Will Allowing Gays in the Military Really Impair Unit Cohesion? The Relevance of Allies’ Experience

After reading Foucault’s analysis it is his presumption that many Greek soliders were gay almost by a rule, and not by acceptance. Does this mean that we should assume that this would work in an American military? Maybe in a gay cultured small band of men who were intimate in more then one way it might work. This logic fails when we apply it to one of the largest militaries in the world in the same way that we think we could apply one military culture to another military culture. That of course depends on if one accepts that any of these studies you mention on this When a gay military has no effect on the troops I assure you the men in the military will be telling you this. Till then don’t assume that any outside data is not pressured.

a response to the following:

In my view, the strongest argument against President Obama’s proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the military is the claim that it will somehow impair unit cohesion. Yet as columnist Steve Chapman points out, several of our allies allow gays to serve openly with no such ill effects:

It’s not completely implausible that in a military environment, open homosexuality might wreak havoc on order and morale. But the striking thing about these claims is that they exist in a fact-free zone. From all the dire predictions, you would think a lifting of the ban would be an unprecedented leap into the dark, orchestrated by people who know nothing of the demands of military life.

As it happens, we now have a wealth of experience on which to evaluate the policy....

A couple of dozen countries already allow gays in uniform—including allies that have fought alongside our troops, such as Britain, Canada, and Australia. Just as there is plenty of opposition in the U.S. ranks, there was plenty of opposition when they changed their policies.

In Canada, 45 percent of service members said they would not work with gay colleagues, and a majority of British soldiers and sailors rejected the idea. There were warnings that hordes of military personnel would quit and promising youngsters would refuse to enlist.

But when the new day arrived, it turned out to be a big, fat non-event. The Canadian government reported “no effect.” The British government observed “a marked lack of reaction.” An Australian veterans group that opposed admitting gays later admitted that the services “have not had a lot of difficulty in this area.”

Israel, being small, surrounded by hostile powers, and obsessed with security, can’t afford to jeopardize its military strength for the sake of prissy ventures in political correctness. But its military not only accepts gays, it provides benefits to their same-sex partners, as it does with spouses. Has that policy sapped Israel’s military might?

The Australian, British, Canadian, and Israeli armed forces are all among the best in the world. If they allow gays to serve openly with no ill effects, that strongly suggests that the US can as well.

I have not followed the literature on this subject in detail. So it’s possible that there is a body of data somewhere showing that these nations’ military capability really has been impaired in some way by allowing gays to serve. I highly doubt it, but I lack the knowledge and expertise to be sure.

One could also argue that the US armed forces are so different from those of these other countries that their experience is irrelevant. Given the quality of these armies and the fact that all of them rely heavily on US-style weapons, organization, and military doctrine, I’m skeptical of that claim too.

It may be that US troops are much more homophobic than those of these other countries, and therefore won’t effectively serve with gays. That too seems a dubious argument. An April 2009 poll showed that 50% of survey respondents in military households support letting gays serve openly, with 43% opposed; 56% reject the view that allowing gays to serve openly would be “divisive.” That suggests that homophobia in the military is far from universal. As Chapman points out, there was no outcry by servicemembers or decline in unit cohesion when the ban on openly gay troops was temporarily lifted during the 1991 Gulf War. Attitudes towards gays are considerably more favorable today, which makes problems even less likely.

To my mind, opponents of allowing gays to serve openly in the military need to show that the ill effects they predict have actually occurred in these other countries. If they can’t, they should support the idea of allowing the armed forces to choose the best available recruits regardless of sexual orientation.

via volokh.com

Since when has this blog become so enthusiastic about science and data that we would decide that data could not be obscured? Was Al Gore's data real science? Surely you know that a biased experiment is possible by controlling the axioms? The problem with science is one creates the testing axioms. judging merely by skill you create a bubble that ignores a correlative of the environment of the subject. Do we really know yet what the setup of the experiment you claim is? given the right setup one could say that pornography causes violence to women. That is what the feminists were saying for two decades. it was hogwash. I've gone over the studies. science works within the context of it's controls. The studies on porn were concluding as to what was angering people. The data was completely irrelevant to the study. Here is some more information on the flawed http://xrl.us/porn studies that the feminists sold to the mainstream

Given Science the progressives have pushed an agenda that is hateful of heterosexual men and spent most of the last half century pushing drugs like Ritalin on young boys who were merely different then their femme counterparts. Could this not just be more of the same Blue State hatred that has destroyed society and has led America to decline?

