Citizen Tom

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.

There is nothing so stupid as an educated man, if you get him off the thing he was educated in.  — Will Rogers

Why This Post

When I compare bloggers with the news media, I find some interesting differences.

• The information in the news media tends to be slightly more accurate
• Most bloggers are more willing to admit their ignorance.
• Most bloggers reveal their sources.
• Almost all bloggers will admit they are biased.
• When they focus on a particular issue, some bloggers will study that issue in considerable depth.  That is, they will educate themselves.  That is something many members of the news media never seem to bother with.

What Do Virginia Bloggers Think About The Proposed Financial Bailout?

Below the Belway has a post (here) that provides a video on the Community Reinvestment Act.  Doug shows “there’s plenty of evidence out there to support the Republican argument that government-mandated easy credit forced banks to hand out mortgages that, objectively, never should have been given.”

Leslie Carbone has a series on the bailout (here, here, here, and here).  Her concern is that the White House and Congress will try to borrow their way out of fiscal trouble.  She describes the resistance of Congressional Conservatives.

Luxurious Choices: Poetry and Polemics makes the point (here and here) that government sponsored lenders do more than buy mortgages.  They also, for example, buy student loans.

The Skeptical Observer maintains a skeptical attitude (here, here, and here) and even refuses to accept the description of financial meltdown as accurate.  Nonetheless, he reliably blames the Democrats.          

TwoConservative (here) explores the role of the former Fannie Mae chief executive, Franklin D. Raines.  In addition, he studies the connection between of Barack Obama and Raines, and he considers Obama’s response to the AIG bailout (here).

84rules is pro McCain, against Democrats, and against the bailout (see here, here, and here).

Too Progressive is speaking out adamantly against the bailout (see here, here, here, and here).  Too Progressive apparently thinks the financial bailout is nothing more than an outrageous Republican political stunt.  

Conclusion

What shocked me is how few Democrat, Liberal, and Progressive (whatever you want to call them) blogs have anything to say about the Financial mess.   I looked, but I saw very little.  Why?  I don’t know.  I can guess, but I do not think I have a good guess.  So I will not say anything more.   I try to keep my uneducated thoughts to myself.  Sometimes I even succeed. 

Although I only linked to one article, Below the Beltway has done quite a few good posts on this subject.  So consider exploring.

Check it this Two Conservatives‘ post on SCHIPS (here). Charles methodically shreds the pity argument for excessive welfare benefits.

Below the Beltway offers insight into how the legal profession bills us (here). Can the tyranny of the clock be defeated?

Tobacco is alive and well. novatownhall blog explains (here) how the absence of government subsidies has actually IMPROVED profitably.

The Green Miles gloats over Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize (here).

The guys at Too Conservative perform another wonder (here). They take a post from Raising Kaine and get more comments on it than Raising Kaine. The resulting debate (on immigration) is also much more interesting.

HansMast.com relates what he has learned about Sikhism (here).

Daily Whackjob debates an intelligence leak (here).

Virginia Virtucon mourns the passing of Jo Ann Davis (here)

Howling Latina once again proclaims the racism of Republicans (here).

To defend gun rights Spank That Donkey recalls (here) the testimony of Archie Bunker?

novamiddleman reviews the performance of the candidates (here) at the Americans for Prosperity Conference.

And best of all, the The Mason Conservative provides us with a video (here).