Here's the thing: the DOD has made it pretty darn clear it is basically impossible to discharge anyone under DADT unless they want to be discharged. And by want, like really really want. Like request an expedited discharge from the Secretary of the Air Force after being reminded of the pending demise of DADT, want. Which seems to be exactly what occurred.

I say 'seems to be' as not much else has been released, and likely won't be released unless this airman wants his or her information aired publicly. Most don't.

I don't know if any of you remember this: In 2002 there was a mass discharges of linguists under DADT from the Defense Language Institute. In fact, this group was the impetus for the focus on linguists in a subsequent study by what is now the Palm center, which in turn created the linguist talking point in the fight for repeal. What is not well known is not all of those discharges were involuntary (well, as involuntary as a DADT discharge can be).

Now, though the mechanism for adding the amendment to the defense bill is similar to what we did last year in the Senate with the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (get it?), the reasoning is a bit different. Put on your thinking cap for a second and take a sip of latte, because the next few paragraphs are a bit wordy.

Ok, here goes: If an amendment in the Senate is attached to the defense bill as part of the SASC markup in committee it only requires 50% of the committee to approve, whereas adding amendments to the Defense bill on the floor post-committee requires 60% of Senate to approve to overcome any filibuster. Likewise, an amendment added in committee requires 60% of the full Senate to remove it (to overcome any filibuster).

The House doesn't have filibusters, so with Hunter's amendment the 60% rule doesn't apply. This means in and out of committee an amendment to a bill requires only a simple majority (50+%) to be added, and only a simple majority to be removed.

Next: How seriously should you take this?

We had TVs set up around the dining area which usually played Armed Forces Network (AFN) broadcasts. Usually it was innocuous news or some state of the day, and went relatively ignored by the janes and joes rushing to eat and make formation on time.

I had glanced at one of the TVs and saw a plane crashing into a tower. The sound was off, and I didn't think anything of it, assuming it was some war movie or another. Why would I suspect anything different? We were a peace-time military. My mind pre-occupied with keeping Korean vocabulary words in my short-term memory for a test that day, I dashed out the chow hall and towards company formation between A and C company buildings.

Formation started late with whispers of what happened starting to grow. I immediately connected the image I saw on TV with what was happening. The 1SG confirmed the rumors, allowed anyone with family in NYC to leave formation to call home, and told us that our training at the moment was to be unchanged.

The fight for allowing open service within South Korean ranks is a bit different from the fight in the U.S. South Korean youth are forced into mandatory conscription with no recognition of conscientious objection, so recruiting shortages are not a driving issue. In fact, not fulfilling one's military obligation by taking advantage of various deferrals or work-arounds is seen as a sign of cowardice, in many cases severely limiting one's societal status. When asked about their sexual orientation in pre-service psychological questioning, many South Koreans opt to lie and endure three years of silence rather than risk social stigma.

A deeper comparative look between the US and South Korea after the jump.

I feel especially guilty taking the elevator to my appointment. It's on the fourth floor, but when I'm surrounded by three folks in wheelchairs and another struggling to hold on to the side of the elevator, the functionality of my all-too-healthy legs becomes more apparent. I have five minutes before I'm late for my appointment, however, so on I board and up I go.

Only one of the wheelchairs is attended by a caregiver. The other two weakly push their vehicles into the elevator, one dropping a ziploc full of quarters. I dive to pick them up before they spill too much, only partially successful before handing the bag back to the man as the elevator doors close. The standing patient looks at me, smiles, and says, "Oorah, Marine." I'm wearing my Servicemembers United t-shirt, olive green with the SU logo on the chest, my hair freshly buzzed. I shake my head. "Naw, man, Army."

"Well, then Hooah." Still grasping the side of the elevator, he swallows, leans in close, whispers: "You know they got cheerleaders on the 4th floor today? Yeah man, they're signing autographs and everything." I fake interest, grinning. "No kidding? Man, I came on a good day then."

"Yeah, boy. They got brownies, and this Casino Day thing going on. You should check it out." I don't make any effort to let him know the cheerleaders hold no interest for me. I don't feel up to it, and besides, he didn't come to learn about gay rights.

He came to be helped.

What Happened:

Negotiations on how to introduce NDAA between Senators Reid and Collins failed, and Reid dropped the bill anyway in the same exact manner that he did in September.

Over the past week, Collins had made clear to Reid that in order to get enough Republicans on board to pass repeal (roughly 3 - 4), the amendment process needed to be fair, and it needed to be done after tax cuts were knocked out. Reid saw Republican resistance to NDAA as another partisan ploy, and while it was possible to get R's on board to see the issue through, the amount of time NDAA could potentially take up in the lame duck made pushing the issue much less appealing.

