Blogs and Stories
The Surprising Holdouts on Don't Ask Don't Tell
During the campaign for president, Barack Obama promised to end the military’s ban on gays. So what's the holdup? Exclusive new information from Daily Beast contributor Jason Bellini reveals that gay leaders may be to blame.
Jason Bellini is a freelance TV journalist who has worked for MTV, CBS, and CNN. In 2006, he received the Journalist of the Year award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Sarah Drops the Act
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Palin's Gold Mine
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
Finally, Action on Gay Soldiers
Jason Bellini is a freelance TV journalist who has worked for MTV, CBS, and CNN. In 2006, he received the Journalist of the Year award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.
"Don't Ask" Fight Hits Senate
Jason Bellini is a freelance TV journalist who has worked for MTV, CBS, and CNN. In 2006, he received the Journalist of the Year award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.
Washington's Homeless Power Brokers
Jason Bellini is a freelance TV journalist who has worked for MTV, CBS, and CNN. In 2006, he received the Journalist of the Year award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.
The Daily Beast Video curates the most essential and entertaining video, and brings you original and exclusive productions from our talented contributors.
20 Outrageous Oprah Moments
The Daily Beast Video curates the most essential and entertaining video, and brings you original and exclusive productions from our talented contributors.
Palin's 7 Best Moments on Oprah
The Daily Beast Video curates the most essential and entertaining video, and brings you original and exclusive productions from our talented contributors.
November 15, 2009: Top 7 Moments From Sunday Talk
The Daily Beast Video curates the most essential and entertaining video, and brings you original and exclusive productions from our talented contributors.
terrific piece Jason. Drives home why people are starting to get so frustrated.
Jason, the premise of your piece is flawed, in that in this country, right now, we do not have "gay leaders" who make deals with the White House. The HRC does indeed have some influence, but the head of the HRC is not a "gay leader." It is very odd that you would say "The Daily Beast has learned...," without attributing your information to a credible source. Learned from who? It is also odd that you would then include an audio comment form the head of the HRC absolutely disputing your claim. To give your piece credibility, you would need some good, reliable sources and you would need to name them. I certainly agree that this issue needs to be put on the fast track, but if you choose to report about them, you must make sure that you have indisputable facts and that your sources go on record.
Paul A. Greenberg
Journalism Professor - New Orleans, LA
Paul,
Thanks for watching the piece. I'd like to respond to your comment.
Robust journalism, particularly in Washington, is often forced to rely on anonymous sources.
As a general rule, one source is not enough. That's a rule I follow.
I pursued a lead beginning a few weeks ago, and in the course of my reporting found multiple, credible sources -- some of them working for members of Congress -- who insisted upon remaining anonymous.
As far as whether I properly characterized the head of HRC as a "gay leader", I'm confused as to why you'd have any issue with that.
I'm not looking to get into a debate or discussion on here, but I thought it important to address your questioning of my use of anonymous sources.
Thanks,
Jason Bellini
"Robust journalism" ... "forced to rely on anonymous sources"... what a load of crap that is. As Glenn Greenwald has blogged about forEVER and EVER ad nauseum, on Salon.com "anonymous source" is ETHICALLY given when the person requesting anonymity is afraid to lose their job, or be murdered. Giving anonymity cuz someone asks for it is not responsible OR robust journalism. How do we know you didn't just make this all up?
This is not journalism without some NAMED sources. Working for members of Congress does not give them blanket anonymity. What are they afraid of? Just curious. I don't understand the reasoning behind them wanting to stay "in the closet" (okay, sorry, I couldn't help it, the pun was too easy).
cheers!
~L
Mazel Tov, Jason!!
You no longer work for CBS and the MSM. You can actually work for the good of the GLBT community. I know that you have the DC GLBT cocktail sipping and obscene salaried "gay leadership" pegged. These individuals are engaged in gradualism and incrementalism to support the Obama administration's pragmatic centrism. This is merely the second generation of those who supported Clinton with WW jobs and access to corridors of power. I do not support them, but rather Olson and Boies and the Perry, Stier, Katami and Zarrillo v Schwarzenegger lawsuit....which may end up as OUR Loving v Virginia....while the so-called "leaders" want a strategy that has produced nothing but the fear to proceed for full equality under law.
Paul
I'm not a fan of having sources on the record, but I do get that that is unfortunately the way DC operates.
But the premise of the piece is that some gays want to put stop throwing gays out of the military now, while others think it should continue. What's Bellini's piece shows is that it is ironic is that a lesbian member of Congress is putting it off, while a straight member of Congress says do it now.
