What is elaine donelley smoking??

[Paladin]

This article appeared last week. Yeah, I know its strictly about gays in the military, but with so many closet case guys and I have y own opinions of TSs who are "non-op" and who prefer to hammer other men's asses, so basically there are a lot of denyers here who might be interested in drawing some careful and startling conclusions from the crap spewed forth by ms donelley.

Washington Times
July 20, 2008
Pg. B5
PM Polemic For Military Policy
By Elaine Donnelly
The campaign to enable homosexuals to serve openly in the military has escalated beyond public relations into "perception management." The fancy new buzz phrase, dramatized in the popular novel "The Whole Truth," describes media-assisted deception on a global scale. David Baldacci, in an author's note, summarized the tactics of unscrupulous perception managers: "PMs are not spin doctors because they don't spin facts. They create facts and then sell them to the world as truth."

Media reaction to a document recently released by the Michael D. Palm Center, a California-based homosexual activist group formerly known as the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM) presents a real-time example of "perception management." The 16-page paper, trumpeted as a "study" by the Associated Press, claims that inclusion of professed homosexuals in the military would not undermine the basic characteristic of combat effectiveness, unit cohesion. The document actually presents opinion as fact, spins speculation as certainty, misuses respected names, and dresses up faux facts to resemble an impartial academic review.

AP reporter Anne Flaherty swallowed it whole. Rushing to press with only one token quote expressing dissent, she failed to mention that the sponsoring Palm Center is an activist group solely devoted to the cause of homosexuals in the military. CNN, Time and most of the liberal media republished the AP story without question, advertising illusory "evidence" that repeal of the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military would not harm morale or readiness.

If the AP had asked my organization for a comment before Ms. Flaherty's story was published, instead of afterward, I would have pointed out typical flaws and distortions that an objective reporter should have noticed. The document claims, for example, that the four retired flag and general officers who conducted the project "devoted particular and extensive effort" to the study of published works submitted by named "Invited Experts" who disagree with the Palm Center's views.

Sounds reasonable, but panel members apparently limited their range of study to one side. There are no footnotes referring to opposing views that I and others recommended to the panel in response to a letter from project co-coordinator Brant A. Shalikashvili, an activist for gays in the military whose father is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Several of us declined to meet with the panel for good reason. I suspected that good-faith cooperation would be rewarded with misquotes and misattribution of support for whatever product would result. That suspicion proved correct. The document, for example, attributes a misleading statement to Professor Charles Moskos, who died of cancer on May 31. The respected military sociologist, a former draftee, patriot and longtime friend, regularly contributed to my organization. He is nevertheless quoted posthumously in the Palm Center report as if he were an ally in their cause.

The media missed an astonishing bit of news in the report. "Finding Five" cites a 2006 Zogby Poll to suggest that if gays and lesbians had been allowed to serve openly in the military, 2 percent of potential recruits - about 4,000 presumably heterosexual military men and women - probably would have declined enlistment in the last 14 years. That number, they claim without support, would be "canceled out" by 4,000 gays and lesbians likely to enlist in their places.

It turns out, however, that the percentage of military people identified by Zogby in Survey Question No. 27 was not 2 percent; it was 10 percent, fivefold greater, with 13 percent undecided. Taking those percentages and estimates at face value, that means 20,000 people would have declined to join the military since 1994, or 32,000 men and women if half of Zogby's undecided group is factored in. This deception alone discredits the carefully managed perception of the Palm Center as a credible organization interested in military readiness.

If the study group had read my article for the Duke University Journal of Gender Law & Policy, they might have noticed another controversial revelation in the Zogby Poll, a survey commissioned and paid for by the Palm Center. The news release announcing poll results highlighted an innocuous question, "Are you comfortable interacting with gay people?" Of military people responding, 73 percent said they were. I would have answered "yes" myself.

But the most important issue, not mentioned in the news release, appeared in Survey Question No. 13: "Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?" In response to that inquiry, 26 percent agreed, but 37 percent disagreed. The poll also found 32 percent of respondents were "neutral," and only 5 percent were "not sure." The 26 percent favoring repeal were outnumbered by the combined 69 percent of people who were opposed or neutral. This was hardly a mandate for radical change, but perceptions were managed to suggest that it was.

Activists trying to impose a San Francisco agenda on the military are counting on four factors to win: unquestioning media, pending legislation in Congress, so-far unsuccessful litigation in the courts and, of course, the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. Their best asset is the perception that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a law.

The catch-phrase actually refers to an administrative policy, imposed on the military by former President Bill Clinton, which could and should have been dropped long ago. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is inconsistent with the 1993 law, which states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Contradictions between policy and law have caused problems that members of Congress predicted when they rejected "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The answer is not to repeal the 1993 law, but to improve understanding of what it actually says, and why.

Given the usual and new deceptions exposed in the latest Palm Center "study," all arguments made by them and other doctrinaire activists should be called into question.
As analyzed in my article for the Duke University Law Journal, these include noncredible claims that 65,000 homosexuals currently serve in the military, that disproportionate numbers are being discharged, the contradictory allegation that Defense Department officials do not enforce the law, and the notion that foreign militaries are suitable models for radical social change in the American military.
Fiction is usually harmless, but if used to justify harmful social policy changes in the military, fiction can be dangerous.

What can everyone infer from the bolded portion in particular??

