Rassales
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 564
- Reaction score
- 166
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
For all this discrediting the source, its much easier (and more substantial) to actually interrogate the source and its "information." So let's to NP the service of taking his source seriously.
This was an interview with Robert McGinnis, and the host says he'd recently written something for the New York Times (I guess that's a source we can all trust, right?) so here's a link to the "debate" blog-type page he's on: Opening the Door to Gays in the Military - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com
He makes the same argument both places. But it's a bad agument, for several reasons.
1) Lt. Col. McGinnis doesn't actually bring to bear any facts. He argues that although Canada and the UK have allowed gays to serve openly, their cultures are so different from that of the US, they shouldn't count. Instead, he says we should compare ourselves to Russia, China, and India (??). He says in the interview that instead of the "anecdotes" of success that proponents bring to bear, we should look at objective facts--and then he doesn't provide any.
2) McGinnis has several problems as a source. First, he was on the panel that created DADT back in 1993 (so he has an interest in continuing the same policy he instituted), and he then promptly retired from the army. He argues in the interview that "I can't imagine" that things have changed since he was active duty. Right.
3) Since retiring, McGinnis has made his living as a speaker and analyst. Here's a webpage advertising his services: AmbassadorSpeakers.com - LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS
Note that his major employers include The Family Research Council and the Moody Radio Broadcasting Network. It's clear that Lt. Col. McGinnis is a conservative Christian who gets paid to say things conservative Christians like to hear.
4) Finally, note his argument in the Times piece, where he says that any policy "must also take into account that our volunteer force is staffed by traditional American youth..." That sounds like code for "people with values so narrow they can't possibly be expected to adapt." Language like this invites comparisons to those who didn't want to serve with blacks--they were "traditional Americans" too.
So what we have here is one guy's opinion, the same opinion he held 17 years ago when he stopped actually being an informed source. And his actual argument isn't that we shouldn't change the policy, only that we should poll the troops first.
Yes. It's annoying, really to have to listen to something and then write about it in print, but....Did you even listen to the audio link in the first post?????
This was an interview with Robert McGinnis, and the host says he'd recently written something for the New York Times (I guess that's a source we can all trust, right?) so here's a link to the "debate" blog-type page he's on: Opening the Door to Gays in the Military - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com
He makes the same argument both places. But it's a bad agument, for several reasons.
1) Lt. Col. McGinnis doesn't actually bring to bear any facts. He argues that although Canada and the UK have allowed gays to serve openly, their cultures are so different from that of the US, they shouldn't count. Instead, he says we should compare ourselves to Russia, China, and India (??). He says in the interview that instead of the "anecdotes" of success that proponents bring to bear, we should look at objective facts--and then he doesn't provide any.
2) McGinnis has several problems as a source. First, he was on the panel that created DADT back in 1993 (so he has an interest in continuing the same policy he instituted), and he then promptly retired from the army. He argues in the interview that "I can't imagine" that things have changed since he was active duty. Right.
3) Since retiring, McGinnis has made his living as a speaker and analyst. Here's a webpage advertising his services: AmbassadorSpeakers.com - LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS
Note that his major employers include The Family Research Council and the Moody Radio Broadcasting Network. It's clear that Lt. Col. McGinnis is a conservative Christian who gets paid to say things conservative Christians like to hear.
4) Finally, note his argument in the Times piece, where he says that any policy "must also take into account that our volunteer force is staffed by traditional American youth..." That sounds like code for "people with values so narrow they can't possibly be expected to adapt." Language like this invites comparisons to those who didn't want to serve with blacks--they were "traditional Americans" too.
So what we have here is one guy's opinion, the same opinion he held 17 years ago when he stopped actually being an informed source. And his actual argument isn't that we shouldn't change the policy, only that we should poll the troops first.
Last edited: