We learned recently that the servicemen who gave Wikileaks a zillion secret documents is gay. Ann Coulter suggests that homosexuality might be a risk factor for treason. I guess the idea behind it is that gays are more likely to hate America because of its homophobia, and are thus more likely to betray it.
The General Social Survey asked people how close they feel to America. The percent of heterosexuals who answered "not very close" or "not close at all" is 16.2. For homosexuals and bisexuals of both sexes (n = 52) it's 19.2 percent. Basically the same.
Are gun owners mentally ill?
Some anti-gun people think owning a gun is a sign of some kind of mental abnormality. According to General Social Survey data, gun owners ...
Live by the sad anecdote, die by the sad anecdote.
ReplyDeleteGreat line. Too bad those negative anecdotes are only acceptable when used vs. straight white males (e.g. Timothy McVeigh).
There's a whole lot we don't know about this leak thing: how can a private first class have access to *anything* important? No way one private manages this.
ReplyDeleteI like your blog pitch!
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised that a professed inductivist would simply take at face value a claim that America is "homophobic." You must realize that at this relatively late date in the history of civil rights, claims of victimhood have to be treated at least skeptically. Let's review the arc of gay civil rights over the last 40+ yrs. In the beginning there was Stonewall. Supposedly (never really confirmed) cops were going around to gay bars and beating up gays for fun. OK, so we stopped doing that, and no one's heard a whisper of such behavior since '69. Then it was sexual liberation. The story of the '70's was that gays got it on whenever and wherever they wanted, as the emergence of AIDS subsequently proved. Then it was claimed the country was insufficiently sympathetic to AIDS sufferers. OK, so throughtout the '80's and '90's tens of billions in tax money was devoted to pursuing a cure. Then it was the Matthew Shepard incident, which supposedly proved that gays were at general risk of (non-cop) violence. So we responded by implementing "hate crime" legislation, laws that made a mockery of the concept of equality but at least would show sensitivity to gay concerns. But none of it was enough. Now it has to be gay marriage. Can't anyone see there's something pathological here? Every generation has to feel they're in the vanguard of some new attack against tradition. The plain truth of the matter is that gays can live their lives substantially unmolested. But as long as there's some white guy out there who looks like he could have been cast in the Ozzie & Harriet show, gays have to do something to make him feel uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteGet data from prior to 1975.
ReplyDeleteThe US government of the last quarter of the 20th century is the government to most intensively promote homosexuality since Lycurgus.
Homosexuals are different. They are also more likely to embezzle money.
ReplyDeleteNo one has any difficulty with the idea that a politically correct group is superior in some way, for example homosexuals have better taste. But somehow, it is unthinkable to suggest a group, other that white heterosexual males, might be inferior in some way.
If I said that male heterosexuals were more prone to violence, no one would require an explanation. Why does the equally well known and obvious male homosexual propensity to treachery require explanation?
The US government of the last quarter of the 20th century is the government to most intensively promote homosexuality since Lycurgus.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a reference for this?