Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Media and Don't Ask, Don't Tell Part 1.
Critique of the original report | 12/06/2010 | Irish Catholic

Posted on 12/06/2010 5:35:05 PM PST by IrishCatholic

While I have been here since 2003. This is my first post. Wouldn't you know it was a vanity?

The following post is my review of the DADT report available on the Defense Department web site. The review is quite lengthy so it is broken up into four parts. Those parts are listed in the first comment section of each post. I wrote the review late at night and after work, so please forgive any errors. It may seem to be all about the DADT report, but what it is really about is how the press portrayed the report, and how the report is now viewed in the eyes of millions of Americans.

TOPICS: Government; Military/Veterans; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: dadt; homosexualagenda; pentagonreport
Full text of part 1 is included below.
1 posted on 12/06/2010 5:35:11 PM PST by IrishCatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

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. The 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.” 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 two 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.

2 posted on 12/06/2010 5:36:03 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

Just a comment on “behavior” vs. “identity.” The Federal law DADT opponents seek to repeal itself presumes that homosexuality is an identity independent of behavior.

Otherwise, a soldier would have to do more than say “I am a homosexual” to be ejected.

3 posted on 12/07/2010 7:37:49 AM PST by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson