Two Michaels

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Gadfly, as a 1970 United States Air Force Academy graduate, I am perplexed by the recent assault on one 1975 graduate by a 1977 graduate.

Old Gadfly:  You’re referring to Weinstein and Rosebush.  Recall, I too graduated from that institution in 1973; and, while I have known Rosebush since 1979, I had only a brief encounter with Weinstein about five years ago at the Academy Superintendent’s quarters during a social gathering.

 

            IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  This is interesting.  The public narrative so far seems pretty nasty.  Weinstein has sent a letter to the Acting Secretary of the Air Force demanding Rosebush be fired from his position at the Academy.  Of course, when I read the article that talked about the letter, I noticed it was written by Pam Zubeck, who used to be a journalist for the Colorado Springs Gazette but has since had her talents shifted to the Colorado Springs Independent—perhaps a discussion for another day.  How do you weigh the public narrative in light of your personal knowledge and experiences?

Old Gadfly:  Two mothers each gave birth to a son.  Each named their son, Michael.  One now goes by Mikey and the other Mike.  Both attended the Air Force Academy.  One became a lawyer and political activist.  The other became a pilot and counselor/therapist.

AM:  Ok, ok . . . what are your impressions?

Old Gadfly:  With an assault such as this, it is very difficult to remain bounded by political correctness.  So, here is a candid evaluation.  Mike Rosebush made a positive impression on me and my family in 1979 when our families were stationed together at Sembach Air Base, West Germany.  He cared about people.  He was a good man, full of love and compassion.  I know Mike to be a very spiritual person, yet he never proselytized with me or others in our unit.  While I have remained in contact with Mike over all these years, I know of nothing in his background to suggest he had lost his enduring love and compassion for others.  On the other hand, five years ago, I had about a 15-minute encounter with Mikey Weinstein.  He had no idea who I was or what I did.  For that matter all the individuals in our group were invisible to him.  The conversation was one-sided, and it was all about Mikey—his impressive contacts, his movie project, his nonprofit and all the issues he was taking on.  I later discovered Barry Fagin, a faculty member at the Academy, is one of his network allies.  Quite frankly, despite his ample girth, I saw a very small man who was all about power and taking power away from others.  In other words, we have two Michaels, one a giver and the other a taker.

AM:  Have you seen some of the trash being published?

Old Gadfly:  Yes I have.  And when I try to get through these attacks, it only reinforces the bigotry being perpetrated in the name of science.

IM:  Tell us more.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s start with Mikey’s letter to the openly gay Acting Secretary of the Air Force.  Here is the first paragraph of the letter:

With great shock and an enormous sense of disgust, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) has been informed of the notorious anti-gay bigot Dr. Mike Rosebushʼs employment at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). Needless to say, the employment of a fundamentalist Christian, “gay conversion therapy” advocate comes as a grave insult and palpable threat to USAFAʼs lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) cadets, staffers, and faculty members, including MRFFʼs 27 LGB clients at the Academy. Accordingly, MRFF demands that USAFA immediately terminate the employment of the notorious homophobe Rosebush.

Notice, the language is far from objective.  Look at the hyperbolic expressions:  “great shock,” “enormous sense of disgust,” “notorious anti-gay bigot,” “fundamentalist Christian,” “grave insult,” “palpable threat,” and “notorious homophobe.”  So, what is it exactly that Dr. Rosebush has done that has violated any laws, rules, or policies in his current posting?  Is there evidence that he has imposed his views on cadets, faculty, or staff?

Then, there is Dr. Barry Fagin’s column in the Colorado Springs Gazette.  Dr. Fagin’s biography claims he is “a committed scientist and critical thinker.”  Yet, in his public prosecution of Dr. Rosebush, Fagin makes, what is called in the world of science, unwarranted assertions.  He stated, “Far from being harmless, reparative therapy has done unconscionable harm to gay men.”  Yet, he offers no evidence to support the claim.  He further stated, “Practicing it on minors is illegal in many states.”  In fact, only two states make it illegal:  California and, most recently, New Jersey.  See our discussion on this action in our conversation, “A Progressive Republican?”  Then Fagin goes on to ask some good questions, something a critical thinker does:

But where is the engagement with "ex ex-gays," their heartrending stories of emotional abuse, the systematic denial of their ability to live a whole, integrated life? Where is the study that measures how many people who attempt reparative therapy are actually helped?

At this point in the article, I began to credit Fagin for critical thinking.  But, then he adds the following:

Where are the longitudinal follow-up studies that measure relapse rates? What are we supposed to make of the enormous body of scientific evidence against it?