The proof of this story will be whether the ban is lifted this year. If not Bellini got it right and that's what journalists are supposed to do.
I believe very strongly that gays need to have the same rights as all other citizens. I also understand there are many crisis going on right now, and would ask the gay community to please wait just a little more (end of the year, beginning of next) and give the new administration time to take care of the bigger issues (e.g. financial crisis, risks of escalating violence and access to nuclear arms in the middle east and north korea, health care so we can lower deficits in the future years, to name a few). Meanwhile, I would urge everybody who cares about gay rights to continue fighting for the right to marriage.....the tide is turning and it will happen.
Oh yes, by all means, let's wait, shall we? I mean, we're just talking about our civil rights, right? It's not as if this hurts actual people. Pardon my french, but why don't you go fuck yourself since you obviously have no idea that Obama could stop this with a stroke of the pen, same as Truman did with the issue of the segregation of troops.
Is it possible to fuck oneself? Is that a lifestyle choice? So now we have the GLBT&FY 'community'.
Why do GLBT folks segregate themselves?
This user is no longer registered.
okay, NO ONE struggling for equality works that way.
the potus can surely line up their own calendars, we don't have to do it for him. we have to put the pressure on. the potus can handle the pressure of international politics, he can handle ours. social progress doesn't wait for economic time-outs.
democracy walks and chews gum.
It's the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA), not the Unemployment Non-discrimination Act, Mr. Journalist of the Year.
This user is no longer registered.
I agree with Greenberg. Speaking as a former member of the HRC presidents club - the HRC under Joe Solmonese has grown increasingly partisan and can't be relied on to represent the interests of a diverse GLBT community. They are not a "leader" but a lobbying group. And not a very good one at that.
Guess my comment correcting the Journalist of the Year on the basic goof that its the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA) and not the Unemployment Non-discrimination Act isn't going to be posted here?
Lloplo99, are you serious in your comment?
That you would ask any group of individuals (no matter what their size in numbers) to wait for them to have the same equal rights as their counterparts speaks volumes about how strongly you feel "that gays need to have the same rights as all other citizens"
No people should ever be asked to wait for their civil rights. Its degrading, repulsive, and its wrong.
The very idea of anonymous sources must cease! If someone does not want to be quoted then do not use that persons ideas.
The GLBT community has had enough promises, all of them broken by the very people sworn to protect the rights of the oppressed minorities. The members of Congress must act, President Obama, must act NOW! No more waiting, no more
broken dreams, the time is NOW to act upon our consciences and not let the Far Right Wing Nuts, drive the agenda.
For too long we have all waited, for too long we have all been denied the privilege of true citizenship. No more waiting, we demand action and NOW!
Does the homosexual community know the hell that will be raised if Great Leader tries to impose gays on the military. (Yes, I know, they're there, forced to remain a decent reticence. Keep it that way or kick them out as a threat to unit cohesion.)
The unit cohesion argument is total BS. Today's soldiers are far more tolerant and educated than past generations. I know because I am one and I'm here in Iraq now. Hell, I'm even in an infantry unit, something that is really quite world's apart from other units- a "wholly different animal" as my chaplain called us last week. In this environment, where the only thing we fight for is the guy next to us, not some bullshit idea propagated by any civilian leader, Republican or Democrat, means that as long as that guy is a good soldier, we don't really give a fiddler's fart if he or she is gay or not. The DADT policy, codified in the UCMJ as the SAMs Act (statements, acts, and marriages) does more to create hostile situations for gay soldiers than keep things on an even keel. A gay soldier who has to hide who he is to do something he wants to do is abominable. For those of us who have some deep- seated, societally- or religiously- impressed aversion to those of the GLBT stripe, we'll just have to learn that with the overturning of DADT we have to act civil. It is a punishable offense to use racial epithets, the same would apply to anti- gay speech or rhetoric. I have 8 soldiers under my leadership and every one of them has gay friends back home. If any one of my guys is gay (and I can't know because I can't ask and he can't tell) it wouldn't make a lick of difference to how we operate as a team or how we fight.
As a side bar I'd just like to add that the majority of people in the public sphere who have comments to make about the military have either never been in the military or are too removed from today's military to know what the fuck they're talking about.
Thanks for the great post, Joe.
JoeHill, I would bet a large sum you know exactly which guys are gay. Homosexuals always do. As for "A gay soldier who has to hide who he is to do something he wants to do is abominable," the key to that sentence is "something he wants to do." Healthy males find buggery a revolting practice, as I think you know very well. As for everyone knowing someone gay back home, I doubt it. They are only 3 to 4 percent of the population, not the 10 percent claimed by the depraved "sex researcher" Alfred Kinsey.
Nice attempt at calling me a homosexual. Yeah, my "gaydar" is in fine working order you fucking shitbag. You exemplify ignorance and intolerance. The "...wants to do..." I mentioned was being a soldier, not "buggery," and the keyto that sentence is "(a) gay soldier who has to hide who he is..." You read what you want because you're blinded by hate and incapable of rational thought. And yes, EVERY ONE OF MY SOLDIERS has a friend back home who is a homosexual. You can't possibly even begin to pretend to know me or my men so don't go there again banjo.
Joe, thank you for the post. And big thank you to you and your men for the service to our country.
Thanks! I was hoping someone on the "sharp end" would chime in on this subject- as far as I'm concerned you and your fellow line troops have the only opinion that counts for anything but noise.
This user is no longer registered.
Banjo1's parents are siblings. No other explanation for him. He just likes to stir the pot. Best to ignore the inbreed.
I really appreciate Jason's reporting. The desperation of the HRC denials only confirms to me that it's true. People are sick and tired of "just wait a few more years". Goddamit, people have been saying that since Army soldier of the year Jose Zuniga came out at the March on Washington back in 93-94. It was the exact same situation we still have now. How many lifelong careers have been erases since then and dreams shattered? How can these pigs look in crying eyes of kids like Shirley Tan's sons and tell them "Just wait a few years and then we will fight to get your Mommy the right to return to the USA".
Ralph777, why would Americans want to damage the military to satisfy the sexual needs of a tiny minority. If homosexuals get their way, the ranks will swell with people wanting to be among their own kind. Remember what happened to the Catholic Church after the seminaries became like gay fraternities?
NO Banjo, enlighten me as to what happened to my Church after seminaries became like gay fraternities.
One slip up on banjo's part is coming soon. He cannot deal.
Your name is Banjo? How fitting. Please, do us all a favor and head back to the smokey mountains, have some fun inbreeding yourself into oblivion and leave the rest of the civilized world alone.
This user is no longer registered.
UN-believable. Did someone type this for you?
Nice job, Jason!
I believe that DADT is dishonorable and unhealthy. That being said, whatever President Obama strikes down with a pen can be undone and constitutionally he isn't allowed to make law. I am just quessing from Gates response to reporters that top military officials do not want to rock the boat in the middle of two wars. If so, I strongly disagree, but understand that a media frenzy over 'hate" crimes that could ensue makes it a "hot potato" I can't guarantee that Gay soldiers would not be persecuted and/or killed by other soldiers in a war zone. I might feel that it wasn't worth the risk if the life of a soldier was my responsibility. I don't know. I do know that DADT sends the message that there is something shameful about who you are and that is just wrong. It violates personal integrity.
This user is no longer registered.
Banjo1 posted: "Why would Americans want to damage the military to satisfy the sexual needs of a tiny minority. If homosexuals get their way, the ranks will swell with people wanting to be among their own kind. Remember what happened to the Catholic Church after the seminaries became like gay fraternities?"
Banjo1, the basic premise from which you depart to every idea that you espouse is fundamentally flawed. Why do narrow-minded anti-gay bigots frame our lives as purely sexual? Should gay people view ALL heterosexuals as fixated and obsessed with sexual experiences, as played out nightly & infamously in heterosexual singles bars and strip clubs? Does that describe EVERY heterosexual, including yourself? Is that WHO you are? and ALL that you are? Perhaps I should completely rethink my perception of the lives of heterosexuals, given your tunnel-visioned view of mine.
Your comments reveal a capacity for thinking that approximates the size of the pixels dispensed to express them.
Most folks agree that DADT should go. Popular opinion is now strongly behind repealing this onerous regulation. Please check out the Gallup poll at : http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/Conservatives-Shift-Favor-Openly-Gay-Serv ice-Members.aspx. All the president and or congress need to do is the paperwork. Boys and girls, BTW, I would not even respond to negative posts. By making a reply to these small-minded, provincial rants, these writers are encouraged to be more vitriolic and receive more attention. Write to the president and to our congressional representatives.
My view is this. Obama doesn't have to worry about alienating the gay commnity for these reasons? #1 - They will mostly vote for him or not at all. #2 - He risks losing a lot more votes by giving special rights. He's a cunning politician and will hang anyone out to dry that won't give him political leverage. Everyone deserves a fair shake.
Good piece, Mr. Bellini. Thank you.
As for the rest of the yak-yak-yak here...
same ol', same ol'....
The more I read the comments -
Here and various other columns and pieces...
daily...
the more I realize Shakespeare was right.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.