We idolize Asia's strong educational ethos, but seem to fear Asia's strong cultural patriarchal view of the family. Strong traditional Jewish values were patriarchal too. I'm not saying that we should turn the world upside down for anyone, but the gender revolution and the ability to create innovators seem to be running parallel. Femmes have strengths. their emotional quotient gets work in the modern world, why are we still doing this to men? more on this argument here http://xrl.us/feminists

My personal take is that, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is a disaster. I differ with Sarah Palin who pardon my French doesn't have any balls to say the reality that sexuality in the military doesn't mix. does anyone remember Abu Gharaib? the social left condemns Abu Gharaib, but was not that a homosexual act in the military? Nothing like that ever surfaced before and photography is one hundred years old. this is mass sexual hysteria. It isn't like Gay people are financially burdened as an segment group either. It is the straight men that really need the military for financial reasons... not that affirmative action should lead decisions, but still considering the amount of meat and potatoes guys out of work, this is unfair. just because there are gay men in the military already doing well for themselves doesn't mean they are not hurting people around them. Funny the way everyone is so keen on diversity and tolerance, but you can't respect difference until you understand what different is. I love gay people. I respect them as well. I want to see them do well, but I don't want to be naked in the same shower with them. women don't want men looking at them naked, but most ladies in the Blue States are trying to force gay men into the military. It is wrong. The military is a team effort. being able to shoot a gun well is not as important as contribution to the team. No skill is as important as the team. the team gets demoralized by sexuality. In the end... it comes down to the majority of the military to decide. they are the ones to sacrifice their lives and they should be honest with what they want and what they are thinking about. Perhaps it is better to allow the military to do what was working before they became sexually confused. we used to win wars with the good old boys.

The ladies on the View said that the boys in the military want this.

I'm wondering what stat leads "The View" to the idea that the military wants this? Shouldn't they at least reference this information for the rest of us who don't have an inside track of what is going on? They just made this up and expect us to all nod our head and agree. forget the politics here and just think about what kind of shoddy information is being distributed here. it isn't just an oops moment. They just spoke for all of the armed service men. the best analysis on sexuality to this day still remains in Freud's pen because he never had the presumption to control the experiment like Gloria Steinem's friends do. He merely wrote down the experience and that is why Freud is still useful today. It is why Freud is still talked about... even when he is wrong. These people on this TV show think their "VIEW" is their opinion. Your "VIEW" starts with what you see, not how you interpret what you saw.

the APA said there is no GAY GENE. indeed there is no nature, only nurture when it comes to a person's unobjective biological activities. that means people aren't born gay according to either one of the largest if not the biggest psychological association. assuming demons based on behavior would take away the free will argument that the social left is doing anyway. social liberals and superstitious nuts have so much in common. The cultural opinion of an organization rarely has any influence on my opinion, but the depth of their study is impressive. perhaps if the gay community were more objective then midevil freaks it might help us improve their condition. as offensive as this ritual might seem it pales in how it disgusts me to see the hypocrisy of those that believe that gay men are born that way and fail to apply the standard of judgment towards everyone else. would it seem fair to many of the readers here if I were to say women are born more likely to nurture? it is fair to me, but I suppose my values aren't punitive. my take is that there are many causes that lead to a person's taste. I would rule out Demons and Gloria Steinem however and would not ask any government to set any government contracts like marriage based on such arbitrary abuse. I ask the same behavior for the military. Let the soldiers decide what they want and stop pushing one survey. There are some huge egos involved in this and they have proven in the past to not be taking accurate surveys.

