The Quiet Conservative December 6, 2010
The Media and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Part 1. The Introduction.
When the Pentagon study on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) came out it ignited a media firestorm. It
was reported the Pentagon and the members of the military supported the repeal of DADT, and
wanted homosexuals to serve openly in the military. The television cable news ran with it as did all the
major papers. It was a wave of media coverage with Secretary Gates surfing the crest and Admiral
Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, waxing his surfboard. The survey of the military
showed the vast majority of troops (70% they noted) supported the repeal, and saw no problem with
homosexuals serving openly alongside other service members. “The report found that a large majority
of troops were comfortable with the prospect of overturning long-standing restrictions on gays in
uniform and that they expected it would have little or no effect on their units.” (The Washington Post
11/30/2010)
Now, the following critique is going to seem all about the Pentagon report, but it really isn't. It is about
how the press reported on the release, and how the public now perceives the report. I see no
indication the editors, producers, or reporters questioned the way the report was presented, or the
findings of the report. The media reported, almost like a press release itself, what they were told. Not
a hint of skepticism was in sight.
Nor, was there any indication that anyone read the source material or looked into how the report was
written. The reason I came to that conclusion was that across the spectrum the reporting was the same
whether it was the online versions of the major print papers, or the broadcast media. When everyone
reaches the same conclusion at the same time, and that conclusion is what the people releasing the
material wanted the conclusion to be, then you know you have the absence of any contemplation on
the validity of the report or the motivation of the people presenting the report. Shouldn't the press
have been even a little curious? When you then look at the report and the included supporting data, and
it seems to contradict what the hype reported, then there should have been warning flags and further
investigation. There wasn't.
The fact the press was unwilling or simply didn’t care to look into the report to evaluate anything
connected to the report is a definitive diagnosis that the press is dead. “It’s dead, Jim,” and it isn't
coming back in its present form. Having abdicated in its only function in favor of sloth, what is to be
seen is if there is a viable and productive replacement. This look at the study released by the Pentagon
is actually the postmortem of the media.
The report was released Tuesday November 30, 2010. I went to the Department of Defense web site
and accessed the DADT press release. When I tried to click on the link to the actual report, my
computer locked up so bad I couldn't even get the task manager to come up. I finally had to crash the
computer and restart it. I ran Norton anti-virus and came up with 66 problems. I considered there
were two options for that- either the Chinese were mad at me for some reason, or the Defense
Department web site was being hosted by a porn company. The next day I was able to access both
parts of the report. But, the first section’s appendices wouldn't load. It wasn't until Thursday that
those appendices could be downloaded on my computer. This is where the real data was found.
When they were opened, I knew that everything being reported by the press and the pundits was false.
Here is a quick red flag from the combined service section of the appendices to show that all is not well
with the glowing endorsement by the Pentagon. This is the question from Appendix E, Question 73:
“If Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate
unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would your level of morale be affected?"
Very positively or positively: 4.8%. Well, that hardly seems like the ringing endorsement as
proclaimed. Less than 5% said their level of morale would be positively affected by the repeal. For
that one response alone people should have looked a bit closer. If less than 5% say their morale would
go up, that means that more than 95% would either stay the same or go down. In fact 27.9% said the
effect on their morale would be either negative or very negative. How is that overly supportive?
There is quite a bit to look at in this report. But even before that examination, there is a greater issue
of the report itself.
The first thing to question is whether the report has any validity at all. The underlying assumption for
the report is that homosexuality is an identity. Who says? It appears that the President, the Secretary of
Defense, Admiral Mullen, the researchers for the report, all believe that homosexuality is an identity
and not a behavior and a mental disorder. That determination is no more settled than the demand that
global warming is real and manmade. If they are wrong, then the report itself is not only moot, it is
destructive to the very core of the military by introducing and promoting emotionally disturbed people
into life and death positions.
