Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[twinx]

I agree 100%. I was In the AF long before DADT, I was asked (because of where I lived when I enlisted) and had to lie. Had I been in after DADT I would not have been asked...but would have still had to lie, by omission if nothing else. The desire to serve my country trumped my aversion to telling a lie that was, ultimately, harmless.

Estiveo, have you seen this site?

http://www.kirstengillibrand.com/dadtstoryproject.com/

[TollandRCR]

MSNBC had an interview last night with some fool from the Family Research Council. He quoted a Military Times poll of its readers that shows overwhelming opposition to allowing LGBT to serve in the military. Does anyone know what sort of person reads Military Times? I have the sense that its audience consists of retired military from the Vietnam War and earlier.

Actually, it is a Gannett publication which is seen as pretty liberal; certainly it was during the Bush administration.

What I find funny is that they're using the poll and saying "See, 58% of the military are opposed!". Come on; it's only 58% opposed? From the military, that's an endorsement.

But is its audience mostly retired? There has been a sea change in American attitudes about LGBT people, so I would expect active duty, younger soldiers to be quite different from retired soldiers. Could that 58% be something like "58% of retired military oppose...?" If the article provides a breakdown by status, that should be revealing.

[Samuron]

Actually, it is a Gannett publication which is seen as pretty liberal; certainly it was during the Bush administration.

What I find funny is that they're using the poll and saying "See, 58% of the military are opposed!". Come on; it's only 58% opposed? From the military, that's an endorsement.

But is its audience mostly retired? There has been a sea change in American attitudes about LGBT people, so I would expect active duty, younger soldiers to be quite different from retired soldiers. Could that 58% be something like "58% of retired military oppose...?" If the article provides a breakdown by status, that should be revealing.

I would doubt it; my guess is that conservative retirees would dislike the MilitaryTimes.

I can't find a link to the poll itself, but earlier polls seem to reflect the same attitudes; a Time article cites a 2006 poll that says 59% were opposed to repealing DADT.

To me, that really isn't strong opposition; I would guess that a significant percentage have no problem serving with gays, but are comfortable with the current policy.

[Estiveo]

Estiveo, have you seen this site?

http://www.kirstengillibrand.com/dadtstoryproject.com/

I had not, Twinx, thanks. I think Senator Gillibrand may just be getting an out of state contribution to her campaign.

[Highlands]

MSNBC had an interview last night with some fool from the Family Research Council. He quoted a Military Times poll of its readers that shows overwhelming opposition to allowing LGBT to serve in the military. Does anyone know what sort of person reads Military Times? I have the sense that its audience consists of retired military from the Vietnam War and earlier.

I'd also suppose that the overwhelming majority of enlisted men and women oppose the terrible food they serve in boot camp, having their hair cut, being deployed for long tours, etc.

[mimi]

MSNBC had an interview last night with some fool from the Family Research Council. He quoted a Military Times poll of its readers that shows overwhelming opposition to allowing LGBT to serve in the military. Does anyone know what sort of person reads Military Times? I have the sense that its audience consists of retired military from the Vietnam War and earlier.

Actually, it is a Gannett publication which is seen as pretty liberal; certainly it was during the Bush administration.

What I find funny is that they're using the poll and saying "See, 58% of the military are opposed!". Come on; it's only 58% opposed? From the military, that's an endorsement.

I tweeted out some links yesterday about this poll.

I never would believe that military times is a mostly liberal publication. I believe they had a poll in 2008 about support for Obama. I think we discussed it here at some point. Anyway, the military times reported the findings in a very biased manner.

Here are a few links about the current poll:


from Military Times themselves:

Sampling the military


Posted : Monday Dec 29, 2008 13:20:10 EST

From Dec. 1 through Dec. 8, Military Times conducted an annual survey of active-duty, National Guard and reserve, and retired military subscribers.

About 36,000 subscribers received invitations via e-mail to participate. Of those, 5,181 completed the survey. Except where noted, data were filtered to include 1,947 responses from active-duty subscribers.