Volohh continues on the next post....

I thought I’d ask again what I brought up a few years: How can the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — or for that matter, any similar exclusion policy — be justified as to lesbians? As I understand it, the main argument in favor of such a policy for male homosexuals is that in all-male or nearly-all-male combat units the possibility of sexual tension may undermine unit effectiveness. I’m skeptical about this argument, but it at least seems plausible.

Yet that doesn’t seem to apply to lesbians, since presumably they would very rarely be serving in all-female units, and never in all-female combat units. Moreover, even if we set aside antidiscrimination arguments and focus solely on military effectiveness (which may or may not be the right approach, but let’s use it here), it seems lesbians would tend to make better soldiers than straight women:

1. They are less likely to get pregnant.
2. They seem less likely to get sexually transmitted diseases.
3. If the stereotypes about lesbians tending to act in more masculine ways are generally accurate — hard to tell, for obvious measurement reasons, but that seems to be the conventional wisdom — then that cuts further in favor of lesbians as opposed to straight women. Many women may well make great soldiers, but if we’re speaking about generalities, and the military policy is generally defended using generalizations, I’m happy to at least tentatively assume (as I suspect would the military) that stereotypically masculine traits and attitudes tend to be more useful for soldiering than stereotypically feminine ones.

Is it just that the military fears that straight soldiers will so dislike lesbians that this itself would cause morale problems? I guess that just doesn’t strike me as that factually plausible.

Is it that the military wants to treat male and female homosexuals equally, for fairness or public relations reasons? That seems odd: Can it really be that discriminating against homosexuals is just fine, discriminating against women (as the military long has done, and still in considerable measure does) is just fine, but discriminating based on sex among homosexuals is wrong, even when there’s a perfectly sensible argument for such discrimination?

Is it that the worry is that having lesbians using communal shower facilities with other women would make the women uncomfortable, because the straight women would be worried about being ogled by the lesbians? I suppose that’s possible, but isn’t that a pretty minor concern, especially given the broad surrender of privacy that is expected in the military?

immediate note by me----> I know many women who don't like being oggled by lesbians. In the same respect I don't like gay men doing it to me in the locker room.

Or is there something else I’m missing here? By the way, an AP story published by Stars & Stripes in 2009 reports that “Women accounted for 15 percent of all active-duty and reserve members of the military but more than one-third of the 619 people discharged last year because of their sexual orientation. The disparity was particularly striking in the Air Force, where women represented 20 percent of all personnel but 61 percent of those expelled.”

REQUEST: Could you please focus the discussion in the comments on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as applied to lesbians, and set aside the unit cohesion arguments related to male homosexuals? Those unit cohesion arguments could be commented on in the comments accompanying Ilya’s “Unit Cohesion” post.

Frank Drackman says:

In my experience 99.999999999% of Female Marines were lesbians, at least thats what 99.9999999999% of the ones I hit on said...

Jon says:

I’m the executive officer of a mixed gender battalion in Iraq and have two observations; first, that lesbianism seems to be far more of an “open secret” and accepted than male homosexuality, and second, that there seem to be more instances of physical fights between lesbians than between men in the unit. This may be entirely coincidental and unrelated to DADT. I do wonder, though, if the dynamic would be different without DADT.

February 10, 2010, 4:42 pm

Noah David Simon says:

I wouldn’t want to fight with women either. Straight ones. ....and I really don’t get where you are going with this. I can’t think how many times I nearly got my ass beat down by jealous lesbians on the NYC subways because I was looking at them. Bad for morale for certain.

...and I would agree with some of the commenters above like Jon. Lesbians are more likely in my opinion to be Bisexual then their male counterparts.

Honestly I would have no problem having gays in the military (just like women). In fact I think having a better communicating sex or personality would be a positive thing. The military needs the best PR in the world and if it is good for Madison Ave then it is good for the soldiers that have to sell their occupation every day.