There is no agreement that sexual orientation is fixed and genetic. There are people who engage in
homosexuality that later do not. If someone is in the military and is homosexual, and then isn’t, how
can that be an identity when it is a behavior instead? There are plenty of parallels of this in the outside
world. There is even therapy for people who engage in homosexuality. If that therapy helps a person
become heterosexual, then how can being “gay” or “lesbian” a fixed identity? It can’t. Same sex
attraction is neither comparable in numbers, nor equivalent of the normal of heterosexuality for
humanity. Same sex attraction is a mental disorder that can be treated.
As for the politics of homosexuality in the scientific community, it is as politicized as global warming.
Homosexuality is no longer classified by the APA or the WHO as mental disorders. But their decision
is entirely political and not based on fact. You can research that one on your own as it is a completely
different and complex topic. However, there is ample indication that those who engage in
homosexuality have increased risk of mental and emotional problems. From the introduction of
“Homosexuality and Health Problems”, by N. E. Whitehead, found on the NARTH web site:
“Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from
psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia,
antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and
significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible
sources.
The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental
disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly
motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.'s
action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists' insistence that homosexuals as a group are
as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in
fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality.”
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html I would encourage all to read the full article at the link.
So, while disputing the very fact that homosexuality is an identity at all and is instead a behavior, even
when granting that identity argument, it still shows an increased risk of other associated mental health
problems. Why would anyone wish to increase the participation of homosexuals in the military? The
repeal isn't for the existing members of the service who suffer from same sex attraction. They are
already serving. If they feel less included, well that’s too bad. They understand the culture in which
they operate and have adapted to function. They chose to contribute to the military. They have their
disorder under control or at least hidden. By changing the military culture to endorse the disorder, the
promoters of gays in the military radically risk chaos in the function of our armed services. The military
has a standard of good order and discipline. Their mission involves life and death and war. Anything
that degrades that mission is not a positive development, and open service by homosexuals degrades
that mission.
So if it isn't about the military, then why the push by those with the disorder and their supporters for
repeal? Why the need to demand that the military allow those with same sex attraction disorder serve
openly? It is because there is another agenda operating. This report, and the effort, has nothing to do
with the military and everything to do with the promotion of the disorder across society.
The gay lobby has tied their promotion of their disorder to the Civil Rights movement. They are using
the military to follow that agenda. The effort is to tie their push for the acceptance and active
promotion of homosexuality to the desegregation of the military in 1948. The two cannot be equated as
homosexuality is a behavior and being black is an identity. The moral component is also lacking if it
can be considered at all in an age when all things moral are discouraged, disparaged, and marginalized.
This tactic is done without any concern as to how the military is affected. They couldn't care less.
This is about normalizing and promotion of homosexuality and the military is a tool to do this. If the
military is altered to normalize this disorder, then there is little defense for marriage, religious objection,
and individual states complaints. The push is all about the promotion of homosexuality in the greater
society and nothing about the military or its mission. If a person wants to serve in the military it is
because they wish to join the service and serve. They should want to contribute, not have the military
serve them. What selfishness! What a degrading effect on the services!
That’s a pretty strong motive by a group with an agenda to be completely ignored by the press. On
any story when a company or government entity puts out a report, shouldn't the press question
whether to take the report at face value? Or is there some reason for the report? Shouldn't they
examine the people writing the report to see if there is an ulterior motive? If the report itself is simply a
lever to accomplish an agenda that is destructive, shouldn't the press look into who is doing the
destruction and why?
I mean, the report is touted as something completely positive and accepted by the troops. Then,
Admiral Mullen comes out at the Senate Armed Services hearing with the statement that anyone who
doesn’t like it can get out. I guess tolerance is only for ‘special’ groups of people. Plus, it is a pretty
good indicator that Admiral Mullen knows the report isn't worth the paper it is printed on, and the
positive acceptance of homosexuals in the military is an invention by the people pushing the report.
There are over three million people in uniform that now have to face accepting open homosexuals as
their companions in war, or get out of the service. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consideration of
their views. There doesn't seem any consideration of the mission of the military, good order and
discipline, or honor and tradition. So, before Congress forces this wrecking ball of social engineering
through the lame duck session, let’s look at the report the press wasn't interested in examining in any
way shape or form.
(Page 2) (Page 3) (Page 4)