Are we supposed to believe the infamous gay agenda has somehow co-opted the entire psychological community? I had no idea homosexuals in America had so much power. You would think they'd use it to avoid getting beaten up.

This is when Fagin displayed his skills at sophistry.  If he could not find “longitudinal follow-up studies that measure relapse rates,” then how can he logically follow that question with, “What are we supposed to make about the enormous body of scientific evidence against it?”  He just made an assertion:  that there is scientific evidence against it.  Against what—relapses or success?  If there is evidence, what is it?  Share it with the reader.  Finally, he mocks segments of our society by joking about who has power and who does not.

AM:  As you laid out your observations and arguments, I recalled an article by the Academy’s Superintendent about the importance of respecting others, in light of concerns about sexual assaults.  I especially noticed the thoughtfulness she demonstrated in the ultimate impact of rape:  “Research has proven that rape is about power, control and domination.  Rape is not about sex, though it is a violent crime expressed sexually. The victim has not ‘asked for it’ and does not enjoy it. Rape is often life-altering and can be life-threatening. In some cases, it can severely traumatize the victim.”

IM:  In this case, it looks like a gang rape of Dr. Mike Rosebush.  The perpetrators are Mikey Weinstein, Dr. Barry Fagin, Rachel Maddow, Chris Rodda (while visiting this article, I also noticed one by the Editor of Gay Voices at Huffington Post—this one spoke well for the pro-gay community), Sunnivie Brydum, Evan Hurst, John Aravosis, among others.  With the exception of Weinstein and Fagin, the people mentioned here are all gay.

Old Gadfly:  The major disappointment here is that those who are attacking Mike Rosebush want the public to believe individuals were victimized by those who have tried to help them.  To my knowledge, the programs designed to help are available for those who choose to use them when needed or desired.  Mike Rosebush did not coerce any individual into seeking his assistance.  Even Academy graduate Scott Hines, Academy Class of 1992, who was interviewed by Rachel Maddow, took the initiative to seek help; and, those involved during the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” era exercised admirable discretion in protecting Hines’ privacy and dignity. 

The irony is that those who accuse Mike Rosebush of being anti-gay also reveal their own capacity for bigotry and hatred.  Mike is not anti-gay.  He believes that certain behaviors, whether consciously chosen or passively acquired through imitation, can become habitual over time and may reach a point where an individual lacks the capacity to control them.  Mike’s expertise is in addiction counseling, which includes all forms of addiction.  I might like to gamble.  If I do it too much and become addicted, then I might need assistance in getting beyond the addiction.  In terms of addiction counseling for sexual orientations, whatever label people want to use, whether reparative, conversion, curative, or so forth obscures the helper’s (counselor, coach, or whatever label) intentions.  For those who want to change their behavior, as in moving from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation, current forces are working hard to discourage such a free choice.  Mikey Weinstein and others who are “raping” Mike Rosebush are also denying the freedom to choose for those who would want to make such a choice.  Those forces are examples of the secular progressivism that is trampling tradition.  In The Fatal Conceit, F. A. Hayek provided a compelling argument about such forces when they attack traditional values that have emerged from the trial and error of human behavior over time.  These traditional values balance the paradox of impulse versus reason.

AM:  That concept, progressivism, rears its ugly head again, Gadfly.

Old Gadfly:  It is an idea that is ubiquitous and insidious in penetrating our social conscience.  In 2005, Lee Harris authored an interesting article, “The Future of Tradition.”  At the time, a push for same-sex marriage was prominent in the news.  Harris argued that such a major change in modern culture would significantly tamper with time-tested tradition; thus, he was not in favor of such change.  I thought the article was bold and well-argued.  But, what really impressed me about Harris’s analysis is that at the end of the article he disclosed that he was gay and anticipated history would look back on this phase (homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage in particular) in the evolution of the human condition as a mere experiment that would not survive the test of time and the enduring and stabilizing influence of tradition.

AM:  Obamacare might make it very costly for those who opt out of reparative or conversion therapy for smoking.  Maybe we’ll soon see a list of addictions that are eligible for reparative or conversion therapy.  But, then again, reparative or conversion therapy might be mandated for certain behaviors or political views.  North Korea and China still provide such services.

IM:  What can be done?

          Old Gadfly:  We must do three things.  First, we must challenge bigotry in all forms.  What Weinstein and his cohort are engaged in is bigotry.  Second, we must have the strength and courage to model the opposite of bigotry:  demonstrating respect for others (to include different views) through love and compassion.  Mike Rosebush is a model for this approach.  Third, we must continue to alert our friends, family, and strangers to the threat of secular progressivism.  This movement represents an ideology that seeks “power, control, and domination,” and is raping what used to be a liberty-loving society.