...but the soldiers out with their guns fighting the war should be straight guys.

via volokh.com

I would like to point out the obvious flaw in the Volokh comparison to the Israeli military. I have read in several studies in the South Pacific that societies that are small and intimate are more likely to accept Gays into their culture. Perhaps Israel reflects this dynamic. When a society is intimate then differences like sexual tensions are accounted for by the intimacy of close family. I posted the link to that story below:

Gay men's evolutionary advantage: being 'super uncles' - http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2523199 via Kittybergers http://ff.im/fvqn6

I don't agree with the article's findings which makes the argument that being Gay is a born trait in conflict with the APA findings, but much in line with some of the rhetoric being pushed by our media and is reflected in our culture obviously: Majority supports gays in U.S. military: poll http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2547240 via Kittyburgers http://ff.im/fK759 ,but the study is interesting in that they found that smaller numbers causes acceptance. Differences are always workable when people become intimate with those that are different. We begin to respect each other and our boundaries better then those that are exactly like us.

Wilders On Trial - Hudson New York

On January 20, 2010, the Netherlands opened criminal proceedings in the religious hate speech trial of Geert Wilders. Wilders is a Member of the Dutch Parliament and the head of the Freedom Party, the fastest growing opposition political party in the country. Wilders is facing charges under Article 137 (c) and (d) of the Dutch penal code (below) of “insulting” and “inciting hatred against or discrimination of” Muslims. If convicted, he could be sentenced to up to two years in prison. The summons against Wilders cited his film Fitna that denounced the Quran for inciting violence and various anti-Islamic statements that included proposals to ban the Quran as Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands and to restrict further Muslim immigration there.

Article 137c Dutch Penal Code

1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.

2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.

Article 137d Dutch Penal Code

1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or in an image, incites hatred against or discrimination of people or violent behaviour against person or property of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their gender or hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.

2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.

Western Civilization on Trial:

Why we should be watching Geert Wilders.

As the Geert Wilders case goes into pre-trial, National Review Online asked our experts: Is there any legitimate reason he’s in court? What are the implications of such a trial being held, nevermind its outcome? …

PAUL MARSHALL

The American media’s silence about the Geert Wilders trial is puzzling — the trial is explosive, much more so than most of America’s perennial “trials of the century.” Wilders, leader of the Freedom party, is arguably the Netherlands’s most popular politician, but for years he has had to live in safe houses, including on military bases. He now faces the possibility of imprisonment on charges of “group insult” and “incitement to hatred,” as defined by articles 137 (c) and (d) of the Dutch penal code, for his public speeches and op-eds criticizing Islam.

Apart from its direct and immediate threat to free speech, the trial exposes the growth of political violence and repression in the Netherlands, long lauded as the most tolerant country in Europe, if not the world. Thirty years ago, I interviewed then-prime minister Dries van Agt simply by strolling into his unguarded parliamentary office and asking his secretary if he could spare me a couple of minutes. Now it is a country where politicians and artists are targeted by vigilantes and the state.

In 2002, popular Dutch politician and gay activist Pim Fortuyn was murdered by an environmentalist who took offense at Fortuyn’s criticism of Islam. In 2004, one of the country’s leading documentarians, Theo Van Gogh, was murdered, and almost beheaded, on the streets of Amsterdam in retaliation for a film he made about Islam (Submission). In 2006, a gathering of scholars and commentators critical of Islam and Islamism led the Dutch security service to invoke an alert level just short of “national emergency.” In 2008, the prospective release of Wilders’s film Fitna led to special sessions of the Dutch cabinet. The country’s best-known member of parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for many years had to live in hiding, and even briefly fled the country. This is the situation in the heart of liberal Europe.

The media’s silence is also disturbing since it indicates their reluctance, even fear, when it comes to grappling with the West’s increasing censorship of anything that might be deemed offensive to some Muslims. So far, the effects in the U.S. are small — such as the Yale University Press’s removing the famous Danish cartoons from a book about those same cartoons — but they betray a mindset common to much of Europe: preemptive self-censorship. Media outlets that defended and lauded Salman Rushdie two decades ago, when the Ayatollah Khomeini called for him to be killed over The Satanic Verses, now cringe and shy away from those facing similar threats.

Within much of the Muslim world, political and religious debate, especially amongst Muslims, is shut down in the name of preventing anything that could “insult Islam.” Unless we strenuously defend Wilders’s right — and our own right — to speak, especially to criticize and offend, we will stumble down the same path.

NINA SHEA

In 1989, Iran’s supreme leader issued a blasphemy fatwa against Salman Rushdie in London. It was the opening volley in a new Muslim push — later taken up by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference — to force the West to adopt Islamic-blasphemy strictures within its borders. Intimidated, the West has begun to comply. It does so mostly through self-censorship and by prosecuting those who do speak out under religious-hate-speech laws such as those invoked in the Netherlands against Wilders. These laws are the West’s proxy for blasphemy bans.

The danger has not been mass imprisonment — actual convictions have been few — but the creation of a general deterrent to criticism of Islam or anything Islamic. Europe’s leaders likely believe that banning religious hate speech is a small price to pay for greater security; if so, they are wrong. The premise that religion can be easily compartmentalized, relegated to an autonomous sphere separate from politics and culture, is a misconception. Europe’s present path has profound implications for scholarship, political progress, social and economic development, and national security. This chilling of speech, aggravated by Muslim violence, erodes fundamental freedoms of speech and religion and threatens the West’s very identity.

Such laws will not bring social harmony. Anti-blasphemy pushes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, and elsewhere are often driven by implacable ideologues and political opportunists. Muslims who protest the radicals’ agenda are the first to be silenced. As Malaysia’s former finance minister observed, religious hate-speech laws all depend on the “elastic goo” of public sentiment. A nation that entertains such cases will be forced to go from issue to issue, “hostage to the brinkmanship of sensitivities.”

by Paul Marshall & Nina Shea

www.nationalreview.com

via hudsonny.org

We’re Making a Nuke Pact With THEM?!: US Giving Jordanian Palis Nuke Tech

Think how many great Chess games are won by sacrificing a powerful piece on the board. It is laughable that Obama is making such a linear argument
I was up in arms about the Bush Administration push to share our nuclear technology and nuclear security info with the United Arab Emirates. Now, Barack Hussein Obama wants to do the same with Palestinian-dominated Jordan. It’s the same difference . . . and probably even worse.

Now, you might say, “Well, Jordan is a moderate Muslim nation, our ally, and we’re friendly with King Abdullah.” Um, think again. Jordan is a HOTBED of Islamic terrorism and extremism.
Jordan is where a lot of Al-Qaeda and Palestinian Islamic terrorism is planned and based. The list is a Who’s Who: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi . . . a Palestinian from Zarqa, Jordan; Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal Al-Balawi . . . a Palestinian, who hung out in Jordan, and recently blew up eight men at a CIA base, including seven CIA operatives. And the list goes on and on and on. Plus, there are all those Al-Qaeda bombings in Jordan, like the homicide bombing at a wedding.
Don’t forget that roughly 90% or more of Jordanians are actually Palestinian Muslims . . . Palestinian Muslims who fomented the violent riots that resulted in 10,000 of them being killed in Black September in 1970, when they had an uprising against King Hussein and tried for the umpteenth time to assassinate him. And poll after poll after poll shows that Jordan is among the most anti-American, pro-Bin Laden, pro-homicide bombing countries. There is very little difference between much of Jordan and Gaza, and in fact, Jordan is often used as a base for weaponry and supplies for terrorism against Israel launched from Gaza.
And with a majority of Palestinian subjects ruled by a minority Hashemite king, Jordan isn’t all that stable. Ultimately, it could be taken over by Palestinians and is actually the real Palestinian State. If that happens, guess whose nuke info will be in Palestinian terrorist hands? Ours, that’s whose. Jordan recently discovered uranium ore, and will develop nuclear weapons that could ultimately be very easily used against its neighbor, Israel.
And yet we are gonna share our nukes and nuke technology with them? Pure lunacy to do so.
More:

Jordan is in advanced talks with the Obama administration to conclude a civilian nuclear-cooperation agreement with the U.S., according to Jordanian and U.S. officials.

