Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Paranoia isn’t an argument Previous entry: Spare The Rod, Jail The Everloving Shit Out Of The Child

Elaine Donnelly goes off the rails and over the side of the mountain with her new ‘report’ on DADT

NOTE:  There’s a lot of buzz going on about the Senate hearings regarding DADT, which start today. The tentative (to be kind) moves by the Obama administration to signal he’d like to repeal it—with just a little more study and stroking of insecure manhood protective military egos—is something that has been met with derision by many in the LGBT community, given the amount of study and polling on this topic has had for some time now. With people like Elaine Donnelly screeching bogus talking points like these, it’s clear Congress needs to just scrap DADT and move on. (Tanya Domi, a former Captain in the U.S. Army, who served for 15 years, enlisting as a Private, rising to the rank of Captain before leaving the service honorably, will be a guest correspondent over at my pad, Tweeting the hearings. A widget to follow has been placed in the right-hand column.


And the doyenne of discrimination includes flow charts of “analysis that you will not believe. And do NOT click on the link or the icon at right—or go below the fold—without protecting your keyboard. Remember that I warned you.

When DADT is finally repealed, I have no idea what Ms. Donnelly is going to do with herself. There will not be enough psychotropic drugs available to calm her after reading this tripe—and the aforementioned homo-obsessive, anal flow charts that will blow your mind.

From her report (you can also check out her breathless column at The Corner - The National Review):

In 1993 then-President Bill Clinton attempted to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. Following months of intense debate, Clinton proposed a plan to accommodate homosexuals in the military if they did not say they were homosexual.

Members of Congress considered Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) proposal, but after twelve legislative hearings and field trips they realized that the concept would be unworkable and indefensible in court.

Contrary to most media reports at the time, Congress rejected DADT and passed a law clearly stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. The 1993 law-technically named Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C. but usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”- passed with veto-proof bi-partisan majorities in both Houses. The only “compromise” allowed the Clinton administration to drop “the question” about homosexuality that used to appear on induction forms, but that inquiry can (and should) be administratively reinstated at any time. (A Secretary of Defense seeking a more “humane” way to enforce the 1993 law should stop the recruitment of people who are not eligible for military service.)

The 1993 Eligibility Law codified long-standing Defense Department regulations. It includes fifteen “Findings” recognizing that the military is a “specialized society” and “fundamentally different from civilian life.” Unlike civilians who go home after work, military personnel must accept living conditions that are often “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.” The purpose of the law, which Federal courts have upheld as constitutional several times is to protect “high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and others are co-sponsoring legislation (H.R. 1283) that would repeal Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C. and replace it with an open-ended, radical “LGBT Law” that would forbid discrimination based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.”

The following charts summarize the consequences of replacing Section 654, Title 10 with the proposed new “LGBT Law.” More information is available from the Center for Military Readiness at www.cmrlink.org.

I warned you…



And this is her prediction of what will unfold if gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly. Reality- and science-based, of course. I didn’t make these up, btw—I just embellished to put Elaine’s full batsh*t stamp on them.

But wait…why should we burden our country with this sort of social engineering!?

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 11:14 AM • (34) Comments

Wow, the awesomeness that would be that flow chart if only it applied to plain old het misconduct instead of boo-scary! homo misconduct.  Low retention rates! Unit cohesion suffers!  Really?  Because of sexual coercion?  Mais oui, madame…you’re just barking up a very mistaken tree.

Comment #1: skylanda  on  02/02  at  11:21 AM

—-> “He said/He said” accusations difficult to resolve.

Well, of course. If it was “He said/She said”, then you know that the male must be in the right. What do you do when both parties are male, huh liberals? What do you do?

QED people. Fucking QED.

(Heavy sarcasm.)

Comment #2: BlackBloc  on  02/02  at  11:29 AM

Jumpin’ Jack Jeebus on a pogo stick!  The stupid over there just hit 12.9 on the richter scale.

Comment #3: DrDick  on  02/02  at  11:34 AM

She’s completely off her trolley.  The British armed forces did away with the ban on homosexuality about 10 years ago, and you know what it didn’t make a jot of difference.  I’m not military myself but I have worked with them before and after the lifting of the ban and have many friends in uniform and have heard of no occurrences of “unresolved tension distract[ing] from focus on [the] military mission” 

We even have a few transwomen serving in the services too. 

