Perhaps I shouldn't even link to evil garbage like this, but . . .

[MrModerate]

I'm kind of proud of my response, so please forgive me.

Here's arch-dickhead John Guardino queeping and bliffing at the American Spectator about how the end of DADT marks the collapse of all that is good and holy, and my letter posted in response: http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/21/dadt-and-left-wing-intellectua


Where to start with Guardino’s repulsive screed?

With the creepy arrogance of a tinpot commentator who starts off sniveling that the blogosphere (even conservatives!) has ignored his previous effusions?

Or his truly sad opinion that calling a bigot a bigot is somehow warped?

How about psychosocial grand master Guardino going on to state as incontrovertible fact that “homosexual dynamics within small-scale military units are inherently problematical and disruptive,” an assertion he makes with no authority whatsoever, issuing the diktat ex cathedra from the same part of his body that tightens up whenever he thinks of what gays do with each other in bed.

Guardino’s right on one thing, though: “leftists” are generally intolerant when they see their fellow human beings denied justice solely because of what they are, as if one’s inborn nature was something the majority gets to penalize you for. One thing WF Buckley didn’t say when he complained about liberals’ amazement that there are other points of view is that it’s not amazement at all: it’s humanity. It’s a bit more than an intellectual disagreement when someone’s “point of view” is that a whole segment of society is to be scorned, and shunned, and punished.

The “prevailing left-wing orthodoxy” (by which I presume Guardino means the view that gays are people too, and deserve fair treatment) does have a certain in-your-face element to it. Yes, if you’re that kind of a bigot, keep it to yourself. Kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” for peckersniffs.

With regard to the substance of Guardino’s post, it’s full of red herrings, red flags, and red meat. In other words, poppycock. It is not the military’s job to “endorse sexual orientation” of any sort, whether that be heterosexual, homosexual, or nonsexual. The notion that extending the same unconcern to licit homosexual unions that it extends to licit heterosexual unions constitutes an existential hazard to military effectiveness is not only shrill, self-important nonsense, but is also unsupported in fact by military organizations around the world that already “allow” gays to serve unremarked.

I could go on. However, I’d like to end with one area where I agree with Guardino: this is the beginning of a zero-tolerance policy toward anyone who disapproves of homosexuality. It joins zero-tolerance policies toward anyone who disapproves of black people, of women, or of those who don’t share the same religion.

And about time.

[BillStein]

1. good job! nt

[DCKit]

2. Well stated, and should cause a few heads to explode.

They don't get that they lost most of their former supporters and an entire generation with outrage overload over "Teh Gay".

Most people just don't give a shit anymore. The more they screech over any single issue, the more support they lose. If only it didn't take so long.

Next on the chopping block, "Teh Evil Muslims".

[Jester Messiah]

3. Very good response

I particularly appreciate your disembowelment of the old "oh-so-tolerant-libs" bullshit. You answered that old canard masterfully. Well done!