Successful completion of the negotiations would make Jordan the second Arab state in less than a year, following the United Arab Emirates, to secure nuclear assistance from Washington. Any pact would constitute an international treaty and need the approval of Congress.
The talks come as Iran is accelerating its production of nuclear fuel, raising the prospect of an expanding nuclear-arms race in the Middle East.
An accord with King Abdullah II’s government in Amman would allow U.S. firms to transfer nuclear equipment, fuel and expertise to Jordan, which is one of only two Arab countries to have signed a peace agreement with Israel.
President Barack Obama has pledged to assist developing nations in pursuing civilian nuclear-power programs in exchange for guarantees they won’t seek to produce atomic bombs.

Yeah, good luck with enforcing that. Idiocy.

U.S. officials cite the cooperation agreement signed with the U.A.E. last year as a model for the peaceful development of nuclear power. Under the deal, Abu Dhabi provided assurances it won’t seek to enrich uranium on its soil. The technologies required to process uranium ore into nuclear fuel also can be used to produce weapons-grade materials.

Absurd. Meanwhile, the UAE continues to be the shipping point of nuke technology and components to Iran. Those assurances are a bunch of camel dung.

A potential stumbling block in the Jordan-U.S. deliberations, according to participants, is whether Amman will follow the U.A.E.’s lead and provide guarantees that it won’t enrich uranium domestically. The U.A.E., under the terms of its pact with Washington, could demand a renegotiation if another Middle Eastern country secures a nuclear-cooperation agreement with the U.S. under terms more favorable than Abu Dhabi’s.
Jordan’s agreement could face hurdles in Congress if Amman doesn’t approve a zero-enrichment clause. “If Jordan wants to enrich … then the U.A.E. would also have the right to renegotiate,” said a congressional aide working on nuclear issues. “This situation threatens to touch off a lot of regional tension, and we would oppose.”

PUH-LEEZE. King Abdullah–a Napoleonic short man, forced to share a border with tough Jews who have the juice–wants the juice, too. He’s going to develop nuclear weapons, period. Any “assurances” to the contrary are less valuable than soggy falafel. And ultimately, those nukes will be in the wrong hands. Sooner or later, the Palestinians will take over Jordan. Maybe not in five or ten years, but ultimately. And then, they’ll have nukes.

Jordanian officials have stressed publicly the peaceful nature of their nuclear program and said Amman is willing to ship its substantial uranium-ore deposits to third countries for processing into nuclear fuels. Jordan is also coordinating closely with the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to put security safeguards in place.

Yeah, right. The IAEA? You trust Mohammed El-Baradei and his ilk to stop Jordan from getting nukes and using ‘em against Israel? Then, I have some land in the Jordan River to sell you.
And here’s the money quote:

Still, Jordan is wary of cutting a deal with the U.S. that would surrender its rights to enrich under terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Like other Middle Eastern countries, Jordan doesn’t want to undermine a pre-existing multilateral treaty.
“We’re confident we can complete the agreement in the near term,” said Jordan’s ambassador to Washington, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein.

Translation from Arablish to English: We’re confident we can sign a worthless piece of baloney with the stupid Yankees, soon. And then it’s on to ultimately microwaving the Jews. Soon, Eilat will be ours.

Jordan sought to complete the nuclear-cooperation agreement with the Bush administration in 2008, but ran out of time, according to officials involved in the talks. The Obama administration called for a renegotiation of the pact to insert assurances outlined in the U.A.E.’s deal.

Like “The Who” said: New boss same as the old boss. Unfortunately, we continue to get fooled again.

The State Department’s top official on nonproliferation issues, Undersecretary Ellen Tauscher, visited Amman in December to discuss the agreement, U.S. and Jordanian officials said. Jordanian negotiators are expected in Washington in the coming months to resume the discussions.
A spokesman for Ms. Tauscher declined to discuss the status of the talks Tuesday. “We continue to work with our Jordanian colleagues to conclude an…agreement,” the official said.

