Won't Ask, Don't Care

DADT has been dead for a year, and the military is doing just fine.

No fucking surprise

A study done on the effect the repeal of DADT had on the military found no harm to the ability to perform the mission, no detriments to unit cohesion and puts the lie, one hopes for good, to the stupidity in this statement, “Repeal… would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”

That was the considered opinion of more than 1,100 flag officers who ought to have known better. I say that because, according to Randy Shilts, in “Conduct Unbecoming” , the hypocritical defense of the exclusion has been going on for ages.


Ten years ago, a two-star general, whose glittering name Shilts does supply as his punch line, made a strong defense of gay exclusion for the court record in a gay-rights case.


But off the record, to a lawyer on the case later interviewed by Shilts, the general "unofficially admitted he expected that the regulations would fall within a few years. He added that would be fine with him, because he knew many fine gay soldiers." That general was Norman Schwarzkopf.†

Sadly Swarzkopf was wrong, and it took more another 20 years... an entire career for the ban to fall. Anyone who was in the service, in the past ten years would have told you the ban was doomed. The Army can’t ignore the broader culture and the ways in which they dealt with homosexuals in service just made it worse. In the Gulf War they ignored people who were gay, delaying discharge until after the war was over.

That undercut the “can’t have them at the front, because their buddies won’t trust them”. I can tell you, when people are shooting at me, who my battle-buddy likes to sleep with is not on my mind.

The study
One Year Out: An Assessment of DADT Repeal’s Impact on Military Readiness (PDF) seems to be broadly done.

We sought to maximize the likelihood of identifying evidence of damage caused by repeal by pursuing ten separate research strategies, each of which was designed to uncover data indicating that repeal has undermined the military. Our research strategies included outreach to 553 generals and admirals who predicted that repeal would undermine the military, to all major activists and expert opponents of DADT repeal and to 18 watchdog organizations, including opponents and advocates of repeal, who are known for their ability to monitor Pentagon operations. In addition, we conducted in-depth interviews with 18 scholars and practitioners and 62 active-duty heterosexual, lesbian, gay and bisexual troops from every service branch, as well as on-site field observations of four military units. We analyzed relevant media articles published during the research period, administered two surveys and conducted secondary source analysis of surveys independently administered by outside organizations. Our vigorous effort to collect data from opponents of DADT repeal, including anti-repeal generals and admirals, activists, academic experts, service members and watchdog organizations, should sustain confidence in the validity and impartiality of our findings.

Our study team includes distinguished scholars from the US Military Academy‡, US Air Force Academy, US Naval Academy and US Marine Corps War College, as well as scholars with internationally recognized expertise on the issue of gays in the military. Several members advised the Pentagon’s 2010 DADT working group, and one member led the team that drafted the Defense Department’s plan for implementing DADT repeal.

The conclusion... the Services are better off now than they were a year ago.

3. Even in those units that included openly LGB service members, and that consequently should have been the most likely to experience a drop in cohesion as a result of repeal, cohesion did not decline after the new policy of open service was put into place. In fact, greater openness and honesty resulting from repeal seem to have promoted increased understanding, respect and acceptance.


6. DADT repeal has not been responsible for any new wave of violence or physical abuse among service members. The policy change appears to have enabled some LGB service members to resolve disputes around harassment and bias in ways that were not possible prior to repeal.


11. The findings of this study are consistent with the extensive literature on foreign militaries, which shows uniformly that readiness did not decline after foreign armed forces allowed LGB troops to serve openly.

There are, of course, those who refuse to see the truth.

12. As positive reports about DADT repeal emerged in the media, repeal opponents who predicted that open service would compromise readiness have adjusted their forecasts by emphasizing the possibility of long-term damage that will only become apparent in the future rather than identifiable consequences in the short-term.

