From: ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle)
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Keywords: Engle
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:18:51 GMT

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>Bill went through all the ROTC rigamarole to get out of the war when all he 
>would have had to do was go down to the draft board, get naked, kiss the 
>examiner on the lips, and tell him he was sexy.

--I wish that Bill would have professed his love for men, as I am sure that
that would have ensured that he would never have a political career and thus
he would not be president-elect today.

>    I'd say that they're right, but to a G.I. pinned down in a foxhole do 
>you think it really makes that big a difference whether the guy next to him 
>thinks he's cute? As long as they depend on each other for survival they're 
>tied together by a self-interest that transcends sexual preference.
>    I suppose that it wouldn't make any difference to you to hear a list 
>of the many emminent Victorian English officers who were supposedly 
>homosexuals or even pedophiles? Winston Churchill once made some comment 
>about the three great traditions of the British Navy - rum, sodomy and the 
>lash. And we all know what a bunch of girlie-men those British tars were,
>eh? Under the reign of Victoria the British Empire quadrupled in size.
>    I just don't see that having gays in combat is going to compromise 
>national defense. I suppose the implication is that it will damage the 
>morale of the hetero troops, or perhaps that gay and hetero units won't 
>support each other if they get in trouble. 

--The problem here is that society IS bigoted.  For a guy to have to shower 
with someone that he knows is gay, or just the knowledge of another's 
homosexuality could (would) create prejudices in the mind of the straight man.
He inherently would then not trust the gay (they seem to be wanting to be 
called Queer, at least here in upstate NY) man.  Trust is paramount in 
stressful situations where each needs to perform a duty without worrying about
how the other guy is getting along with his task.  IN this sense, the 
success of the mission is jeproadized.  My feelings are that we should wait
until gays are more accepted by society, then integrate them into the military.
This is a somewhat unfair situation.  I admit that and I honestly hope that
someday inherent prejudices can be eradicated.  Until then, don't sacrifice
our national defense.  The idea of the Brits, well, this was in a time that
no one ever admitted that he was gay, so then no one really knew who, although
as you say, people were there and gay.  Today, gays are very much vocal about
who they are, almost to the point of making me anti-gay.  I cannot believe that
some people can be so focused on one issue.  It seems to me that they should
try to show people that they are actually very much like normal people and
really don't dwell on one issue.  WE have a gay guy here who has a column in
the Cornell newspaper.  I used to read it, it was interesting, now I do not.
All that he does is re-hash the same stuff over and over.  Seems that I could
respect him more for what he is if I knew that he thought about other things.

	What about giving them a battalion composed of gays only?  I'd like
to be in a battalion with people like me.  A group of politically conservative
people who enjoy the finer things in life would suit me just fine.

>    You really are a Blasphemer, aren't you? The next thing we know you'll 
>be criticizing punch cards...

--Come on, I do hate Vi, do you use it?  Anyway, I have got emacs working 
now and it is much better.  As for punch cards, I don't see a slot for those
here on my Quadra950.  I guess they are an IBM thing.  Blasphemer?  Really.


>    Perhaps, however I feel that Einstein wasn't one of them. He received 
>a great deal of well-deserved credit, and IMHO his comment about individual 
>ideas vs those formed from interaction with others reflected the truth of 
>his own situation. Einstein owed a great deal to his contemporaries and 
>predecessors (primarily Lorentz); Bohrs also owed a great deal of his 
>success to the work of Max Plank, etc. The point is that with anything as 
>complex as modern science, it's almost impossible to completely separate 
>individual thought from group effort.

>    Well, I also have problems with Quantum theory, but I wouldn't say 
>that either I or Albert Einstein should be considered outcasts. Einstein's
>criticism was usually more than just blowing smoke. Wasn't Dirac's 
>relativistic QM a direct response to Einstein's criticism?

--You have problems with Quantum theory?  Hmm, I'd like to know how much you
know about it.  You are right, Einstein owes a lot to Pythagoras and Euclid, 
not to mention Leibnitz.  Soon enough, the Theory of Everything will 
be able to explain everything in that it will be the foundation for 
everything.  Certainly it will not mean the end of science, as higher-order
solutions will be necessary for just about everything.
--Hopefully you don't have any problems with the stuff we have done here at
Cornell involving QM. That'd be inexcusable.  Fermilab, ok.
--Einstein really did die out of synch with the progress of the science
concerning quantum.  

Also, I hope that NIXON really cleans up as far as compensation goes for all
of his memos, papers and tapes seized by the gov't,  I like Nixon, really.

Clinton is going cut defense spending by a lot and implement welfare progs
that better  suit the poor and jobless (give them more $) Sounnd stupid in
that many of the people he pays will be unemployed miltary men.  at least
before they were doing SOMETHING>

	Read, AN AMERICAN LIFE, by Ronald Reagan.

Gregory Daigle, Jr.
Cornell University
ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu