So what set me off today? The Tenacious Poodle decided to repeat some nonsense from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the SPLC Urges Congress to Investigate Extremism in the Military. Here is the SPLC article, and here is their letter to Congress. The SPLC would like us to believe that white supremacists threaten to take over the United States Armed Forces.
Apparently, the SPLC is trying to stir up trouble for the US military. Why? I fear is that the SPLC wants to take advantage of the inability of some people to think critically. Its article is designed to stir up an emotional attack. That “works” against some people. After all, who amongst us wants to be harassed and called names? When the corporate news media takes up the cry of “bigot” and “homophobe,” how many of us have the moral fortitude to stand our ground?
So what is wrong with the SPLC’s “advice” to Congress? Look at the size of the United States military. We have about 1.5 million people in the active military and another 850,000 in the reserve (see here). What about those in the military not involved in a white supremacist group? Since the SPLC’s “evidence” is entirely anecdotal, we know nothing about the vast numbers not involved in a white supremacist group. Because the SPLC did not consider the military as a whole, its “evidence” is meaningless.
Moreover, the SPLC has an axe to grind, homosexuals in the military. Aside from the fact the military does not have any use for either group, there is no relationship between our military’s treatment of homosexuals and white supremacists.
Anecdotal Evidence
Here is the definition.
Anecdotal Evidence: If you discount evidence arrived at by systematic search or by testing in favor of a few firsthand stories, you are committing the fallacy of overemphasizing anecdotal evidence.
Example: Yeah, I’ve read the health warnings on those cigarette packs and I know about all that health research, but my brother smokes, and he says he’s never been sick a day in his life, so I know smoking can’t really hurt you.
As evidence the military is being swamped with white supremacists, the SPLC provides a bunch of websites, and we are suppose to take this “proof” at face value. Why? How sure are we that what we see on the websites is even true? Relative to the general population, what does the SPLC’s “proof” tell us about the percentage of military personnel involved in white supremacist groups?
Instead providing logical and substantiated evidence, the SPLC has provided “evidence” aimed at swaying our emotions. We should regard this an insult to our intelligence and integrity.
Apples and Oranges
Supposedly, the military is throwing out homosexuals and allowing radical white supremacists to stay in the military. That is not the way things work. What the military (and for that matter, the government) does is investigate just about everyone it accepts into its ranks. Before the U.S. Army gives anyone access to a gun or its computer systems, an investigation is required. Investigators ascertain the following qualities (from here):
- Honesty
- Trustworthiness
- Character
- Loyalty
- Financial Responsibility
- Reliability
Any applicant who belongs to a group demonstrably hostile to the United States, including certain white supremacist groups, will not be able to get a security clearance. On the other hand, security investigations do not discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
Because it believes homosexuality would undermine good order and discipline, the military discriminates against homosexuals. The military does not allow admitted homosexuals within the ranks. Because military personnel must work together closely, and because they rely upon each other for their lives, the military discourages what it calls fraternization within the ranks. The preferential treatment that lovers give each other has no place whatsoever within a battlefield unit.
Conclusion
What SPLC has done with its cheapshot “report” is give itself a lame excuse to complain about the military’s discrimination policy against admitted homosexuals in the military. Nonsense such as this should serve as an object lesson. This is how people with an agenda try to fool those of us who have lost objectivity. When we are unwilling to think critically, we can be taken in and used by those without scruples.
But Tom, you don’t know what people do with the experience they have gained in the military after they leave the military. We have had several incidents of local ex-military members using their backgrounds for purposes of intimidation that smack of impending violence. If that’s anecdotal, then fine. But it’s my anecdote, so I know what the SPLC is saying is true.
I’m going to leave it at that for reasons of personal safety.
How fortunate we are to have the SPLC to protect us. With great dedication and useless anecdotal evidence, they work diligently to keep us from providing any useful training to the US armed forces and our various police forces. When the SPLC succeeds of convincing Congress, we will no longer have to worry when personnel leave the military and our police forces. Without appropriate military and police forces training, there will be none who can abuse their hard won skills.
What is more important is that there will be no military to discriminate against homosexuals. When with silly fears we have rendered our military and police forces wholly ineffective, we will have no reason (or choice) to bother with such silly nonsense. What a wonderful world it will be then!
kgotthardt – There are over seven billion people in the world. Has it occurred to you that you don’t know what the vast majority of those people do with whatever experience they gain from wherever they get it? Moreover, we have rampant crime and terrorism in some places. Is that not scary too?!!!
Crime and terrorism is scary everywhere, OFL. I particularly don’t appreciate it in my vacinity.
I think the military does discriminate against homosexuals, but I also think that is a separate conversation. I believe the reason the two conversations were mixed is the SPLC was saying it looks like the military is more afraid of homosexuals than domestic terrorists which is an interesting irony.
It could be that the people on Facebook are not really in the military, which makes one look at it from a different perspective as well. No matter what, it needs to be looked into seriously and not dismissed. Clearly, people who do this are dangerous.
“Crime and terrorism is scary everywhere”
“ARE scary” that is.
kgotthardt – Just about everybody in the military has a security clearance. Getting a security is a COSTLY process. In general, you are safer from active and former members of the US military than you are from anyone else. That is why the SPLC’s report is just plain nonsense.
I wish I could say my experiences match your assertions, OFL. I have a high respect for our service people and KNOWING some of them dirty the reputation of the real patriots makes me doubly angry.
I fail to see how your post did anything to help the reputation of the military. Of course the military must air its dirty laundry, but the post contained no useful information. All it did was to infer that the military is full of white supremacists, which is entirely untrue.
The military does not tolerate discrimination based upon race. That will get you nothing but legal trouble.
“All it did was to infer that the military is full of white supremacists, which is entirely untrue.”
Really? I honestly didn’t infer “full.” I inferred “There are some (which is still too many) and no one is listening.” I would think the way to eradicate this kind of thing is to let the military and everyone else know what these people are doing to our country and the armed forces. Exposure usually makes people act. Hopefully, it will work.
I don’t think the military is discriminating based on race. I think these whackos are. There are whackos in every organization but you can’t get rid of them unless you acknowledge they are there.
kgotthardt – So what you politely refer to as “exposure” is okay. Well, that is what I did for your blog post and the SPLC’s alarmist report. I exposed the absence of any information value. Somehow I doubt you appreciate such exposure.
You have some nice stuff on your blog. I don’t like all of it, but I think we should try to avoid commenting just because we don’t like something. We don’t have to like everything. If we cannot offer constructive advice, then what is the point in saying anything critical?
So here is the constructive advice. It is not enough just to identify a problem. If someone has a blemish on their face, what is the purpose of pointing at it? When we cannot offer a constructive solution, nothing is left but sympathy (usually not appreciated) or ridicule?
We know what the SPLC wants to do. They want any excuse to accuse the U.S. Armed Forces of hypocrisy. That was made perfectly clearly when they brought in the subject of homosexuals. When you echoed their report, you took up the same chant. Are you truly so unaware? Since you are a smart lady, I do not think so.
The world is not perfect. The U.S. Armed Forces are not perfect. None of us are perfect. So the pool of young men and women from which our military recruits is not perfect. No matter what we do, white supremacists and homosexuals will still get into our military. We do our best, but what will be will be. Get use to it. If you cannot suggest an honest improvement, then please have the courtesy to leave well enough alone.
Perhaps I should have added my commentary on the subject like I did here to clarify why I put the post up. Being in a hurry, however, I did not do so.
As I said before, “I believe the reason the two conversations were mixed is the SPLC was saying it looks like the military is more afraid of homosexuals than domestic terrorists which is an interesting irony.” This is my reading of the SPLC’s notification, but I could be wrong. I don’t know anyone in the SPLC. I merely agree with their assessment of hate groups because my anecdotal experiences match their assertions.
My solution to this problem would be to have the military investigators look up all these people on Facebook and address the issues. I would also like to have them re-examine every complaint they have received about ex-military threatening people because there IS a problem out there. DHS has already said there is a problem.
I rather thought these would be the obvious solutions, but perhaps I didn’t make my preferences obvious enough.
That said, I will be sure to refer people back to your blog if the conversation interests them.
That infernal, politically driven DHS report outraged every vet in the country. I posted about it here. The link to the report is now broken, but I do not have the time to bother with finding another.
Please remember why politics is called a blood sport. Consider the fact that a significant majority of the military does not vote Democrat. With the Democrat’s considerable victory, that provides that party an opportunity to punish its enemies and reward its friends. That is the way the morally weak (human beings) practice politics, and that is the primary reason we should keep government limited and small.
Facebook? You want to waste the military’s time and money by looking up people on Facebook? The little informational letter that you cut and paste from the SPLC say they only found 40 people who were on a white supremist website that listed their occupation as military.
You’ve had incidences with a few members of HSM and you use that to paint all vets as potential white supremacy members. Using some bogus report from the SPLC to get back at these people is irresponsible. I’ll be sure to let all of our vets know how highly the SPLC (and you) thinks of them. These men and women serve their country, leave their families behind and because you have a beef with Greg L., you wave the SPLC and the NHS reports in their faces and call them racists and supremacists.
I guess I don’t look at it politically. I guess it also doesn’t matter where the report came from because if I saw this stuff on Facebook or any other online site (and I have seen some doozies), I would think, “potential perp.”
This goes way beyond HSM and that scary crowd. We are talking about internet crime here, military or otherwise. That these people would put “military” as their occupation is an outrage.
The FBI has its hands full with rampant internet crime. It’s a whole new territory for perps looking for victims. They have tactics that most of us wouldn’t even think of. Some day I will put out what I have learned about internet crime in general. This isn’t something we can afford to mess with.
Please stop calling me a coward. Name calling will get you nowhere:
“This particular person also said s/he would pass on my disrespect for the military or some such nonsense. Considering I don’t know who the person is and I considered going into the military myself, I consider this particularly cowardly.”
Again, continuing to call others names and going around the Internet acting holier than thou does not make me believe that you are sincere.
Concerned, please do not take up space on Tom’s blog to address your personal issues with me (which can’t be that personal considering I have no idea who you are). Please email me in the format instructed above, and use your real name. Katherine.gotthardt@gmail.com I am not concerned about your assessment of my sincerity, but I am willing and able to document clarification of every statement I have made.