Translation: a lefty career politico had a nice exotic vacation sipping fruit drinks and eating halal shawarmeh at the king’s desert oasis, while she engaged in academic double-speak with her Arabic buddies and negotiated the giveaway of America’s nuclear secrets.

King Abdullah announced in 2007 a program to develop nuclear technologies as a means to secure Jordan’s energy independence. Jordan imports virtually all of its petroleum supplies from neighboring Arab states, and the country is facing severe water shortages. Jordan also has a rapidly growing population that has been swollen by an influx of Iraqi refugees since the U.S.’s 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein.

Um, yeah, PALESTINIAN Iraqi refugees. That’s who they are. They were protected by Saddam, and when he went down, they came to Jordan. “Energy independence,” my butt. This is all about developing nuclear weapons.
Another money quote:

Amman is hoping to use its vast supplies of recently discovered uranium ore to fuel a clutch of nuclear reactors by the end of this decade. Jordan’s government also seeks to use the uranium to power desalination plants that can produce potable water from the sea.
“Jordan is 96% dependent on importing petroleum,” said Prince Zeid. “Our uranium assets give us the hope that we won’t be entirely energy dependent on other nations in the future.”

Yup, they have the uranium. And now Uncle Sam will help ‘em develop it into a way to drive Israel (and even America) to doomsday.
Brilliant. Can you imagine us giving our nuke tech to Mussolini? The Albanian SS Unit? Same difference here.
Alhamdillullah [Praise allah]. America is even more stupid than we thought.

via debbieschlussel.com

my comment:

I’d agree that it would be bad for the people who live in Jordan to bomb Israel with a nuke. This logic fails, but giving Islamic governments credit for logical thinking has been the mistake of Washington for a while now.
See Barry Rubin’s post on “That “Cost-Benefit” Thing: How U.S. Intelligence Assessments Misunderstand Iran and Lots More in the Middle East:” http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/02/that-cost-benefit-thing-how-us.html
Remember that King Al Hussein’s family isn’t really from Jordan… and Jordan isn’t Jordan but East Palestine British Mandate. He’s an Arabian who was rewarded the territory by the British. Al Hussein's familiy is interested in Mecca and Medina. Jerusalem Abdullah would gladly destroy if it killed a Jewish state and it’s Gorquat trees. Don’t buy the line that he thinks the region is holy.
As for a regime change to the people which are mostly Palestinian… Debbie is right on. This is suicide. The only argument I might of had is these countries are going to go nuclear anyway and it is better to have them loyal… but that would be if these countries could be loyal. Essentially Obama is saying we can’t contain their advancement now and it is better to create a history of cooperation with our own suicide. I fail to see the logic in assisting our own suicide. If Jordan really wanted a friendly relationship they would build one with nuclear Israel. They are after all the same territory.

RubinReports: Life in an American Fourth Grade: All the Scientists Agree? And What's Most Important About American History

The teacher told the fourth grade class in the midst of the greatest snow storm in Washington DC history: "Just because it's snowing doesn't mean that there isn't global warming. All scientists agree that there's global warming."

My son raised his hand and said: "That's impossible. Not all scientists agree."

"Ok," said the teacher, "I meant to say that the majority of scientists agree."

Is there man-made global warming? I have no idea whatsoever, lacking the expertise to make such a judgment. But I do know this isn't the way to teach kids about the scientific method. Rather, it is the way to train them always to yield to peer pressure, that dreaded syndrome supposed to lead young people to drugs, alcohol, and smoking. Or, as summed up comically by the character Yossarian in Catch-22, "Just because everyone thinks that way how could I think anything different?"

Indeed, the teacher didn't have to say anything at all, since no child had claimed the heavy snowfall was proof that there was no global warming. They had already spent around three full sessions pounding home the idea that there wasn't any question that global warming is a huge problem on which trillions of dollars must be spent. Presumably, the class was convinced already.