The responses “no opinion,” “declined to answer” and “other” are not shown for all questions. Some charts do not total 100 percent due to rounding.

Although public opinion pollsters use random selection to survey the general public, the Military Times survey is based on responses from those who chose to participate. That means it is impossible to calculate statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion surveys, because those calculations depend on random sampling techniques.

The voluntary nature of the survey, the dependence on e-mail and the characteristics of Military Times readers could affect the results.

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/ ... y_122908w/



http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/new-m ... iew-of-ga/


http://www.palmcenter.org/node/1205


The last poll (the 2008 one on support for Obama) had the raw data available at Military Times. I didn't come across that for this poll.

[June bug]

mimi wrote:

Here are a few links about the current poll:


from Military Times themselves:

Sampling the military


Posted : Monday Dec 29, 2008 13:20:10 EST

From Dec. 1 through Dec. 8, Military Times conducted an annual survey of active-duty, National Guard and reserve, and retired military subscribers.

About 36,000 subscribers received invitations via e-mail to participate. Of those, 5,181 completed the survey. Except where noted, data were filtered to include 1,947 responses from active-duty subscribers.

The responses “no opinion,” “declined to answer” and “other” are not shown for all questions. Some charts do not total 100 percent due to rounding.

Although public opinion pollsters use random selection to survey the general public, the Military Times survey is based on responses from those who chose to participate. That means it is impossible to calculate statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion surveys, because those calculations depend on random sampling techniques.

The voluntary nature of the survey, the dependence on e-mail and the characteristics of Military Times readers could affect the results.

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/ ... y_122908w/

mimi - as I read the above, it's referring to a 2008 poll, correct? Do we know if the recent poll on DADT was done the same way, i.e., self-selected rather than random sample?

[mimi]

No. And last time they had the raw data that you could download in pdf format. I don't know why that's not available this time? I think maybe it's just not posted yet.


Also, I didn't realize that military times and Military.com both existed. I mean, I may be guilty of mixing them up sometimes. I just realized that now.

[TollandRCR]

mimi - as I read the above, it's referring to a 2008 poll, correct? Do we know if the recent poll on DADT was done the same way, i.e., self-selected rather than random sample?

Although the necessary information has not yet been made available by Military Times, in December 2009 the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network released a warning to the press concerning the soon-to-be-published results of the annual poll. There is no reason to think the 2009 poll was substantially different in methods from the 2008 poll. In all likelihood, it is a self-selected sample of subscribers to Military Times. That is, of some 30,000 questionnaires sent out by e-mail, something around 5,000 subscribers responded, for a response rate of less than 20%. A breakdown of those who responded will very likely show a heavy preponderance of senior active military officers, with something like 5% of the sample being junior members of the military. A very long history of experience with self-selected samples (dating back to the Literary Digest fiasco) has shown that self-selected samples tend very strongly to be biased samples: people with strong opinions are more likely to return the questionnaire. Literary Digest predicted a landslide for Alf Landon.

The Military Times released a similar survey late in 2008 that received significant mainstream media attention. But most reporters failed to mention the survey’s methodology (in plain view on the newspaper’s website), and most drew profoundly wrong conclusions, suggesting the views of the paper’s subscribers -- which tend to be older than most veterans and perhaps more conservative -- could be applied to the military as a whole. They cannot.

Gary Langer, director of polling for ABC News, wrote at the time that the Military Times' survey was more of "a woefully incomplete census" of the publication's readers than a true poll. He compared the reliability of the poll's methodology to a "rusted carbine," noting, "in terms of their political and ideological leanings, the participants look nothing at all like what good data have found."

Moreover, the Military Times poll of 2008 was constructed in as deliberate a manner as is conceivable so as to bias the results.

Regarding the potential negative bias, the first question following the demographics asks respondents if they’ve ever been hit on by someone of the same gender, and follows that by asking what their reaction was to that. Notably, though, the poll does not ask respondents about being hit on by a member of the opposite sex. I imagine many female active duty personnel would be interested in that data, because that situation is all too common in the military today, yet it is ignored by the Military Times poll. We will thus have data only on presumably unwelcome gay/lesbian sexual advances, but there will be no comparative data on unwelcome straight sexual advances. This constitutes an obvious negative spin to gay military service, focusing only on apparent gay misconduct. [And from the beginning it sets LGBT serving in the military in the context of sexual aggressors. That is like starting a poll with a question that sets Obama in the worst possible context and then pretending as if the answers to subsequent questions have not been affected by that first question. - TollandRCR]

The poll then proceeds to ask respondents if their superiors ever knew about a gay service member but refused to do anything about that situation. You can easily see the negative bias in the way this question is worded as well. It and the previous question inferring gay/lesbian misconduct play to the fear that gays serving openly will misbehave and create disruption in the unit; and further, commands may not be doing anything about gays serving (presumably openly and thus illegally). And the questions appear first in the order of opinion responses sought from subscribers, thus potentially generating a negative connotation about gays in the military even before asking opinions about gays serving honestly and honorably.

Emphasis mine. Bracketed insertion mine.

The 2008 questionnaire was a shameless homophobic attempt to bias the results. It's so shameless that it is dumb. A far cleverer pollster could have written a less obviously biasing lead question without being so easily caught. That poll tells us nothing of use and cannot tell us anything of use. There is no reason to believe that the "pollsters" at Military Times have reformed in the intervening year. The 2008 poll would have constituted professional misconduct if the "pollsters" had actually been survey professionals; so may the 2009 poll. I'm betting on it.

[TollandRCR]

An interesting perspective on DADT from Lane Wallace of the Atlantic: The Power of Example: Lee Archer Gays and the Military.

She draws comparisons among three forms of discrimination that have been practiced by the military: race, gender, and sexual orientation. She reports

A 2006 Zogby International poll of military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan found that "three quarters were comfortable serving around gay service members." But a 2008 Military Times poll of "largely older" subscribers showed that 58 percent objected to lifting the ban.

Money quote, as Sullivan puts it:

In foxholes, there are not only no atheists, there are apparently a lot fewer bigots.

One of the commenters rejects the comparison of DADT to discrimination based on skin color or gender.

While superficially it may seem that all forms of discrimination are equal, in reality one's skin color and sexual orientation are radically different concepts which introduce radically different issues. There may be many good and valid arguments for allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military--comparing it directly to racial discrimination is NOT one of them.

Why? The answer is not provided, except by noting that the primary function of a military is to fight and win wars. "All other considerations should be secondary, including policies seen as discriminatory." Another commenter notes that armies have always had gay members.

It's interesting to contemplate how discrimination in this country might change if Federal laws were written so as to apply to all personnel in the employ of the government. Of course, Congress routinely excludes itself from such laws.

[mimi]

wikipedia has a quick list (maybe not current or comprehensive) as to countries who allow gays to serve, and those who disallow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_ori ... ry_service

[TollandRCR]

Andrew Sullivan publishes a reader's comment on the Chris Matthews interview with Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund and Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council:

A reader writes:

The real irony with people like Bill Kristol, Elaine Donnelly, Saxby Chambliss, and Peter Sprigg (above) is that many of them haven't ever served in uniform. They talk at length about the purpose of the military, culture of the military, and how gays and lesbians are incompatible with military life - but they've never been in the military themselves. As a veteran of the current Iraq war, who has served and is continuing to serve in the military, I can't adequately articulate how angry I get at these clowns who wish to deny the privilege to those who actually desire to serve their country. At least Senator McCain has served honorably, and while I disagree with him strongly, at least he has the credentials to speak knowledgeably about the military.

[joshaus]

wikipedia has a quick list (maybe not current or comprehensive) as to countries who allow gays to serve, and those who disallow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_ori ... ry_service

The US is in some great freedom loving company in the list of countries banning Gay members from serving openly.