The only thing I can say about that is those people have a poor opinion of Americans, or at least of American Servicemembers, because I’ve served with armies which don’t discriminate (Canadian and British, and Swedish), and they managed it. Why, one wonders, do these people think the US Army will, in the future, suddenly fall apart? Hint, it’s not fact based.

Why? Because people who join the military are pragmatists. We have a mission. We follow orders. This is to our credit, and our detriment. We live with some paradoxical things. First and foremost, we don’t want to die. Secondarily, we don’t want our friends to die. In front of all that, we have”The Mission”, and no matter what/where/when a specific mission is, the potential for one of those two things happening is ever-present. I don’t know anyone, even if they did nothing but peacetime service, in the USA, who did more than one tour who doesn’t know someone who died in training.


This argument, that “It’s all well and good now, but it will come back to bite us in the ass” was said about blacks, and about women. It didn’t happen. Why not?

Even heterosexual service members who oppose DADT repeal acknowledged to us that the new policy has not undermined readiness. According to one currently deployed Army National Guard sergeant who opposes open service, there “was not much of a transition, it’s not like people come in with rainbow flags or anything... the funny thing about the military is, people come in and do a job. That’s all there is to it.” A Navy SEAL who opposes repeal was nonetheless adamant that the military is a professional force, and that even those who do not agree with particular policies will follow them because that is what they are trained to do: “We’re professional; we do what we’ve done in the past, make the work environment professional.”

That’s why. And it’s why Obama was being a chicken to put off making his Executive Order. It’s why Clinton was worse than that in creating DADT (which was better, in one way, and worse in all the rest, than what preceded it; but that’s a whole can of worms which almost never goes well to talk about).


We could have done this 20 years ago. We could have had the benefits of twenty year’s worth of people who wanted to serve, and couldn’t; or who tried and were kicked out (I know three of those, 2 were Russian Linguists, 1 was Arabic), or who decided they couldn’t stay. I know commanders who didn’t care, and went out of their way to avoid anyone being able to make them aware of non-straights in their units. I had one who told us, when I was at DLI, that flat out he was certain he had homosexual troops, there were too many people in the Company (280+) for it to be otherwise, and that he 1: didn’t care, and 2: didn’t want to know. No one was to tell him.

When I was an NCO I never let conversations get past hypotheticals. I didn’t want anyone to tell; because that would put me in a bind. That was the greatest crime of DADT; it put everyone in the position of peril; and for no good reason, as this report makes plain.

Discipline: A Navy pilot told us about two gay service members who broke a shipboard rule before DADT repeal. Commanders were not comfortable bringing charges for that low-level transgression because doing so would have required outing the service members as gay. The infraction of which they were guilty was minor and had a very slight penalty associated with it, but the penalty for their being labeled as gay was separation from the military. Because the commanders did not believe that the lower infraction was significant enough to warrant discharge, they declined to charge the pair with the lesser infraction. “This put the leadership in an awkward position,” explained the pilot, “and the repeal just takes away that extra hurdle and allows commanders to lead better.”


Command: Another Naval officer told us that prior to repeal, commanders could not assist their sailors in the ways they would like because they could be obligated to discharge them if they knew too much. DADT repeal allowed this officer to better understand the sailors under her command so that she could counsel them and address and resolve their issues. She described a sailor who was having personal issues. “He was a very good sailor, but started having problems” including anxiety and sleeplessness. “Over time it became clear that the problem was possibly with a relationship, but because [the leadership] believed the relationship was with another man, they couldn’t talk with him about it.” She said that not being able to deal with the issue directly hindered her
ability to help the sailor under her command. With the change in policy, “everyone, from leadership down, were relieved that at least the sailor could come talk to them, whether or not they supported [homosexuality] themselves... There were too many service members who fit in the [LGB] category, which caused additional stress in already stressful situations. That is totally unacceptable. This was a very important change.”

Been there, done that.

