Another reason DADT should be repealed

She followed the rules and stayed in the closet - and someone else outed her to the military, so now she's been discharged under DADT.

Jene Newsome played by the rules as an Air Force sergeant: She never told anyone in the military she was a lesbian. The 28-year-old's honorable discharge under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.

[...]

Newsome was at work at the base at the time and refused to immediately come home and assist the officers in finding her partner, whom she married in Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — in October.

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome's home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.

[...]

In the complaint filed last month with the department, ACLU South Dakota said police had no legal reason to tell the military Newsome was a lesbian and that officers knew if they did, it would jeopardize her military career.

Newsome, who was discharged in January, said she didn't know where the marriage license was in her home when police came to her house on Nov. 20 and claims the officers were retaliating because she wouldn't help with her partner's arrest.

This was blatant retaliation, despite the police department's claims that once they knew they "had" to tell the military. They knew that giving that information to her superiors would destroy her career - it's not like DADT is a secret. Telling the military she's a lesbian could do nothing to help them bring in her partner, the only possible goal was to hurt Newsome for not cooperating.

This is another example of why DADT is just wrong. You can follow the rules, staying deep in the closet and keeping any relationships a deep, dark secret, but if someone else outs you to the military, your career is destroyed anyway.

We already make gays and lesbians hide who they are for their entire military careers. Should we also make them take a vow of celibacy and eschew all romantic relationships for as long as they serve? I might support that - but only if we require heterosexuals to do the same thing.

Update: A little research prompted by a debate going on over at A Conservative Shemale has revealed that we actually do effectively make gays and lesbians take a vow of celibacy when they join the military. From the actual DADT law (10 U.S.C. 654)

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts

[...]

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

[omitted sections deal with exceptions to the law]

So gays who join the military can't have a romantic relationship (after all, even kissing or holding hands by two men can be considered "a homosexual act or acts"). I stand by my original conclusion: I might support that - but only if we apply it to heterosexuals, too.

What?

Here's news to me - the U.S. Department of Education has "combat training and protocol[s]" that require short-barreled shotguns. What the heck does the Dept. of Education need combat training and protocols for? Raids on unauthorized homeschoolers?

(h/t SayUncle)

Oh, HELL No!

Real ID 2.0, anyone?

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

Can you think of a better way to unite large numbers of conservatives and liberals than this? I mean, Real ID has states passing laws making it illegal for state agencies to comply with parts of the RealID Act. Why?

Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.

Potentially controversial? What planet were they living on when Real ID was being debated? Do they really think Americans have changed enough that quickly for this to not stir up a rain of fecal matter?

Also, unless there's a central database that the information is checked against every time the card is read, I predict it will take less than six months for criminals to crack the code on the cards and start making fakes that read with biometrics matching whoever they decide to give the card to. Less than a year to spoof it, if there is a database (unless some .gov idiot leaks the whole bloody database on a 'lost' laptop, sooner).

"It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."

Exactly. Just like social security numbers were only supposed to be used for Social Security purposes. It will spread to everything.

(h/t A Conservative Shemale)

Yet more Climate Change shenanigans

Now it's NASA/GISS cooking the numbers.

Now a new "Climategate" scandal is emerging, this time based on documents released by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in response to several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suits filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The newly released emails further demonstrate the politicized nature of climate science, revealing a number of questionable practices that cast doubt on the credibility of scientific data provided by NASA.

[...]

In another email, he reveals that NASA had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis. “[NASA's] assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data… may not have been correct,” he says.

[...]

Unfortunately, it seems that the discrepancy privately highlighted by Dr. Ruedy was not coincidental, but part of a broader pattern of misrepresentation on the part of GISS. Between 2002 and 2005, GISS chief James Hansen issued press releases headlined "2005 Warmest Year in a Century;" "2006 was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year;" and "The 2002 meteorological year is the second warmest year in the period of accurate instrumental data." In other words, global warming is happening and that immediate action is necessary.

[...]

In fact, further corrections revealed by the emails indicate that U.S. temperatures on average had only increased by 0.5 degree Celsius since 1934, rather than 1 degree, as originally claimed.

There's more - you should go read the whole thing. Remember - even in science - where there's money involved, there's politics involved.

(h/t SayUncle)

Repeal of Virginia's restaurant CHP ban passes

According to the VCDL Blog, SB334, repealing the ban on concealed carry in restaurants, passed the House today unchanged with a vote of 72 to 27! It should be in front of the Governor McDonnell in a week or so. He has indicated in the past that he would sign such a bill, so it's pretty much a done deal.

McDonald v. Chicago - Oral arguments today

Update: Analysis: 2d Amendment extension likely (from SCOTUSBlog)

This is troubling, though:

The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge. [emphasis mine]

Why is that relevant? Or, to echo a point Mr. Gura made at one time, the SCOTUS should be concerning itself with what the Constitution means, not whether it’s a good idea to follow it.

-----
Just a reminder, oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago are at 10:00 today. Apparently, SCOTUS has decided they will not release the audio, but the transcript should be available later today.

Holy Bullshit!

This fills me with a sick rage.

They ride around seeking out girls who they feel sinned by wearing revealing clothing (anyone who isn't dressed in an ankle-length skirt with a shirt buttoned up all the way and a kerchief covering her hair, apparently), and pass out repugnant pamphlets blaming rape victims for the actions of deranged lunatics who seek power by sexually violating women!

One passage from the pamphlet reads:

“Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts a men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin,” the leaflet states.“By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?” [emphasis mine]

Nicki hits the nail on the head:

The only difference between these drooling, frothing zealots and their Taliban counterparts is that they haven't gained enough power to start stoning women to death for provocative dress yet.

I hope I never run into one of these idiots. Testing the limits of my self-control is not a good thing, and I really don't need to deal with an assault trial - but someone who tries to tell me a rape victim brought it on herself because of the way she was dressed stands a good chance of losing many teeth. Though I would push for a jury trial if I lost that battle, since I doubt the jury selection process could find 12 people around here who would vote to convict.

Oh, and on a separate note (from the same post at Nicki's) - Pat Robertson, you really need to drink a big tall glass of STFU, you evil piece of revolting buzzard excrement.

Quote of the Day - 1 March 2010

From Tam, remembering her office's first Win95 install:

"You mean all the machines in the office have a browser icon on the desktop?"

"Yes," she replied.

"And a fat pipe right to the Web?"

"Uh-huh."

"And this seems like a good idea to you?"

If only we knew.

A School Shooting, and a Heroic Teacher

There was a school shooting in Colorado today:

One male and one female were shot at about 3:30 p.m. outside Deer Creek Middle School in Littleton, Jefferson County Sheriff's office spokeswoman Jacki Kelley said. Both students were taken to a nearby hospital and were expected to survive.

Student Steven Seagraves said he was about 10 feet away when an adult approached students and asked them: "Do you guys go to this school?"

When the students said they did, he shot them, Seagraves said.

Seventh-grade math teacher David Benke, a 6-foot-5 inch former college basketball player who oversees the school's track team, tackled the suspect as he was trying to reload his weapon.

Nobody could have blamed Mr. Benke for running for cover. He was unarmed, against someone with a rifle. He saw an opening and took it - at great risk to his own life - to protect his students.

"He was trying to rack another round. He couldn't get another round in before I got to him so I grabbed him," Benke said, recalling that he didn't have time to fear for his life.

They don't say what kind of rifle it was, other than "high-powered" - of course, to the MSM, any rifle is "high-powered." The story says he was reloading, but it sounds more like it may have jammed. I suppose we'll find out later, though I don't expect the media to get it right without getting it wrong at least three different times.

[Update Feb. 24, 2010: NPR says this morning that it was a bolt-action rifle.]

At this time, the shooter appears to have no connection to the school, and no motive has been released.

Good job Mr. Benke, it sounds like you prevented a massacre. Any praise I can offer will fall infinitely short of what you deserve for your courage and quick thinking. Don't beat yourself up because you couldn't stop the first shots - when you have no reason to expect an attack, the attacker will always have the initiative, and the advantage of surprise. You overcame that, and took advantage of a single moment pure, blind luck to save many children.

More Climategate, and other things

Jenn over at A Conservative Shemale gives us a great multi-subject post today, starting with more problems for the whole global warming/cooling/climate-change thingamabob:

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

[...]

“One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes.”

They didn't "allow fully for temperature change over the last 2,000 years." Doesn't that cover the entire period where any man-made climate change would actually have occurred? That's some "mistake"!

She then links us to an article where the AGW pushers are trying to defend their claims.

[N]one of that gets at the question du jour, which is how big a role humans are playing. Until later on. Lashof and Deans say it’s a big one, and their source for saying so is a government report compiled by the nation’s top science, defense, and diplomatic agencies—NOAA, NASA, the Pentagon, the National Science Foundation, the Department of State (none of which have been marred in scandal)—over the course of two decades, through four presidential administrations.

Notice their source is a government report - they don't say where the agencies got their data for the report. Remember, most of the problems cropping up recently in the whole AGW theory are about problems with the data. It doesn't matter how "nonpartisan" the report is if it's based on corrupted, compromised, cherry-picked, or imaginary data.

She also hits on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, taking us to an article about a study showing that other militaries have found allowing openly gay soldiers to continue to serve has not been disruptive even with rapid transitions.

A comprehensive new study on foreign militaries that have made transitions to allowing openly gay service members concludes that a speedy implementation of the change is not disruptive. The finding is in direct opposition to the stated views of Pentagon leaders, who say repealing a ban on openly gay men and women in the United States armed forces should take a year or more.

Remember, a lot of the people pushing for a "slow" repeal of DADT are the ones who don't want it repealed in the first place - or would prefer to go back to the complete ban that existed before DADT.

She has more, too, but you should go to her blog to read it all.