[Estiveo]

wikipedia has a quick list (maybe not current or comprehensive) as to countries who allow gays to serve, and those who disallow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_ori ... ry_service

The US is in some great freedom loving company in the list of countries banning Gay members from serving openly.

I so proud.

[bogus info]

Senate Democrats Introduce Bill To Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Jillian Rayfield | March 3, 2010, 6:30PM
Senate Democrats rolled out legislation today to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which bars homosexuals from serving openly in the military.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who chairs the Homeland Security Committee and co-sponsored the legislation, said todaythat the law "is inconsistent with our most important national values and diminishes our military readiness."

Lieberman added, in a statement:

The bottom line is that we have a volunteer military. If Americans want to serve, they ought to have the right to be considered for that service regardless of characteristics such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Repealing the current policy will allow more patriotic Americans to defend our national security and live up to our nation's founding values of freedom and opportunity.

more here: http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.co ... t-tell.php

[June bug]

Since there are credible Democrats behind it as well, I guess this isn't some Machiavellian plot dreamed up by LIEberman, but I still don't trust him!

Good for the Dems with some courage and some character (again, outside of Joe the Jerk).

[bogus info]

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Court Ruling Creates Dilemma For Military
GENE JOHNSON | 03/ 6/10 10:38 PM |

SEATTLE — A pressing legal reality for the "don't ask, don't tell" standard for gays serving in the military is that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already struck down the way it's practiced in much of the Western United States.

The 2008 ruling, while largely overlooked, would force the military to apply a much higher threshold in determining whether a service member should be dismissed for being gay.

The government declined to appeal the ruling by the three-judge panel, which leaves it standing as law in the nine states covered by the court. That means gay military members at bases in the West technically have greater protections than their colleagues across the world.

Although it doesn't appear that the military has ever applied the more stringent standard, the court case presents several problems for the Pentagon now that the Obama administration has embarked on a yearlong review of "don't ask, don't tell."

complete article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/0 ... 88803.html

[AuBricker]

It is long pass time time the military abandoned its absurd biases and freed itself of the inane desire to rid itself of gay personal with the potential of rendering great services to our country.

When I serviced in the Reagan years, several of my fellow servicemen were openly gay. They performed their duties well and interacted normally with the rest of us, causing no apparent discomfort to anyone, regardless of their feeling about homosexuality. Note we were commonly forced to share close quarters including group showers.

These gay servicemen were eventually discharged when we received a new executive officer who dishonestly obtained evidence of their sexual orientation. Ironically, this same XO was thought to be gay by several of my fellow servicemen.

[TollandRCR]

Since there are credible Democrats behind it as well, I guess this isn't some Machiavellian plot dreamed up by LIEberman, but I still don't trust him!

Good for the Dems with some courage and some character (again, outside of Joe the Jerk).

I would not trust LIEberman to tell me what day it is. On the other hand, I have a great deal of respect for Sen. Levin, a co-sponsor.

The problem is that what Holy Joe is pushing is a stand-alone bill. In my opinion (and often that of Andrew Sullivan), the Human Rights Campaign (the organization behind the bill) has been extraordinarily ineffective given the fact that it is the largest LGBT rights organization in the country. I think this is a symbolic gesture by the HRC that will lead to sustaining DADT by vote of the Senate, perhaps setting repeal back by years. A far better way to do this would have been to insert the repeal provision into the Defense Appropriations Bill, but that would not have put Holy Joe in the spotlight. He may still secretly harbor hopes of being re-elected from Connecticut, and he is enough of a dissembler to think that sponsoring this bill will set things right between him and the Democrats of Connecticut at no cost to him or his prejudices. This would mean that he would not have to run as a Republican knowing that he would lose. I could be persuaded differently if I could find evidence that he has opposed DADT for many years.

I don't think it is a grand Machiavellian plot dreamed up by either LIEberman or HRC. It's too unlikely to succeed to have appealed to Machiavelli. I think it is simply inept politics on the part of both HRC and the loser LIEberman.

[elliewyatt]

I feel so strongly about this issue, that I hesitate to post about it, not being able to 'keep my cool'.