But I guess we’re dirty, effette, Europeans so not to be trusted or used as an example of what happens when people are allowed to be out.

Comment #4: fluffypinkduck  on  02/02  at  11:56 AM

I kind of want to take a vacation inside her head, but I definitely wouldn’t want to live there

Comment #5: Gaslight  on  02/02  at  12:00 PM

THREE-FOLD increase?!

Because, yeah, these things are so true:

1) Gays and Lesbians EACH will have the same overwhelming majority presence as heterosexual men,
2) The patriarchal culture that nudge-wink-celebrates the idea that women are here for men’s amusement/entertainment/pleasure also celebrates the idea that straight people are here for teh homos’ amusement/entertainment/pleasure, to the point that their own wants/desires/concerns/priorities/consequences are considered irrelevent and subordinate to somebody else’s desire to get laid,
3) Gay men and lesbians commit sex crimes on others of their gender at the same rates, according to their population, that men commit sex crimes on women.

No, no, and no.  She’s ridiculous, projecting sexism onto groups whose sexual interactions, being with members of the same sex, are not ones to which sexism can easily play a part. It’s a whole lot harder to suggest your gender makes you divinely ordained to be the dominant one, when the other person has it too.  (To be fair, though, I’d imagine she doesn’t really consider sexism to exist as a problematic force.)

Comment #6: Kyra  on  02/02  at  12:27 PM

I can’t site a source, but there was a screen crawl on this morning’s news which said that the Department of Defense would cease disciplinary actions under DA/DT in instances where the revelation of homosexuality concerning a service member is made by a third party.

Comment #7: Dana  on  02/02  at  12:36 PM

Those charts, those fucking charts. Look, right wingers, having a crazy ideology is no excuse for failure to present it in a beautiful layout. Go pick up something by Edward Tufte and get someone with better aesthetic sense than a shovel to design your homophobic diatribes for you.

Comment #8: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/02  at  12:40 PM

I work in the MIC.  We have openly GLBT folks in my company.  There have been same partner benefits for over a decade.  Our DoD customer doesn’t have huge issues working with us; to the contrary. 
Did you realize Obama’s recent appointment as Tech advisor to the Commerce Dept was a trans from the MIC?  He has a better grasp than these loons, but sure is hesitating way more than needed.
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/01/01/Trans_Woman_Appointed_to_Dep__of_Commerce/

Comment #9: helen w. h.  on  02/02  at  12:55 PM

Who is this woman, and why does anyone believe she knows anything about “military readiness”?

Comment #10: Bitter Scribe  on  02/02  at  01:06 PM

1. I looked for citations for some of the assertions in her graphics, particularly the “social engineering” bit, but I couldn’t find any. Was I just looking in the wrong place, did she have all of that in some end note I didn’t see, or was she, say, pulling it completely out of her ass?

2. Those aren’t even flow charts. They’re just… charts. They’re just a way of making her information look all informative and official, since presented as simple prose, they’d be revealed as the baseless bullshit they really are. And if there’s one thing I hate almost as much as bigotry and intolerance, it’s insulting my intelligence by trying to sneak your bullshit past me under cover of official-looking graphics.

Comment #11: ACG  on  02/02  at  01:06 PM

Lols, I love the logic here.

So long as we keep telling ourselves that no gays are in the military then, by extension, no gay-related problems (sexual misconduct, lower retention rates, lack of discipline, unreported violations of military field manual) can possibly occur.

Amadenijad, eat your heart out.  We’ve totally one-upped your “there are no gay Iranians” with an even better “the military has no social problems”.  Score!  That’s some classic “Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil” logic right there.

Comment #12: Zifnab  on  02/02  at  01:22 PM

So long as we keep telling ourselves that no gays are in the military then, by extension, no gay-related problems (sexual misconduct, lower retention rates, lack of discipline, unreported violations of military field manual) can possibly occur.

There’s actually a sort of sick logic to it. Say that sexual harassment from an homosexual fellow soldier happens now (and they do). With DADT, just the fact of revealing themselves gay or lesbian will get the soldiers disciplined. These people are basically afraid that gays will benefit from the same Omerta treatment that hetero abusers do right now. At least now they get disclined because ANY expression of homosexuality is grounds for discipline.

Nevermind all the innocent gays and lesbians who get disciplined too. Also, who cares about the hetero women victims of the current military culture?

Comment #13: BlackBloc  on  02/02  at  01:30 PM

C’mon, guys! It’s a CHART! With BOXES and ARROWS! Made by someone from a CENTER for something! It’s GOTTA be true!

Comment #14: RickMassimo  on  02/02  at  01:31 PM

You left out the bestest box.  The last one.

Benefits from allowing LGBTs to serve in the military?

NONE

Rape is something that our soldiers do to women.  We can’t stop that!  That would be changing military culture.  As for our female soldiers?  Those sluts should stay home and simply marry a soldier if they want to help out.  Boys will be boys, and expecting them to respect rules, follow orders and maintain discipline is just unAmerican.

Comment #15: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/02  at  02:14 PM

Oh, Elaine!  You are such a saucy wench with that Frau Farbissina vibe! 

I know you’re a hateful, evil, and miserable excuse for a human being, but the things you say, and the way you say them — well, every time I write you off as an utter loon saying whatever it takes to continue sucking at the wingnut welfare teat (like thousands of others before you), you come out with something else that make your last outrageous statements look mild.

Lately, though, it seems a little too hateful, too lacking in substance (and there was never much substance to begin with).  I adore the shtick, but when I read stuff like this, I worry that maybe you’re taking the Church Lady 2000 character a little too far, that maybe you’re mistaking your fantasy world for reality.

I really think you should get some help babe, before you lose it and shoot up a daycare center or a taping of Say Yes to the Dress while yelling “Wolverines!”...

Comment #16: MikeEss  on  02/02  at  05:03 PM

Trans WOMAN, helen w.h.  Trans WOMAN.  “A trans”?  No.  Just no.

Comment #17: bomberE  on  02/02  at  05:04 PM

mmmm-mmmm.  That’s some right fine high quality stupid there.  A whole buffet of high octane stupid!

She clearly has no actual concept or experience of military living conditions.

Comment #18: Ms Kate  on  02/02  at  05:16 PM

Who is this woman, and why does anyone believe she knows anything about “military readiness”?

Especially when she doesn’t know how to accord a CinC even the minimal respect he’s due after he’s left office. Imagine the insane outrage from conservatives if someone wrote “in 1981, then-President Ronald Reagan…” about their movie-star god.

Comment #19: Gracchus.  on  02/02  at  05:33 PM

She clearly has no actual concept or experience of military living conditions.

I think most of these people get their concept of military living conditions from fine films like “Gung-Ho Ass-Jammers, Volume 6.”

Then again, my concept of ordering pizza sometimes involves a hot delivery girl who’s willing to take payment in non-cash forms from my amazing self, so who am I to judge?

Comment #20: Gracchus.  on  02/02  at  05:41 PM

Gracchus wrote:

Then again, my concept of ordering pizza sometimes involves a hot delivery girl who’s willing to take payment in non-cash forms from my amazing self, so who am I to judge?

Would it be appropriate, on this thread, to yell, “Heterosexist!”  smile

Comment #21: Dana  on  02/02  at  05:53 PM

Gracchus wrote:

Especially when she doesn’t know how to accord a CinC even the minimal respect he’s due after he’s left office. Imagine the insane outrage from conservatives if someone wrote “in 1981, then-President Ronald Reagan…” about their movie-star god.

At least as far as MSNBC is concerned, that’s the appropriate way to list him: The law was intended as a compromise between then-President Bill Clinton, who wanted to lift the military’s ban on gays entirely, and a reluctant Congress and military that said doing so would threaten order.

Comment #22: Dana  on  02/02  at  05:57 PM

At least as far as MSNBC is concerned, that’s the appropriate way to list him

When I was at CNN, the rule was to call anyone who held the office “President.” The papers I worked for had similar style rules. Even if the honorific wasn’t a matter of accepted protocol and respect (which it is), the “then-” is superfluous. It’s not like anyone else was President in 1993.

Comment #23: Gracchus.  on  02/02  at  06:55 PM

@helen #9 - Amanda Simpson identifies as a woman so “she” is the correct pronoun.

Comment #24: DonnaDiva  on  02/02  at  07:01 PM

@DonnaDiva #24—I was taking Helen’s “he has a better grasp” to refer to Obama, not Amanda Simpson.

Comment #25: cendare  on  02/02  at  08:41 PM

The British armed forces did away with the ban on homosexuality about 10 years ago, and you know what it didn’t make a jot of difference.

Welllllll…..

