Box Turtle Bulletin

How to conduct a fraudulent “poll”

Hello, my name is Timothy and I’m from Fraudulent Polling, Inc., a national polling agency. Can I ask you a few questions about issues that you will face in the upcoming election? Thank you.

* Would you mostly support, completely support, or overwhelmingly support legislators who want to ban the slaughter and eating of puppies and kittens by passing the new Healthy Nutrition Act?

Press Release: A new poll found that by a huge majority, Americans support the Healthy Nutrition Act, a vegan-only bill which would charge anyone who engaged in the eating of any meat or any animal-based product with first degree murder.

————-

Of course that is silliness. But it isn’t that far off the mark of what some unscrupulous characters do to try and convince others that their unpopular views have support. And they don’t get much more unscrupulous than Elaine Donnelly, the extremely wacky president of the anti-gay Center for Military Readiness.

Elaine has commissioned and released a new “poll” that claims that Americans oppose the overturn of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And it’s a doozie. In fact, it’s nearly a case-study of how to conduct a fraudulent “poll”.

And here are a few of the very obvious reasons why.

First, we checked to see who conducted the “research”. The political association of a pollster does not automatically disqualify their findings, but if there is strong ideological bent then one must question whether the poll is legitimate or simply propaganda.

In this case it is some outfit called “the polling company inc. / WomanTrend”. Sounds good, right? Sure, until you realize that the group is headed by conservative strategist Kellyanne Conway (whose husband was heavily involved in efforts to impeach Bill Clinton) and conducts “research” for the Heritage Foundation and other such organizations. Red flag, number one.

Then we looked at the options for answers. Rather than give a range of possibilities, most included only variations of the answers that supported Donnelly’s agenda. In some cases “I don’t know” or “neither” were not provided as an option, cuing the participant to instead select between choices that might not be optimal.

Then we inspected at the language and found it deceptive and dishonest. For example, look at this little phrase in the summary of the “poll”,

Respondents were informed at the beginning of the survey, “Throughout this survey, “gay or lesbian” and “homosexual” are used interchangeably.” Numerous questions throughout this poll employed the words “lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender persons”—terms that are used by leading advocates of overturning the law.

Well, that’s interesting. While it is true that “leading advocates” do use the term “lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender persons”, it is a complete lie that they use it in context of this law. Because while “transgenders in the barracks” may frighten the horses, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell does not impact transgender people one way or the other.

Finally we analyzed the order of the questions to see if they “push” the participants towards a mindset or a viewpoint before the big question is asked. And Conway and Donnelly’s questions were about the most blatant that I’ve ever seen.

We aren’t provided with the exactly language of the script but it appears that the following questions were asked in this order:

1. In 1993 Congress passed a law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. Please tell me whether you (ROTATE) agree or disagree with the following findings that are in the current law.

1.a. One finding says, QUOTE “The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.” END QUOTE

1.b. One finding says, QUOTE “The military is a specialized society…that is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions.” END QUOTE

OK, most everyone agreed to those two statements. These are not, of themselves, egregious questions, but they do set the tone and suggest that “the current law” has the right priorities. Let’s go on.

2. I will now read to you the opinions of two people. Please tell me which comes closest to your own view:
(ROTATED PERSON 1/PERSON 2)

Person 1: In considering this issue, Congress should listen mostly to advocates who want to overturn the law and to require the armed forces to accept professed lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons in the military.

Person 2: In considering this issue, Congress should listen mostly to the four chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, who have expressed concerns about overturning the current law.

This question pits “advocates who want to require transgender persons” against “the chiefs of staff who have expressed concern”. A completely false dichotomy. (Amusingly, in the footnotes they praise themselves for not using the phrase “gay activist group”). Not only is this not about transgender persons, but there is no mention that the repeal is supported by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Yet, surprisingly, the support for person two was only 48% to 41%. Those pesky “advocates” and their transgender folk have more support than Conway and Donnelly like. So it’s time to smear the President.

3. In his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama promised that if he was elected President, he would seek to repeal, or overturn, the law regarding homosexuals in the military, often called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the law in 1993. Do you believe he is assigning high priority to this issue (ROTATED) mostly out of principle or mostly for political reasons?

Not too surprisingly, 57% found that Obama’s imagined motivations for “assigning high priority” are the same as the same reasons that our community suspects for his doing damn well little on the matter.

But now that they’ve introduced sinister motivation, they now need to imply a threat:

4. Please tell me which comes closest to your own view:
(ROTATED PERSON 1/PERSON 2)

Person 1: If the current law is overturned, the military should attempt to change personal attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality and impose “zero tolerance” career penalties on anyone who disagrees for any reason, including religious convictions.