David Levy, an Air Force Academy professor, said that, “I knew this was not going to be an issue… but I was somewhat amazed about just how much of a non-issue it was. There was virtually no talk about it whatsoever.” He said it was “almost eerie” how little attention the change had garnered.

No shit Sherlock. I could have told you that ten years ago when I was going to Iraq. No one cared. We had bigger fish to fry, and the sense of shared identity that being a soldier, among soldiers, meant that we wouldn’t have cared if the people who had to stay in the closet had been able to come out.

A heterosexual Army sergeant said that DADT repeal has allowed straight troops to strengthen their relationships with LGB colleagues, in that it “finally allowed people to have the freedom to be who they are. They still don’t have the same rights available to everyone, but the freedom [is now] there.” He added that post-repeal, “People are more open with their previous experiences” and more likely to introduce LGB peers to same-sex partners. A heterosexual lieutenant commander in Naval meteorology believes the repeal will bring about positive changes in the overall military culture. “It removed a barrier that was neither necessary nor practical,” he said. “It will help facilitate the slow cultural change towards greater acceptance.”


A gay Naval Academy midshipman reported that, after repeal, discussing his sexual orientation was no longer a career-ending offense, and in fact brought out the protective instincts of other midshipmen. The midshipman said that, “Pretty much everybody in my company knows now” about his sexual orientation and “they actually stand up for me” if they hear anti-gay comments.

That’s what I expected, and in that quotation is the real reason the bigots have been fighting this one so hard; and why Clinton’s moral cowardice was so egregious. “. “It removed a barrier that was neither necessary nor practical,” he said. “It will help facilitate the slow cultural change towards greater acceptance.”


That’s what they wanted to prevent. That’s what Clinton let them get away with. It’s what has been shown to be wrong.


†LA Times, Mar, 1993

‡My Favorite of these is Professor Morten Ender, Ph.D, US Military Academy. Take that Mr. Card.

Mitt Romney is a liar

Not in the usual sort of way people call politicians liars... the shading of truths to make it seem all the facts are with them, the inability to face the idea that there might be some merit to the other side's plan (whatever side it happens to be, and regardless of the plan).

No, Mitt Romney tells blatant falsehoods. Steve Benen has been chronicling them. The count 616 lies, in 33 weeks.

Verified lies. Lies with cited refutations. That's 19 whoppers a week.

Things like, ". In an ad, the Romney campaign argued that Obama "has managed to pile on nearly as much debt as all the previous presidents combined."

That's not even close to the truth.

3. In the same ad, Team Romney claimed, "President Barack Obama named himself one of the country's four best presidents."

That's blatantly untrue, and the campaign knows it's blatantly untrue because it's been told the truth several times. Mitt's Mendacity Vol XII

If we skip back to Vol. VII we get things like these:

6. Romney also argued, "Syria is Iran's source of access to the Mediterranean."

Iran doesn't share a border with Syria.

7. Romney said of the American auto industry, "I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back."


And the press doesn't care. It really doesn't.

Look at what CNN did after Ryan's RNC speech: CNN doesn't care that Paul Ryan is a liar

Blitzer begins by calling it “a powerful speech,” then notes, in the same breath, that “I marked at least seven or eight points I’m sure the fact checkers will have some opportunities to dispute if they want to go forward, I’m sure they will.”

Burnett agrees that Ryan’s speech was so dishonest, she, too, was scribbling down lies in real time, but then concludes, “He’s a man who says I care deeply about every single word. I want to do a good job. And he delivered on that. Precise, clear, and passionate.”

...Just seconds after the speech, both Blitzer and Burnett already know, without even checking, that Ryan’s speech was completely full of shit, but their takeaway is that he “delivered,” and that he was “precise” and “clear.”

Romney is telling whoppers like the one's I cited at the rate of 17 a week. The Press doesn't care. They were all over the things Al Gore was purported to have said. They called him a "serial liar", but the Mittster? He's just engaging in "post-truth politics"

How does he get away with it? The press is failing. They pretend that the lies are "just one sides opinion". They have done away with looking for what is objectively true, in exchange for the myth of, "objectivity".

They have decided to embrace the words of Yeats:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

That's bad enough, but the rest seems far more prophetic than it did when I learned the poem. Then the first verse seemed a warning, now the rest seems to be a knelling.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Once is an experiment

And the experiment was tolerably successful. There is mead, and no one who has tried it has said, “What the hell did you just give me?”

More to the point, part of this is that ladymondegreen can’t drink wine, and for Passover she needs something she can drink and mead is acceptable. So having kosher for passover mead is important. We have kept the meadery in just such a state (which means either getting doubling the brewing vessels and keeping the vaporlocks separated, or doing a lot of kashering, should we start to make beers/braggots).

So I did more reading. The last batch was a very “heavy” must, with a very strong yeast. It suffers from my not letting the mead rest long enough before bottling; that or the yeast stalled from the sheer amount of honey in the mix; honey being not the best of sugars for yeasts.

I wanted a lighter flavor, and I thought I wanted something to balance out the sweetness of the honey. A lager yeast might do it, but the it’s an amazing list of possible flavors, ester profiles, alcohol tolerance, need for nutrients, fermenting temperatures, etc. Then I saw something which might fill the bill. Berliner-Weisse

It’s a bright beer, brewed without hops. The yeast flavor is mild, and a sympathetic lactobaccillus gives it a pleasantly sour note; not quite as sharp as the beers described as, “sour”, which have a tart aftertaste, and all sorts of variety.

Wyeast has seasonal yeast which is just the ticket.


So, about a month ago, I bought that Smack-pack (the name is because the yeast is packed in distilled water, and a plastic bag full of nutrients is added. Three hours, or so, before you want to “pitch” you break the packet. It’s deceptively hard to find, and surprising resilient.

It’s been that long because arranging to have two weeks when I could monitor the fermentation turned out to be trickier than I expected. Today was the day. I’d rinsed the carboys when I was done with the last batch. I made up some Star-san, last night, and sloshed the heck out of the fermentor. When I get ready to rack, I’ll do it to that carboy. Left it to drain/dry overnight.

Brought it upstairs, and added about eight lbs. of mesquite honey.


Then I added about a gallon of warm water (about 110°F, just enough to be warm to the touch) and sloshed it like mad. Not only did I want to dissolve the honey, I wanted to oxygenate the water, which the yeast needs in the first stages of fermentation.


Then I added 5tsp of Fermax (a yeast nutrient, so they can build healthy bodies before they start the exponential reproduction needed to convert a lot of sugar into alcohol and CO2), and some more water, and sloshed like mad. Then I added some more water, and sloshed like mad.

Then I took some out (with a pipette) and checked the Specific Gravity.


I got a reading of 13.8° Brix, which is 1.056, which is about perfect for this strain of yeast, and teh flavor profile I’m aiming for(It was a rough measurement. I was a bit warmer than 20°C, so the gravity is probably a bit higher, which is fine, because I want some residual honey at the end).

So I let it rest, and sloshed it, and rest some more, and sloshed it, and when the three hours were up, I sanitized the yeast packaging, and the stopper, and the airlock, and the scissors, and opened the packet. It smelled good. Yeasty and a bit sour. I pitched, and took it downstairs to a nicely cool (and stably so) area, near my specimen cabinet.

Where it will (I hope and trust), begin, in about 24-36 hours, show some signs of life (were it a different yeast, the lag-time would be a bit less, but this one, no matter that it’s billions and billions of yeasties, is a slower starter, so the Lactobaccillus Brettanomyces, can get established). I’ll probably pull the airlock when I mid-day Weds., and give it a good sloshing so it will have some more time for aerobic fermenting since I know I can’t have gotten the O2 up to the 10ppm the yeast really wants, and so it will need some refreshing. When it’s bubbling away, I’ll post another photo.