe that their own reasons for the behavior are special and exempt. The fact that they are not exempt has to be spelled out.

Magic Lantern Theater is an nonprofit film group in Winchester.

MLT Members & Friends, this is to advise of a very special event scheduled for the afternoon of December 4. An initiative of the Coalition of Racial Unity, it will include a showing of the new documentary film, “Bullied,” followed by a panel discussion of the issue of youth bullying in our community. The Friends of Handley Regional Library and Magic Lantern are co-sponsors of this important program – hope you can join us!

“BULLIED: A STUDENT, A SCHOOL AND A CASE THAT MADE HISTORY”
Saturday, December 4, 2-4 p.m.

This new documentary by the Southern Poverty Law Center tells the story of Jamie Nabozny, a student who stood up to his anti-gay tormentors and filed a federal lawsuit against his school district. The suit led to a landmark court decision finding that school officials could be held accountable for not stopping anti-gay abuse. NR; 40 minutes.

  • Place: Handley Library Auditorium, 100 W. Piccadilly St., Winchester;
  • Panel discussion following the film;
  • Co-Sponsored by the Coalition for Racial Unity and the Friends of Handley Regional Library;
  • Free & Open to the Public;
  • More info: crubridges@yahoo.com, www.magiclanterntheater.org; info@magiclanterntheater.org or call 540-678-0963.
Posted in Advocacy, Commentary, Events | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Bullied: A Student, A School And A Case That Made History

Tolerance for child endangerment? No.

“Tolerance” is one of those mealy-mouth words that gets tossed around, often, it seems, as a strategy for avoiding something that really needs to be said. Let’s just be clear: Some things should never be tolerated. The reckless endangerment of children is one of them.

A reader suggested to me backchannel that my response to this comment deserved to be a post in its own right. Then we learned that Loudoun’s resident sociopath Eugene has wormed his cynical fundraising circus into the fabricated Jennifer Keeton/Augusta State Univesity “controversy.” As usual, his message is silly, devoid of even the pretense of truthfulness, and – in a closely related detail – intended to extract money from the least intelligent members of our society. We can skip over the rest of it and go straight to this: A supposed interest in “preserving diversity that includes toleration for a strong belief in moral values.”

What is it, exactly, that Eugene “you would have to treat ‘it’ like a normal person” Delgaudio is demanding “toleration” for? Regular readers of this blog will know me to be a fierce advocate of “diversity” that includes people who believe things that do not comport with reality and “toleration” especially for abhorrent ideas, because that is what sets this nation apart from all others. Our First Amendment guarantees the right to express any belief, however offensive, stupid or unhinged it might be. But what the First Amendment does not guarantee is the “right” to access any venue for such expression. There is no First Amendment “right,” for example, to employment as a licensed school counselor if you do not meet the criteria for a license.

When we send our children to public school, we expect that those responsible for their well-being in that setting have met an established standard of competency, and will not do and say things that may do them harm. Do not confuse your right to express an abhorrent (or just plain false) idea with the imaginary “right” to gain access to other people’s children.

@J. Tyler: Yes, there is objective reality, and we humans are engaged in a process of discovering and describing it, inevitably having to discard mistaken beliefs and assumptions along the way. Some things are a matter of opinion, but other things are not. On this we agree. If you meant to convey something else by “Truth is absolute,” I’m sure you’ll let me know.

Counseling is an applied domain within psychology. I don’t know the specifics of the Augusta program, but a Masters level program would typically include some sort of supervised practicum in addition to coursework. The student would be required to demonstrate competency in the actual practice of counseling before they are granted credentials which would allow them to present themselves to employers and the public as having a certain level of knowledge and training. Anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a “counselor” with no training or education at all. A particular degree or license is understood to be a guarantee – the responsibility of the program granting the degree – that the individual has certain skills and competencies. To grant credentials to someone who has failed to demonstrate the required competencies would be a breach of that responsibility. Ms. Keeton, in the judgement of her professors, has failed to demonstrate the required competency in counseling a segment of the student population she is sure to encounter professionally. Therefore, allowing her to have contact with these children in the role of a counselor would be endangerment.

Imagine if a child coming to terms with an intersex condition were sent to her. Ms. Keeton simply believes (she says) that people “were created male and female,” end of story, all she needs to know about the subject. She dismisses all of the medical knowledge concerning neurological development and gender identity in favor of her belief. She is, in other words, actively denying reality – but you seem to think she should be in a position in which she is assumed to have knowledge about this area of life, but in which she would likely tell this vulnerable child something that is completely false and harmful.