Rather, the attitude evined is that they must be made to believe in this and even the possibility of any doubt existing had to be squelched. And to ensure this the teacher told a lie, which was only retracted because there was one student there who had the knowledge and courage to question it.

This kind of "everyone agrees" argument is the stuff of indoctrination, not learning. The teacher could have spoken about how data is collected, experiments are made, hypotheses are questioned, and out of that debate--if it goes on long enough and all the facts line up--comes a consensus truth which is itself subject to further testing and constant examination.

But that isn't how most schools teach today. Rather they say--in an approach sounding like the worst "progressive" stereotype of a traditional "America is always right" old school system--This is the truth. Everyone says so. Shut up and believe it.

Whatever happened to that liberal slogan, Question Authority? Whatever happened to that liberal slogan about the free marketplace of ideas?

The same 100 percent overkill has been used to persuade students that the most important thing to know about the United States is that it has mistreated minorities and immigrants. For five months there's been pretty much nothing else taught.

No, there's still not any sign that the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln will be dealt with at all. So far only one president has been mentioned and praised in class. Can you guess which one? Write me if you figure out the answer.

But at least, finally, there is the very first mention of something else about American history. Homework for this new unit consists of three things to memorize: names and locations of the thirteen original colonies; dates and locations of Jamestown, Plymouth, and the first settlement in Maryland; and two dates about U.S. history. What are these two most important of all events once early America began? Here's what the homework assignment says:

"1619 date of the earliest recorded enslaved people (slaves) brought to the colonies. 1776 date of the Declaration of Independence when the colonies became separated from England."

I don't know whether it would be unfair to make anything of the phrase "became separated" rather than staged a revolution, but we can still see that pretty much the most important thing about America--other than the fact that it killed and dispossessed Native Americans--that students are taught is that it had slaves, not that it was established to pursue liberty, democracy, and a society in which the citizens were not slaves of the government.

In response to my request for readers to share their experiences, one recalls how his grandchild’s class held a Columbus Day trial for Christopher Columbus on charges of invading Native American territory. Another mentions how on a tour of the Constitution Center in Philadelphia the guide lectured on Thomas Jefferson being a slaveowner; Andrew Jackson, a racist oppressor of Native Americans; Franklin Roosevelt as incarcerator of Japanese during World War Two; and Ronald Reagain was a manipulative former actor.

Of course, Jefferson did a few other things worth mentioning, aside from the fact that he opposed the slave trade and tried to abolish slavery. While Jackson was incredibly brutal toward the Native Americans, though this grew out of bloody warfare on both sides and he was a great populist who further widened democracy and stood up for the rights and respect do the common people (a most radical idea at the time). I would also argue that Roosevelt had lots of other things to his credit and that the internment was justified given what was known at the time. The remarks about Reagan were pure partisan politics and, again, left out his other achievements.

The point is not that these people shouldn’t be criticized but that only criticism was presented without highlighting their greatness or even putting their aforementioned shortcomings into historical context. Indeed, Jefferson and Jackson have been historically viewed as the founding fathers of the Democratic Party.

The reader's account continues: “The only leader whom the docent mentioned but did not report to have clay feet was Martin Luther King. When I asked her about what I thought was an unusual way of depicting America's heroes, the docent said that the policy of the museum was to show that these men were `human.’”

What’s really going on here, of course, is the presentation of past leaders and their policies as inhuman. This isn't the teaching of American history but the trashing of America, its history, the basic decency of most of its people and leaders, the genuine efforts of earlier generations to do the right thing, and the system's remarkable ability to deliver freedom, prosperity and development.

There's also a parallel between the climate issue and the history issue. In the "bad old days" of the past, people were told what to think. Then we entered a new era of freedom--of which liberalism was a great champion--when different sides were presented in a reasonably balanced manner. Now we seem to be back in the age of everyone agrees--or else--and there's no room for any different perspective.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

via rubinreports.blogspot.com

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous