Any reason for repealing DADT apparently will do

We want to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" because ... we will lose Arabic translators.

I'm wondering what the Arab countries, who are notoriously intolerant of homosexuality, think of this reason for pushing gays in the military.

Gay soldier cause of WikiLeak, but nobody's asking and nobody's telling

The man who engineered the leak of classified information that has compromised American diplomacy--not to mention intelligence--was not only gay, but an activist who was calling for a change in military policy on gays.

Omigosh. Did I really just say that?

Did I really say that at the very same time that advocates of changing the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy are arguing that there is no downside to gays in the military that a gay soldier just committed one of the most serious breaches of security in modern times--for reasons directly related to his sexuality?

I can't believe I said that. I must be a homophobic bigot.

As penance, I will now go and beat my head against a wall and repeat Diversity slogans over and over again until I have convinced myself that these stories have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

And by the way, please, if you want to avoid committing any anti-gay rights Thought Crimes, under no circumstances should you read the following articles:

• Basic Cable, by George Neumayer
• Pfc. Manning: Poster boy for 'don't ask, don't tell', by Anne Coulter

Just don't do it.

Facebook and Feedburner readers can join the conversation about this post here.

Osama bin Ladin: Uncle Sam wants YOU!

I am reminded of the scene in the movie "Stripes" in which Bill Murray's character and two friends go into an Army recruitment office for an interview before joining. The recruiter asks whether any of them are homosexuals. "No sir," says Murray, "but we're willing to try."

One thing you can say about women in positions exposed to combat (including pregnant women) and gays in the military: at least they're loyal. But now the politically correct agenda that has already turned the military into a giant maternity ward and a field for social experimentation has been extended to include people who, like, aren't even on our side.

More about how the politically correct chickens came home to roost at Ft. Hood:

It is becoming increasingly apparent that Nidal Hasan was not only unhinged, but also an entirely inappropriate character to counsel U.S. soldiers on war-related stress and injuries. The wingers are exaggerating much of this--the fact that he attended the same mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers is guilt by association, at best; the fact that he communicated with an Al Qaeda leader is more troubling, but the emails were monitored and judged to be non-threatening.

What is very troubling is that his colleagues at Walter Reed seem to have had grave doubts about the guy (it'll be interesting to see the evaluations he received from superiors)--and yet he was allowed to continue to counsel American troops, troops who were in an extremely delicate psychological state. That seems beyond careless. And the question has to be asked: Was this a matter of political correctness? Was the Army reluctant to discharge a Muslim in a sensitive position because it might be portrayed as an act of bigotry or censorship--that he was fired for his views?

Read the rest here.

Time Magazine touts biased study on gays in the military

Every time someone brings up the issue of gays in the military, I think of the scene in the movie "Meatballs" in which Bill Murray and his friend land themselves in an Army recruiter's office. The recruiter, filling out his form, asks the two men a series of questions in a monotone, perfunctory voice, one of which is whether they are homosexuals. The two men look at each other for a moment, and then Murray turns to the recruiter and answers, "No sir, but we're willing to try."

Of course, in the new politically correct military, recruiters can't even ask that question any more.

In the new issue of Time Magazine is an article titled, "Gay Soldiers Don't Hurt Unit Cohesion" about a study conducted by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, an institution I know a little about since I hold two academic degrees from it.

Let's just say I'm not shocked.

Like most other "research centers" at public universities, the Michael D Palm Center is a left-wing advocacy group clothing itself in scholarly garb. In fact, if you go to its website you can see the latest news from the group about the publication of a new book by Dr. Nathaniel Frank, "the country's leading expert on 'don't ask, don't tell.'" "The book Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America," the site continues, "will be published in the winter of 2009."

Gee, I wonder where the Michael D. Palm Center stands on the issue.

In fact, the group has long advocated for gays in the military, a fact that the Time story conveniently failed to mention. "The study," says Time, in an attempt to portray the study as somehow objective, "was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation."

The article says the panel was "bipartisan," meaning, apparently, that it was made up of people who had already in favor of gays in the military from both parties.

Not only that, but if you actually read the report, it contains no information about whether the policy actually works. According to the Time article:

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states. [sic]

But the "evidence" in the report itself consists exclusively of opinion polls of what different groups of people think about the policy, not on what the policy actually does. Among the stunning findings of the report, for example, is that (get this) journalists don't like the policy.

Woah! We be researchin' now!

And then there is this gem:

Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.

Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.

"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.

Right. As if keeping politics out of the military was what these people really want. What Alexander fails to mention is that the military was doing just fine until Bill Clinton repealed the original policy on this matter in almost complete disregard for what the Defense Department wanted to do. But that wouldn't look good in the group's press release, would it?

I will consider this one more piece of evidence that, when it comes to research by gay rights groups on any question having to do with gays, science is always subordinate to politics.