As to the responsibility of her professors to convince her that her beliefs in the area of human sexuality are without foundation, I can only say that they obviously are trying. Why else would they have offered her additional training? The fact is that she rejected this offer. The fault lies neither with the professors nor with the evidence presented. Ms. Keeton came to this program with the attitude that she already knows everything she needs to know about human sexuality. If a student has that attitude, first of all, why is she even going to school? Education is an opportunity to learn things you don’t already know. Secondly, if a student has that attitude she is, by definition, unconvinced by empirical evidence. She has come to class with the intention of dismissing information that contradicts her beliefs, something for which her professors can hardly be held accountable.

The Augusta program is doing the responsible thing by preventing this young woman’s willful ignorance from endangering other people’s children. She has no right to do that, and shame on anyone who would try to invent such a “right.”

In the case of Eugene, this is just one more example of an amoral, fake “Christian” putting his own selfish desires before the well-being of the most vulnerable children in our community, as he did when attempting to block the collection of bullying data. He doesn’t care who gets hurt, as long as the checks keep coming. It is beneath contempt.

Kudos to Augusta State for insisting that basic professional standards based on scientific consensus are not to be thrown out in order to accommodate a student’s personal beliefs. And please get in touch with PFLAG and GLSEN to see how you can help make schools safer for all kids.

Posted in Advocacy, Commentary, News | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Qualifications in the reality-based world

Have you heard this story? It seems that Jennifer Keeton, a young woman studying for a Masters in school counseling at Augusta State University, has found that the profession is not a good fit for her. Under normal circumstances, such a student would chalk it up to experience and change career paths. But this is more of a “Chuck Colson says I have Special Rights” situation.

Apparently, “in written assignments and classroom discussions,” Ms. Keeton has insisted that a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity are “the result of accountable, personal choices,” and not “a state of being.” Understandably, these statements have caused those charged with conferring professional counseling credentials to question Ms. Keeton’s “ability to provide competent counseling to gay men and lesbians.” I would say that’s putting it mildly. Cue the tiny violins:

The grounds for the threatened expulsion are not poor grades or misconduct – they are Keeton’s beliefs.

I suppose that’s true, after a fashion. Say that you were applying for a job doing web development in PHP, and you firmly told the interviewer that you “don’t believe in” using functions. You would not get the job. You could make a semantic argument that it was because of your beliefs, but the argument would be meaningless. Regardless of the underlying reason, the failure to use functions would render you unable to perform the job.

I’m sorry, but the bottom line has to be this: If you cannot for whatever reason meet the basic requirements for a profession, you need to choose a different one. No, you can’t make up different professional requirements for yourself. This is not a violation of your religious freedom, nor does it represent a lack of “respect for religious values”; it just means that your beliefs are incompatible with the requirements for performing that job. If your beliefs don’t allow you to fill some of the prescriptions doctors write for their patients, you can’t meet the basic requirements for being a pharmacist. If you reject the established scientific consensus of the professionals in your field of study, if you refuse to believe that some of the students you will encounter are gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender, and that this is a state of their being, you cannot meet the basic requirements for school counseling. In fact, you would be a danger to those students. Quit whining and choose a different career. People do it all the time.

Posted in Commentary, News | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Hate crimes in Leesburg

Update: Surveillance video of the vehicle is at the end of the post.

Since it’s been all over the news since last night, most folks probably now know about the three assaults on African-American and Latino men in Leesburg. The perpetrator, assumed to be a serial killer recently operating in Flint, Michigan, is a white male, approximately 6’0′ tall, with an athletic build. The victims have been almost exclusively African-American men who are either older or slightly built, and are usually attacked from behind. Two of the Leesburg victims were stabbed in the back without warning. There are now 16 confirmed victims in Flint, five of whom have died from their injuries, and another stabbing victim in Toledo, Ohio, just confirmed at this afternoon’s press conference.

Download and distribute flyer

To the credit of the Leesburg police, detectives quickly saw the pattern and connected the Leesburg cases to Flint. I’m also glad to see that they are working with the FBI’s domestic terrorism unit. It’s important to call things by their proper names, and this is terrorism. It’s not random, and it’s not “the same as any other crime.” Hate crime, or terrorism, doesn’t only target the individual victim of an attack, but the entire community of whom that individual is a member. It does psychological, emotional and spiritual violence to every member of that community. Motivation matters. If you still think that hate crime is and should be treated like “any other crime,” you should have been with leaders of the African-American community last night and been helped to understand what it feels like to be singled out for violence because of who you are. It feels like open season, that there is a target on your back, or your son’s back, or your husband’s.

The detail that helped detectives make the connection is the vehicle driven by the perpetrator:

The car is described as a Chevy S10 Blazer between a 1995 and early 2000’s model. The vehicle is dark green with light tan panels on the side and has no front tags or inspection or tax stickers in the front windshield.

Due to confirmation of the Toledo stabbing police believe the perpetrator is no longer in the Leesburg area, but urged the community to remain on the alert. It seems unlikely that he came here at random, with no connection to the area. Someone knows something, so please continue to disseminate this information.