My blood-family is tiny- I'm the only-child of only-children of only-children. My true "family" are those that my parents and grandparents CHOSE as our "family" and loved-ones. They happened to be gay and lesbians. These were the people who I spent Easter, 4th of July, Thanksgiving and Christmas with, my whole life- my mentors and loved-ones.

I have no "grandfathers going back five generations having served in American wars". I only have my family, gay men, who served in the military, mostly in Intelligence. Men around my father's age and younger, and I am 59. One of my own chosen friends is exactly my age, served in military intelligence, and is also gay.

I cannot see this issue but throgh my own life lense. Everybody I have personally known in MY own family to have served in the military (save one friend), has been gay.

I am reluctant to go too much into the subject, because I would likely become FUCKING IMPOLITE on the issue of "gays in the military". Like getting into "blacks serving with whites in the military".

[bogus info]

In my opinion, the media went after Tiger Woods way harder than if he had been a white man who had done this. No one comes out and says it (good ole white boys and black boys) but they don't like Tiger Woods being married to a white girl one bit.........and sleeping with all those other white women on the side.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... hite-women

AP: Tiger Woods Is Racist - He Only Cheats With White Women
excerpt
Wow! So America is also racist because we're only interested in this story due to the color of Woods's mistresses.

But it gets worse:

The darts reflect blacks' resistance to interracial romance. They also are a reflection of discomfort with a man who has smashed barriers in one of America's whitest sports and assumed the mantle of the world's most famous athlete, once worn by Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan.

But Woods has declined to identify himself as black, and famously chose the term "Cablinasian" (Caucasian, black, Indian and Asian) to describe the racial mixture he inherited from his African-American father and Thai mother.

So Woods is wrong for not considering himself black even though he is one quarter Chinese, one quarter Thai, one quarter African-American, one eighth American Indian, and one eighth Dutch?

Racism and bigotry is alive and well in America. Who would have thought this would have happened or perhaps it has but just didn't get in the media?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/1 ... 22784.html
Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Louisiana Justice Of The Peace

President Obama being elected to POTUS seems to have brought this racism and bigotry to the surface.

[TollandRCR]

Racism and bigotry is alive and well in America. Who would have thought this would have happened or perhaps it has but just didn't get in the media?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/1 ... 22784.html
Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Louisiana Justice Of The Peace

After substantial furor and perhaps some pressure from the party apparatus, this bigot resigned his position. I don't know whether the Plaintiffs (the couple) will sustain their Federal Civil Rights law suit against him. I hope they do.

[bogus info]

Marine Corps General James Conway: Marines Would Not Be 'Forced' To Live With Gay Soldiers
ANNE FLAHERTY | 03/26/10 05:05 PM | AP

WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps' commandant said he won't force his troops to bunk with gays on base and would give them separate rooms if Congress votes to allow openly gay service.

The comment, by Gen. James Conway, is the latest pushback by a small but vocal faction of senior military leaders opposed to a repeal of the 1993 law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

President Barack Obama says the ban is unfair, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates has launched a lengthy study to determine how to allow gays to serve openly without hurting military effectiveness.

Among the questions to be answered is whether changes to housing policies would even be necessary.

more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/2 ... 15564.html

[twinx]

Marine Corps General James Conway: Marines Would Not Be 'Forced' To Live With Gay Soldiers
...The Marine Corps' commandant said he won't force his troops to bunk with gays on base and would give them separate rooms if Congress votes to allow openly gay service.

Silly old duffer. Where does he think Gay Marines are bunking now?

[Highlands]

Marine Corps General James Conway: Marines Would Not Be 'Forced' To Live With Gay Soldiers
ANNE FLAHERTY | 03/26/10 05:05 PM | AP

WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps' commandant said he won't force his troops to bunk with gays on base and would give them separate rooms if Congress votes to allow openly gay service.

more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/2 ... 15564.html

Hmmm............ where have I seen this before?



What a douchebag this General is.