Thursday, December 02, 2010

Gay soldier cause of WikiLeak, but nobody's asking and nobody's telling

The man who engineered the leak of classified information that has compromised American diplomacy--not to mention intelligence--was not only gay, but an activist who was calling for a change in military policy on gays.

Omigosh. Did I really just say that?

Did I really say that at the very same time that advocates of changing the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy are arguing that there is no downside to gays in the military that a gay soldier just committed one of the most serious breaches of security in modern times--for reasons directly related to his sexuality?

I can't believe I said that. I must be a homophobic bigot.

As penance, I will now go and beat my head against a wall and repeat Diversity slogans over and over again until I have convinced myself that these stories have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

And by the way, please, if you want to avoid committing any anti-gay rights Thought Crimes, under no circumstances should you read the following articles:
Just don't do it.

Facebook and Feedburner readers can join the conversation about this post here.


Singring said...

You know, a couple of days ago I read an article that the Southern Poverty Law Centre had classified the Family Foundation in Kentucky as a hate group.

I thought that was unfair at the time.

Then you go and write a piece in which you boldly state that gay people should not be allowed to serve in the military because they are inherently more intent in harming the US than straight people are. Quiet incredible.

'I must be a homophobic bigot.'

I think you answered that question rather well yourself.

Martin Cothran said...


Yes, the more I repeat these mindless Diversity slogans to myself, the more I think you must be right.

I'm going to continue to say to myself, "The two stories have nothing to do with each other, The two stories have nothing to do with each other..." until I have completed the process of do-it-yourself re-education.

I am also going to try this method on the whole TSA/airport security issue until I have purged my mind of any connection at all between Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.

I am sure I will end up a changed man.

Martin Cothran said...


I am also going to begin the process of convincing myself that The Family Foundation was classified by the far left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center as a "hate group."

It's sort of problematic because, in fact, that never happened. But I am beginning to realize the importance, in order to avoid Thought Crimes, of completely ignoring the truth.

Just be patient. I'm just starting to get the hang of this Politically Correct thing.

Singring said...

You are right - it was the Family Research Council that was classified as hate group - forgive me if I confuse my 'Family' foundations, centres and councils from time to time (strange seeing as they are all so radiclaly different in their policies). Though based on your latest blog post I doubt the Family Foundation will be far behind.

'Yes, the more I repeat these mindless Diversity slogans to myself, the more I think you must be right. '

It has nothing to do with diversity slogans.

It has to do with you saying that a gay person is more likely to reveal state secrets (i.e. behave unlawfully and badly) than a straight person is.

That is bald-faced bigottry. And you appear to be proud of it.

One Brow said...


Perhaps you could make a comparison with services where homosexuals can serve openly, such as in many current European militaries, of the Israeli military. Once you show that in such militaries gay people are more likely to betray secrets, you'll have some sort of point about not allowing gay people in such services.

Of course, if the opposite proves true, and it turns out that any apparent increase in betrayals are associated with a stigma attached to being gay, and not being gay itself, then that pretty much ends your argument right there. So, perhaps teh better strategy is to make snide, sardonic remarks and not do any research. Fortunately, we can rely on Ann Coulter, the American Spectator, and you to take the road of ignorance instead of choosing evidence.

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow,

I am somewhat hesitant to accept your invitation to give specific instances, since I have been making so much progress in my political re-education. I have almost been able to accept, for example, the fact that 2+2=5.

I want to be careful not to regress now that I've got a head of steam going.

But perhaps I am strong enough in my new PC convictions to be able to do this. So let's see where we can start.

First of all, can we agree that we must keep the idea that there is no connection between susceptibility of gays to espionage in a completely separate part of our brain from the fact that four out of the famed "Cambridge Five"--the WWII/Cold War British spy ring that handed over secrets to the Soviets--were homosexuals?

I have gone back to my copy of Orwell's 1984 to make sure I have this process of believing in two incompatible thoughts at the same time (Doublethink) down.

I am trying to avoid being ungood.

Albert Cesare said...

I have read many of the leaked documents. I would say that your conclusion is fallacious, although I do realize that you know that. The link documents have so much more than just policy on Homosexuals. Many of the leaks were on murders, many more were on foreign leaders. Have you been misinformed?

On the issue of leaked information:
Democracy functions much better when the people in government have a conscience, and that on occasion some individuals in government might view something as top secret and a necessary evil while another man may see pure evil and act. The journalist, whether it be wikileaks or NY Times, then must make a decision with said leaked information.

The pentagon papers is one such instance. Government can't say everything is top secret, that's pretty silly. Yet now more than ever our government is secretive.

I recall at one point in history there was a dictator but the people saw him as a "president", elected every term, per se, his name was Julius Cesar.

I would just like to ask, at what point in the future will a society study us and say President John Doe of the United States was a dictator in every sense of the word but the plebes of the united states had no idea.

One Brow said...


Perhaps you really don't understand teh difference between "anecdote" and "evidence". Four out of the Cambridge Five is an anecdote (a rather remarkable one since the identity of the "fifth" person is not really known, there were more than five people, one of the supposed five was living with a woman for a significant period of time, etc. Did you think Coulter's description was accurate?). I was asking for evidence. In particular, evidence that if allowed to serve openly, homosexuals would somehow be more traitorous than heterosexuals (the Five were active during/after WWII, when being homosexual could still get you thrown out of the intelligence service).

However, if snide sardony is all you have to go with, might as well go with it. It's cdertainly easier than making a logical argument. Do you have your student come to this site to see your logical skills in action?

Joe_Agnost said...

One Brow asked: "Do you have your student come to this site to see your logical skills in action?"

I've often wondered that myself. In comment thread after comment thread he seems to get thrashed! His arguments are left with more holes than swiss cheese! Singring is awesome in that respect - it's a pleasure reading Singring demolish Martin's "logic"!

Martin Cothran said...


Shake those pom-poms!

Joe_Agnost said...

Rah rah!! ;)

Singring said...

I believe the next thing Martin will try to tell us is that Scooter Libby is gay.