Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Study suggests "no negative impact" from sudden repeal of DADT

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Study suggests "no negative impact" from sudden repeal of DADT
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/10/13782623-no-negative-impacts-from-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-study-reveals?lite

I had proposed a slow repeal, starting with Special Forces, Army, Air Force, then Navy, and leading up to Marines.

On the whole I'd say that I'm relieved to have been wrong; overall this has been without event.

But I unfortunately appear to have been correct that the Marines would have the highest resistance to the repeal of DADT. (see MSNBC story involving Marines in anti-gay hate crime ...)

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's good this didn't have any negative effect and kudos to Obama for pushing it through.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While this is good news, I notice:
quote:
They also reached out to 553 of the nearly 1,200 generals and admirals who signed a 2009 letter saying the repeal would undermine the military and eventually got interviews with 13 officers.
Reaching any conclusion when less than two percent of the most prominent of those who objected were willing to talk reveals the difficulty of conducting such surveys. Those who refused to respond may well feel that reiterating their opposition would serve no purpose, and would be seen as disloyal to the services they represent. In particular, if they denounced the change and any hate crimes ensued perhaps quite by chance, they could well be suspected of inciting them. There really seems to have been little upside for those still opposed in repeating their opposition. But those whose opinion has changed have more reason to make that known.

[ September 11, 2012, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The military has a tradition of not criticizing one's superiors. The personal opinion of those officers is already out there in the face of that policy, so perhaps they either have been reprimanded, or more likely, feel that they have already spoken. In either case the facts appear to be that there is no system problem resulting from the repeal.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only concern of mine that I haven't seen answer is the fear that recruitment would drop. Has anyone seen any numbers on that? Again, I'd be delighted to be wrong, as I apparently was (mostly) wrong about a hate crime wave in the Marines.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The latest recruitment figures I could find were from only seven months after the repeal of DADO, but they were encouraging. 100% or above recruitment for all branches of the military, except for the Army Reserves, which met only 98% of its goal. All branches also "exhibited strong retention through the tenth month of fiscal 2012," whatever that means. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Excerpts from Wikipedia's entry on the fiscal year include:
quote:
A fiscal year (or financial year, or sometimes budget year) is a period used for calculating annual ("yearly") financial statements in businesses and other organizations. In many jurisdictions, regulatory laws regarding accounting and taxation require such reports once per twelve months, but do not require that the period reported on constitutes a calendar year (that is, 1 January to 31 December). Fiscal years vary between businesses and countries.
quote:
Some companies choose to end their fiscal year on the same day of the week, such day being the one closest to a particular date (for example, the Friday closest to 31 December). Under such a system, some fiscal years will have 52 weeks and others 53 weeks.
quote:
Many universities have a fiscal year which ends during the summer, both to align the fiscal year with the school year (and, in some cases involving public universities, with the state government's fiscal year), and because the school is normally less busy during the summer months. In the Northern hemisphere this is July in one year to June in the next year. In the southern hemisphere this is January to December of a single calendar year.
Anyway, "through the tenth month of fiscal 2012" seems to mean from October 1, 2011 through July 31, 2012 according to the particular fiscal year being referenced. The bureaucrat producing this report for the Department of Defense could better have said that, as the wording he chose is just about as long and far harder to understand for most readers.

[ September 15, 2012, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1