[Paladin]

I guess there is still somefairness and sanity in congress (no much but some).

ms donelly had the balls to show up at a congressional hearing on don't ask don't tell this week, and she got what she deserved:

Washington Post
July 24, 2008
Pg. 3
Washington Sketch
Sorry We Asked, Sorry You Told
By Dana Milbank
Don't ask, don't tell. And, whatever you do, don't ask Elaine Donnelly to tell you what she thinks about gays in the military.
The House Armed Services personnel subcommittee made just such a miscalculation yesterday. Holding the first hearing in 15 years on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, lawmakers invited a quartet of veterans to testify on the subject and also extended an invitation to Donnelly, who has been working for years to protect our fighting forces from the malign influence of women.
Donnelly treated the panel to an extraordinary exhibition of rage. She warned of "transgenders in the military." She warned that lesbians would take pictures of people in the shower. She spoke ominously of gays spreading "HIV positivity" through the ranks.
"We're talking about real consequences for real people," Donnelly proclaimed. Her written statement added warnings about "inappropriate passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual community," the prospects of "forcible sodomy" and "exotic forms of sexual expression," and the case of "a group of black lesbians who decided to gang-assault" a fellow soldier.
At the witness table with Donnelly, retired Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, a lesbian, rolled her eyes in disbelief. Retired Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, a gay man who was wounded in Iraq, looked as if he would explode.
Inadvertently, Donnelly achieved the opposite of her intended effect. Though there's no expectation that Congress will repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow gays to serve openly in the military, the display had the effect of increasing bipartisan sympathy for the cause.
Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) labeled her statement "just bonkers" and "dumb," and he called her claims about an HIV menace "inappropriate." Said Snyder: "By this analysis . . . we ought to recruit only lesbians for the military, because they have the lowest incidence of HIV in the country."
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), a veteran of the war in Iraq, called Donnelly's words "an insult to me and many of the soldiers" by saying they "aren't professional enough to serve openly with gay troops while successfully completing their military mission."
Retorted Donnelly: "What would you say to Cynthia Yost, the woman on a training exercise assaulted by a group of lesbians?"
Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) pointed a finger at Darrah and glared at Donnelly. "Would you please tell me, Miss Donnelly, why I should give one twit about this woman's sexual orientation, when it didn't interfere one bit with her service?"
Donnelly said something about "forced intimacy."
Shays cut her off. "You're saying she has no right to serve her country because she happens to have a different sexual orientation than you."
Donnelly returned to the case of "Cynthia Yost . . . assaulted by a group of lesbians." She neglected to mention that the incident was alleged to have occurred in 1974.
It was tempting to think that Donnelly had been chosen by Democrats to sabotage the case against open military service for homosexuals. But Republicans had consented to the witness panel, which also included retired Army Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, a black man who likened the current policy to racial segregation in the military, and retired Army Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones, who argued almost as passionately as Donnelly for the need to keep the military straight.
The subcommittee chairwoman, Susan Davis (D-Calif.), asked for the "utmost respect," and John McHugh (N.Y.), the ranking Republican, urged a "civil discussion." That held up as Coleman spoke of one of the openly gay soldiers who served with him in Korea, Darrah spoke of the "constant fear of being outed and fired," and Alva spoke of his lost leg and how he "nearly died to secure rights for others that I myself was not free to enjoy."
Then came Donnelly, severe in a black jacket with a flag pin on her lapel as she attacked the "San Francisco left who want to impose their agenda on the military." She spoke of the "devastating" effect gay soldiers would have on the military and said "people who do have religious convictions" would be driven out of the military by the "sexualized atmosphere."
"We are not talking about a Hollywood role here," Donnelly lectured the lawmakers.
Donnelly was followed by Jones, a tough-talking businessman who suggested that the military's tradition of "selfless service" would be undermined by gay men and lesbians. "In the military environment, team cohesion, morale and esprit de corps is a matter of life and death," he said. His written statement spelled it "esprit decor"; it also warned of "a band of lesbians that harassed new females," and noted his own military experience when "the only way to keep from freezing at night was to get as close as possible for body heat -- which means skin to skin."
But it was Donnelly, founder and president of the Center for Military Readiness, who amused lawmakers the most. Snyder asked Darrah about Donnelly's reference to "passive-aggressive actions common in the homosexual community," saying, "I'm almost tempted to ask you to demonstrate."
Darrah was stumped. "Like a woman who is stared at, her breasts are stared at," Donnelly explained. She further explained the "absolutely devastating" effect of homosexuals "introducing erotic factors" and made a comparison to Sen. Larry Craig's adventure at the Minneapolis airport. She said admitting gays to the military would be "forced cohabitation" and a policy of "relax and enjoy it."
Murphy puffed his cheeks with air to calm himself. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) said she was "shocked." Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) said she was "embarrassed." Shays said it was "scurrilous" of Donnelly to talk about the menace of homosexual misconduct, because it would be punished the same way the military punishes heterosexual misconduct.
Shays, his voice rising with Yankee indignation, continued to lecture Donnelly: "I think the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is unpatriotic. I think it's counterproductive. In fact, I think it is absolutely cruel."
Donnelly said something about her respect for the service of gay veterans. "How do you respect their service?" Shays demanded. "You want them out."
Donnelly seemed to have unified the lawmakers -- against her. The next questioner was Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy vice admiral. "I couldn't ask it better than you did," he told Shays.

I guess she found out the hard way that if you can't stand the heat, don't even go near the kitchen! What does everyone think about these two items?

[Paladin]

Professor Paladin wil provide some answers after board members have had a chance to digest the first posting. And, remember I deduct points for poor grammer and a lack of proofreading! :P