LGBTs serve openly in the Israeli military.  Anyone wanna claim that they’re useless as a result?

Comment #26: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/02  at  10:07 PM

Canada’s military has no ban on LGBTs and to my knowledge, there is no problem.  That “flowchart” is a joke.  It’s more like a nightmare stop and branch chart with not a jot of logic applied to it.  Pathetic.

Comment #27: AlisonS  on  02/03  at  12:39 AM

You know, I could see her having a point—-if she was talking about heteros. But she’s not. It’s like abortion—-what they say they want is not what their actions achieve. Yeah, you’re concerned about unit cohension? Get rid of the phobes. They’ll tear your unit apart. Oh, and subject them to stress? And foreign populations? I have two words for you: Abu Ghraib. And then they want to give these assholes high-power weapons, with all that hatred? Yeah, like they only people the phobes hate are gay people. Why enable hatred? Why? It’s going to get people killed—-and judging by the nasty look on Elaine Donnelly’s face, she’s aware of it.

By the way, Donnelly’s some relation of some sort to Phyllis Schlafly. Like one wasn’t enough.

Comment #28: ginmar  on  02/03  at  04:49 AM

DonnaD @ 24:
Cendare is correct, he+Obama in my earlier comment.

Comment #29: helen w. h.  on  02/03  at  01:20 PM

The law was intended as a compromise between then-President Bill Clinton, who wanted to lift the military’s ban on gays entirely, and a reluctant Congress and military that said doing so would threaten order.

And yet, no compromise actually took place. The “don’t pursue” aspect that was originally part of it was jettisoned immediately.  The policy was a de facto ban as serious as if no “compromise” had ever been attempted.

And, we’re getting to watch all kinds of batshit hysteria all over again. Instead of Sam Nunn and Colin Powell, though, we have Crazy Old McCain and the rest of the right-wing fuckwits losing their shit and talking about segregating gay and straight soldiers.  Military “supporters” sure are cowards.

Comment #30: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  02/03  at  03:30 PM

What the fuck crawled up John McCAin’s ass and died there? It’s like a gay soldier personally kickd his puppy.

Comment #31: ginmar  on  02/03  at  06:14 PM

What the fuck crawled up John McCAin’s ass and died there? It’s like a gay soldier personally kickd his puppy.

He’s always been anti-gay. Sure, Kolbe can bullshit about how he was cool in private and shit, but McCain is a public bigot.

Comment #32: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  02/03  at  08:13 PM

Anybody who has a problem with gays in the military might just as well admit they’re a sexual harasser or worse or somebody who sympatizes with them to a scary degree. They’re afraid of having what they understand as sex done to them. That’s all sex is to them. It’s very prison-style gender roles. Hm…...

Comment #33: ginmar  on  02/03  at  09:03 PM

In Gloucester County, where accumulation topped 27 inches in places, wet snow and driving winds created white-out conditions for plow crews. From 3 to 6 a.m., public works director Larry Haynes Sr. said, “you couldBridesmaid Dresses barely even find the roadways.“Along the shore, communities on the barrier island from Ocean City to Cape May experienced tidal flooding yesterday afternoon onFake Rolex the ocean side, and several roads were closed because of flooding, drifting snow or downed power lines.
Atlantic, Ocean and Camden counties all had travel restrictions in place yesterday, and Sheriff’s Lt. James Manley, Ocean County’s A line Embroidery Lace Satin Wedding Dressdeputy emergency management coordinator, said many residents heeded warnings to stay home.A line Embroidery Sash Satin Wedding Dress Ocean County Mall in Toms River, Jackson Premium Outlets in Jackson and Jersey Shore Premium Outlets in Tinton Falls were closed.
“For a large part, it didn’t seem like many people were on the roads. It was the safe thing to do. Just stay in. You don’t get into accidents; you don’t get stuck,’’ he said. ``And a lot of things were closed.’’.
The state Department of Transportation had more than 800 snowplows on the roads in central and southern New Jersey, and NJ Transit A line Embroidery Satin Wedding Dresssuspended bus service in south Jersey. Numerous fender-benders and spin-outs were also reported.
Rakeem Thomas, 29, of Palmyra, was one New Jerseyan in the thick of it. He had to pick up his wife from her job in Cherry Hill, and said cars were skidding out at intersections all over.

Comment #34: wuwei  on  02/07  at  06:07 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.