Person 2: Even if the current law is overturned, the military should not attempt to change personal attitudes and feelings toward human sexuality. Imposing career penalties on anyone who disagrees would discriminate against military personnel and chaplains who do not support homosexuality.

Ookie spookie. Those advocates want to engage in mind control and court martial those who go to church. Good wholesome Christian kids will be stockaded and chaplains will be beaten if they don’t endorse the radical militant homosexual agenda.

Scared enough yet? Oh, but there’s more. You knew it was coming…

5. The military should modify training programs to promote acceptance of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons in all military colleges, training programs, and schools run by the U.S. Defense Department.

Oh Noes! The children! They’re coming after the children!

6. Over the next six months, what should be the number one priority for Congress and the President?
(READ AND ROTATED. ACCEPTED ONLY ONE.)

Creating jobs
Reducing Government spending/the deficit
Plugging the oil leak in the Gulf/cleaning up the oil spill
Winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Changing the law to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the Military

Well gosh, that proves that our legislators are Wasting! their Time! on these nefarious schemes because they can only do one thing at a time. And if DADT is overturned, jobs will be lost and pelicans will die.

And now, now that you know that it’s transgender advocates who are going against the most important purposes of the military and who are ignoring the concerns of military leaders so that they can push this unwanted effort to jail Christians and brainwash children, all of which is motivated by political cynicism, now let’s get your opinion.

7. Would you prefer that your elected representatives in Washington, DC (ROTATED) vote to overturn the 1993 law and allow homosexual persons to serve openly in the military, OR vote to keep the law as it is?

48% VOTE TO KEEP IT AS IT IS
45% VOTE TO OVERTURN
7% DO NOT KNOW/DEPENDS (VOLUNTEERED)
1% REFUSED (VOLUNTEERED)

And that’s how your conduct a completely fraudulent poll. It’s almost surprising that there weren’t questions about slaughtering puppies and kittens.

And amusingly, even after pushing the participants as hard as possible, less than half opposed repealing DADT. And even after trying to scare them with career penalties and brainwashed children, 34% of military members polled supported overturning DADT and enacting a “zero-tolerance” policy.

This is just downright funny. But what do you bet that John McCain ends up waiving it around in Washington.

McCain Blocks Defense Authorization Bill Over DADT

And complains about the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act in the process.

Family Research Council: Military at Greater Risk of HIV if DADT is Repealed

The Family Research Council released a podcast featuring the American Family Association’s Dr. Robert LaButta, a retired U.S. Army Col., who warned that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would lead to rampant HIV, STDs, and psychological disorders in the military:

Homosexuals are identified by the U.S. government as a cohort at high risk for sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS. At the National HIV Prevention Conference in August 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that AIDS is 50 times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations. HIV is already a threat to military readiness–although HIV-positive recruits are excluded from the military, those who become HIV-positive while serving cannot be discharged, but they also cannot be deployed overseas. However, this is far from the only health risk to homosexuals.

One of the nation’s leading AIDS researchers, Ronald Stall, has declared, “It may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today. There are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse. This is called a syndemic.” The “four other epidemics” are “substance abuse, partner violence, depression and childhood sexual abuse.”

According to our estimates, the prevalence of HIV is probably below 10% of the total LGBT population. (Those estimates however are fought with unknowable variables, so caution is advised whenever anyone attempts to estimate HIV prevelance in the LGBT population.) All people entering the military are tested for HIV, and all military personnel are retested at periodic intervals.

[Hat tip: Karen Ocamb at LGBT POV]

Servicemembers ignore DADT survey

Those opposed to lifting the ban on gay men and women serving in the military like to couch their objections in terms of protecting the servicemembers. We must listen to them and hear their concerns!

Well, it looks like not very many of them have any concerns that they want to share. In fact, nearly three weeks after the Military requested the opinions of 400,000 active and reserve troops, 90% of them haven’t gotten around to responding. (US Army)

A total of 200,000 active servicemembers and another 200,000 in the Reserve and National Guard were e-mailed July 7 with a link to an online questionnaire about possible impacts of repealing the law that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

So far, only about 40,000 of those randomly selected have completed the survey instrument, Smith said. Respondents have until Aug. 15 to complete the questionnaire.

The Department of Defense is encouraging the officers soldiers to go ahead and take 30 minutes and answer the survey.

“It’s important for them to return the survey so we understand possible impacts associated by repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law,” said DoD spokesperson Cynthia Smith. She added that officials need to know how the repeal would impact unit cohesion, military readiness, recruiting, retention and family readiness.

It seems to me that they already have an answer from the vast majority of military personnel, and that answer is “not much at all.”

O’Reilly says Obama should just sign an executive order to end DADT

With Jay Leno on the Tonight Show:

“Look, it’s just not fair.”

LCR v. DADT closing arguments go well

Closing arguments in the Log Cabin Republicans’ challenge to the Military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy finished up today. Judge Phillips had announced that the Witt precedent would be used to determine what level of proof would be required and Dan Woods, for LCR, presented evidence and testimony accordingly. (National Law Journal)

Last month, Phillips set forth the standard of proof that both sides had to meet. She based it on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s 2008 decision Witt v. Dep’t of the Air Force — that the policy is necessary to advance a legitimate governmental interest.

On Friday, Woods maintained that the policy served no such interest.

“Lawrence established that Americans have a constitutional right to engage in private, consensual homosexual conduct,” Woods said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, where the court found that state’s criminalization of private, consensual sodomy unconstitutional. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell infringes on that right, punishing individuals who engage in a constitutionally protected activity.”

During the trial, Woods introduced numerous reports and expert witnesses who concluded that the policy has done little to maintain troop cohesion. In fact, he said, the evidence showed that the policy disproportionately harmed women and noncombat service members. He noted that service members work alongside foreign militaries and private contractors, both of which permit open homosexuality.

“Our military will give a convicted felon a gun, but will not give a gay guy a typewriter,” he said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Freeborne, defending the policy, decided that arguing with the judge was a better way to make his case.

Freeborne responded that the due process and First Amendment claims fail “as a matter of law” because the Log Cabin Republicans brought a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the policy. That requires both parties to focus on the face of the statute and its legislative history — not the experiences of individuals, he said.

Phillips interrupted, disagreeing about the scope of the court’s review.

“The government’s argument it has made throughout this case and on which it has relied to contest the admission of nearly every exhibit, and most of the testimony, overlooks that the court is directed to look at the effect of the challenged statue,” Phillips said.

Freeborne said he would “respectfully disagree” with that analysis. He also disagreed that the Witt standard, which dealt with the circumstances of a single service member and not the statute as a whole, was appropriate in a facial challenge.
…
In defending the statute against First Amendment claims, Freeborne used the example of a witness who was not discharged even after coming forward about being hazed and harassed about his homosexuality.

“After enduring it for months,” Phillips replied.

While this sounds encouraging, we cannot assume that the judge will rule in our favor. But by all accounts, the testimony and arguments went well.

Log Cabin has asked Judge Phillips to impose an injunction halting the military’s unconstitutional “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and, if appealed, to suspend the policy during appeal. That would be the best possible outcome of the trial at this level.

First hand report from the Log Cabin v. DADT trial in Riverside

I hope Karen Ocamb and LGBT POV will forgive me for lifting so much from Tom Carpenter’s excellent summary of the trial, but it is so concise and clear that I just couldn’t edit it. Tom is a lawyer and a board member of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

The White and Case lawyers [representing LCR] have really outgunned the government and they have put on an excellent case.

I saw the end of fellow Naval Academy grad Jenny Kopfstein’s testimony and she brought tears to my eyes.

She was followed by Larry Korb who qualified well, and as a Reagan DOD Assistant Secretary of Defense was very impressive. His testimony was clear that DADT was wrong when it became law in 1993 and has reduced military readiness and retention, as well as unit morale and cohesion. The government didn’t lay a glove on him and he was able to take on the lawyer who was cross examining him. As a trial lawyer, he made me feel sorry for the young lawyer who was clearly out of his league.

Alex Nicholson, the executive director of Servicemembers United and named plaintiff, was next. He was his usual articulate self and very skillfully turned the questions on the government lawyer who was attempting to cross-examine him. The only hit he took was when the government had him admit he was only on active duty for 9 months and never received an Military Occupational Specialty as a linguist or human intelligence gatherer. Not much.

Alex was followed by Dr. Allan Okros, a retired Canadian 0-6 who has worked for the military in uniform or as a civilian for 33 years. He is an expert on personnel issues and was a contemporary of Charlie Moskos, the father of DADT. He testified about the cultural and ethical similarities between the Canadian Forces and the US. He described the lifting of the ban in Canada as a “nonevent.” Based upon that experience, he testified that, with proper leadership, the result would be the same in the US. He is one of the best experts I have seen on gays in the military.

The last witness I saw was Tony Leverde a former USAF SSgt. He testified about what it was like to not hide your sexual orientation at the same time as not violating DADT. He was respected by his peers and subordinates, most of whom knew or suspected he was gay, even though he never admitted it. He was able to testify over objection that his honesty and being himself actually improved his relationship with fellow service members and enhanced unit morale. Didn’t see his cross but from watching the Judges reaction she seemed impressed.

Today was closing arguments, and a judgment could come in a few months, well before Congress and the review committee and the President and the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs decide at some unspecified time in the future that the Military may possibly be ready to allow gay men and women to serve openly.

Lt. Choi Confirms DADT Discharge

This comes from an email that was sent out this morning:

My Statement on DADT Discharge

This morning I received notification of my honorable discharge from the army under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” After 11 years since beginning my journey at West Point and after 17 months of serving openly as an infantry officer this is both an infuriating and painful announcement.

But my service continues. To all those veterans who have endured similar trials and injustices or prematurely ended their military service because of the unjust policy: our fight has only begun.

The true honor and dignity of service does not come from a piece of paper, a pension or paycheck, a rank or status; only an unflinching commitment to improve the lives of others can determine the nature of one’s service. From the first moment we put on our nation’s uniform and swore our solemn oath, we committed ourselves to fight for freedom and justice; to defend our constitution and put the needs of others before our own. This is not an oath that I intend to abandon. Doing so at such a time, or remaining silent when our family and community members are fired or punished for who they truly are would be an unequivocal moral dereliction that tarnishes the honor of the uniform and insults the meaning of America.

Lt Choi also spoke to Newsweek, describing the circuitous route in which he got the news. It turns out the certified letter was sent to his father, who is not on speaking terms with Dan. Lt Choi says that his first inclination right now is to go home to his family.

NY National Guard Confirms Choi’s Discharge

Chris Giedner chased this down:

Lt. Col. Rich Goldenberg with the New York National Guard responded to an inquiry from Metro Weekly about the discharge, first reported in the Gay City News, by saying that a certified letter was sent to Choi detailing the honorable discharge and that ”Choi was informed on 29 June” via a phone message left by his unit commander. Other calls were made to him as well, he said.

Goldenberg acknowledged, ”I do not believe he returned any of their calls,” but added that ”[t]he New York National Guard made every attempt to make sure that Lt. Choi was fully informed of the action.”

Choi reportedly responded to the Gay City News report via Twitter: ”No, I have not seen any discharge papers. When/if they come, I’ll show and tell.”

Lt. Dan Choi Discharged

That tidbit is buried deep in this Gay City News story:

Choi lost his battle with the Pentagon on June 29 when his discharge from the Army under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was finalized. While Choi’s National Guard unit informed him by registered mail and with phone messages, he has not disclosed the action. He did not respond to an email seeking comment.

That lack of an acknowledgement from Choi, let alone an announcement, seems strange.

DADT: where are our activists?

Today Lt. Dan Choi blocked a street in Las Vegas, NV, to call on Harry Reid to bring ENDA to a vote.

Wait, I’m confused. I though Choi was our self-delegated point-man on DADT? I mean, wasn’t that the idea behind protesting at the White House in uniform – because he’s fighting for the right to be a good dutiful serviceman? He’s not an activist, he’s an injured party. Right?

Or perhaps he has a free day. Maybe there’s just nothing DADT related going on today?

Meanwhile 233 miles to the west former Navy Lt. Jenny Kopfstein was testifying today in federal court in Riverside, CA, to have the Military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy declared unconstitutional. She’s there with discharged linguist Alex Nicholson, DADT expert Nathaniel Frank, and scholar Lawrence Korb facing off against Department of Justice lawyers who are challenging their standing, their relevance, their scholarship and their credibility in order to overturn the discriminatory policy.

So why isn’t Choi in Riverside? In fact, why isn’t anyone in Riverside. That is the question that reporter Karen Ocamb is wondering.

I drove up from West Hollywood for Tuesday’s opening arguments and was startled at how few non-attorneys showed up. After all, this is essentially the military equivalent of the federal Prop 8 trial – evidence in a court of law about how gays are officially treated as second class citizens by the federal government. But for all the high decibel attention over repealing DADT and the Pentagon’s homophobic survey – no one showed up with picket signs to demonstrate outside or packed the courtroom to support the plaintiffs in this serious David versus Goliath legal battle. What does this thundering absence tell the government about how much LGBTs really care about this horrendous law?

Was driving to hot Riverside just too inconvenient? Does the fact that the plaintiffs are gay Republicans play a role in LGBT and civil rights groups ignoring the case? Would there be a similar deafening silence if the plaintiff was photogenic Lt. Dan Choi or some fire-breathing progressive who wanted to stick it to President Obama, the Pentagon or the Department of Justice?

What does it say about the real principles of the LGBT movement for equality that no one but three local LGBT activists, a couple of Log Cabin members from Palm Springs and a handful of reporters showed up for part one of this trial?

Karen has been covering gay news for longer than there was a blogosphere and she is no fool when it comes to evaluating what is important and what has lasting impact. And she’s dead right.

This case could change our lives. It is part of the package – a very important part of the package – of lawsuits that go to the question of whether the words “all men are created equal” includes us. This case has the potential to declare that no part of the government – not even the Military – has the right to exclude gay men and women or to apply rules to us that are not applied to other groups of Americans.

And it deserves our attention.

Log Cabin has transcripts and motions. And Karen has been doing stellar coverage along with the Advocate.

LCR v. DADT testimony begins

From the AP

Former Air Force Maj. Michael Almy took the witness stand to support a federal court lawsuit filed by a Republican gay rights organization challenging the constitutionality of the military’s ban on openly gay troops.
…
Almy said he had been honored as a top communications officer in the Air Force for his leadership skills in running an exemplary unit that helped maintain control over the vast majority of Iraq’s air space during the war.

After his tour, he returned to his base in Germany where he was called to his commander’s office and questioned about a dozen personal e-mails he said the Air Force discovered after a service member searched through his computer in Iraq.

Almy said his commander tried to force him to admit he had violated the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

“We went round and round for approximately 20 minutes,” Almy testified.

Almy said he never admitted to the military he was gay and was careful to keep his personal life separate from his professional one. Still, after the meeting, Almy was told he was relieved of his duties.

Ya know, I feel bad for the person who signed up the defend their country only to find them self assigned to snoop through other people’s private email looking to make sure they are all to people of the right gender. Who wants that job?

Charges against Choi and Pietrangelo Dropped

Breaking news from AmericaBlog’s Joe Sudbay indicate that prosecutors dropped the charges against Lt. Dan Choi and Capt. Jim Pietrangelo. According to Joe Sudbay, everyone was in the room and ready to go — prosecutor, witnesses, arresting officers — but the case was dropped. No further explanation is available.

Choi and Pietrangelo are eached charged with two counts of failure to obay a lawful order, stemming from their arrests while handcuffed to the White House fence on two separate occasions as part of protests against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Log Cabin v. DADT case begins

Today Log Cabin Republicans’ lawsuit against the federal government over the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy went began. And the opening statement reveal an interesting approach. Log Cabin will argue that the policy is unconstitutional, while the administration will counter with, ummm, nothing at all. (AP)

Woods said he plans to use the remarks of Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other top military commanders as evidence the policy should be overturned.

Woods argued the policy violates the rights of gay military members to free speech, due process and open association.

“If they wish to serve in our armed forces, homosexuals must conceal the core of their identity, they must lie — in violation of their honor and duty,” Woods said. “Our military excludes these men and women from service solely on the basis of status and conduct that is constitutionally protected.”

U.S. Department of Justice attorney Paul G. Freeborne said that the government will present only the legislative history of the policy and no witnesses or other evidence during the trial. Their defense consists only of insisting that the policy is in the process of being repealed and the court is overstep its bounds to hear the case at all.

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips decided that the “possibility that action by the legislative and executive branches will moot this case is sufficiently remote.” Sadly, she may be right. Until the legislation is voted through by the Senate, clears reconciliation, is signed by the President, and then the policy change is deemed by both the administration and the military to be sufficiently non-disruptive, there is no repeal.

I am appreciative that the administration is not seeking to argue from the perspective of bigotry or the presumption of heterosexual superiority and is presenting no substantive defense. Perhaps they should consider this approach for all discriminatory anti-gay legislation they feel they have an obligation to defend.

Pentagon’s DADT Survey Released

It’s posted online here. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network warns LGBT servicememembers against taking the survey, citing privacy concerns. Citizens for Repeal, however, urges LGBT servicemembers to take the survey. Servicemembers United, which had urged LGBT servicemembers to take the survey, now calls it “derogatory and insulting” in a press release.

I have privacy concerns myself, but as I look at the survey I don’t find it derogatory or insulting. Unless you think a survey ought not include opportunities for homophobes to express their opinion. But if a survey only allows people to respond in a pro-LGBT manner, then why bother asking anyone anything?

Update: A Pentagon spokesperson acknowledged that these 32 pages are an “authentic portion of the survey, but it isn’t the complete version.” In other words, it’s not the whole thing.