Download and distribute flyer

Rev. Reginald Early, President of the Loudoun Branch of the NAACP, is away on a church mission trip. He was reached by the Leesburg Today, and told them that there is both alarm and sadness in the community.

“It is sadness for the victims, sadness for their families and sadness for the man,” Early said. “Why would anyone want to hurt somebody simply because of the color of their skin? It saddens me that in the 21st century things like this would happen; especially with all the changes we have seen-with the recent election of the first African-American president.”

Early said in recent years there have been some incidents of racially motivated actions, such as the placement of nooses, which is evocative of the lynchings that took place during decades past.

“But there has been nothing of this magnitude where someone has been hurt,” he said.

“We have to once again put up guard, be on the alert and be aware of possible danger just because of the color of our skin.”

Posted in News | Tagged | 2 Comments

The Cooch made him do it

We pointed it out here in the context of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors action adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the County’s employment nondiscrimination policy, but in light of the ruling that found Prop 8 unconstitutional, it’s even more striking:

“The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits discrimination without a rational basis against any class of persons. Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.”

These words were issued by Governor Bob McDonnell in an executive directive in March, an effort to put out the fire started by his intemperate, activist Attorney General. AG Cuccinelli, you’ll recall, insists that the law and public policy of Virginia requires the freedom to discriminate against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation, and that such discrimination cannot be prohibited. Kimball Payne of The Daily Press finds these words oddly similar to the language in Judge Vaughn Walker’s Prop 8 ruling – probably not the effect the governor was aiming for.

McDonnell’s office opted not to weigh in on the similarities on Friday.

Indeed. What more is there to say about this? McDonnell and Walker are both right.

Payne did predict that if push comes to shove, the governor “would almost certainly say that the executive directive was designed to tackle workplace discrimination and nothing more.” However, I’m sure that even a Regent University law degree equipped him with an understanding that the scope of the Equal Protection Clause is not limited to workplace discrimination. And even if we were to accept that narrow focus, I find myself moved to ask this question again: If he understands what the Equal Protection Clause requires, why did he not use the influence of his office to ensure passage of a legislative correction before the end of the 2010 session? And what is he going to do about Virginia’s compliance problem now?

My, what interesting times.

Posted in Commentary, News | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

We have a winner

This may well be premature, but the award for Best Subject Line in the category Histrionic Email Blast in the wake of the grand-slam Prop 8 victory (ruling here) goes to Brian S. Brown of NOM:

“Federal Judge Rules Marriage Unconstitutional!”

I say this as kindly as is humanly possible: Brian, you idiot. Marriage is not unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional is your demand that our civil government define marriage in the same strained, narrow, unrealistic, exclusionary way that you do. This trial represented an open invitation and opportunity for your side to demonstrate before the world why your demand should be met. Your side failed to do that – because the evidence in support of your position simply doesn’t exist. You did your best, but you fell short. That is not anyone’s fault, because not even the best lawyer, or the best witness, can present evidence that isn’t there. As Judge Walker puts it with regard to the absolute best expert witness your side could come up with (in one of those 21-word sentences legal opinions seem to require when a five-word sentence would otherwise suffice) “His opinion lacks reliability, as there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion Blankenhorn proffered.”

Some also-rans (thanks for playing!):

Wendy Wright of “Concerned Women for America” gets it partially right; the ruling does indeed go beyond the issue of marriage equality and pointedly addresses the question of what our Constitution and Judicial branch of government are for. The answer to this question is one that those of a certain authoritarian bent have never been able to accept; in another context, “(w)here the Bill of Rights really has its value is as a check against the tyranny of the majority,” and this applies to the Constitution as a whole. The unintentionally revealing comment from Newt Gingrich is a case in point: …judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.” Back to civics class, Mr. Gingrich. Please show us where in the Constitution it says that “the Judicial Branch shall be a rubber stamp for whatever happens to be the current proclivity of ‘the American people.'” What do you imagine the phrase “independent judiciary” to signify, if not independence from some obligation to uphold majority political opinion?

Such faux-conservative outrage over the failure of “unelected judges” to rubberstamp the prejudices of those who didn’t elect them is nothing new. “Movement conservatives” of the Goldwater era wanted to vaporize the Warren court and “restore constitutional government” in part because the freedom of white people to engage in racial discrimination was being abridged. Today’s faux-conservatives can bray all they like that this is completely different, but their objection is exactly the same: Having their demand for special rights rejected by “judges who oppose the American people.” And we cannot find a stronger illustration of their intention than that provided by Chuck Colson of the Loudoun-headquarted Prison Fellowship Ministries. His response is a fundamental rejection of our form of government, which includes three independent branches. It is, frankly, a call to sedition.

Posted in Commentary, News | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We have a winner