It's key to note here that Collins was not committing to a "no" vote OR ELSE. It's more that she was functioning as a mediator between noble Washington (Lieberman, Mark Udall, et al) and partisan Washington (Reid, McCain, et al). Her efforts convinced Reid Wednesday night to take more time to negotiate the process, negotiations that were not complete Thursday morning. Upon finding out the Republicans were ready to tackle tax-cuts yesterday morning, Reid chose to delay his decision on when to go forward on NDAA.

Thursday afternoon - while Sen. Lincoln was away on a dentist appointment and Collins out of the room - Reid unexpectedly and with little announcement dropped NDAA for a vote with a partisan speech mostly complaining about Republican obstructionism and how there wasn't enough time to do NDAA if they waited beyond Thursday to drop the bill (which was true only if Reid kept to the December 17th adjournment date he himself set). Collins rushed into the room in a last attempt to keep the bill from failing, pleading that she did not understand why he was doing this when negotiations were almost complete. Reid dropped the bill anyway.

Vote count and breakdown of the standlone bill, after the jump.

Today, Reid will be filing cloture on a number of bills: DREAM, a 9/11 bill, others. Once cloture is filed, it will take 30 hours before the Senate can actually vote on the respective motions to proceed. Tuesday will be taken up by discussing whether to remove a judge.

This leaves us with Thursday and Friday, which Reid has set aside for START, tax cuts, others. And possibly filing cloture on a motion to proceed on NDAA. After which 30 hours are needed to go forward on the bill, meaning the Senate can't start debating DADT until Saturday, December 11 at the very earliest.

Now, assuming the barest minimum fair amendment process is utilized with the least amount of time, and assuming Reid keeps to the target December 17th end date of the lame-duck for the Senate, this leaves us with only a few days to conference NDAA, with a Christmas week bill signing by the President. Possible, but increasingly unlikely.

Bottom line: we're skirting it close. Very, very close. Unless NDAA is bumped up on the priority poll, it's difficult to see how DADT will get repealed this year.

The community will disagree over who to pressure over repeal. I think it's pretty clear.

Key Themes

The study immediately hones in on some key distinctions: the level of unit success for those who suspect they served with someone gay or lesbian at the time and those who have not (92% reported the unit's ability to work together ranged from neutral to very good for the former), and the idea of the effects of open service versus the reality (statements that indicated a difference in reaction to suspecting versus knowing).

These serve to prove the point that fears of open service are largely rhetorical and based on stereotypical bias. This idea is repeated throughout the study, including a section in the recommendations that dismisses a number of concerns due to the basis in such bias.

One could easily conclude that a number of those fearing open service simply needs to work with a gay and/or lesbian service member to overcome their initial resistance, which compliments past research on the topic very well.

Much more, after the jump.

This study is good. Really good. Incredibly exhaustive, you will be hard pressed to find aspects relative to the how of repeal not covered by the study (though there are a few items missed, which I get to after the jump).

The problem is that the study is so exhaustive - weighing in at a whopping 267 pages - most won't read the dang thing and at best read the 17 page executive summary which does a pretty good job of incorporating all the key talking points of the research.

But that's no fun. More interesting - well, to me at least - is digging deep in the weeds and finding secondary and tertiary connections between data points that are not so obvious in the executive study, identify potential flaws in the methodology, and really have a thorough understanding of what the Pentagon Working Group spent most of 2010 researching.

I think it's important for you to be informed on what the study actually says, so I'm splitting this up into two parts. Part 1 will be my general take on the study as a whole, while Part 2 will go into details of methodology, themes, sidenotes, and an item that is set to really piss the LGBT community off - if we let it.

The study came out a little over an hour ago, and most are still analyzing. Reports that you'll see will be based mostly on the executive summary of the report given to a handful of reporters in the Pentagon an hour before the press conference, and responses you'll see from organizations will also be mostly based on that summary. Really, responses to the study will be based on the executive summary until the Senate hearings on the study on Thursday and Friday.

Anyway, I'll be among those analyzing the study all evening, but in short: troops don't care, long term effects are non-existent, and short-term effects will be isolated and few. This will be spun around the same talking points on both sides, and you'll begin to see the true colors of your members of Congress.

Admiral Mullen participated in a couple Sunday roundtables, stating on This Week that Marine Commandant General Amos's sinister whispers of risks of repeal contradicted both the study which all the Joint Chiefs had in hand and the agreement among the Chiefs that dissent would be discussed privately and not publicly. He then further elaborated to Candy Crowley on State of the Union that Amos has stated publicly that if the law changes, the Marines will do it dutifully and "better than anybody else."

Chief of Naval Operations (another one of the Joint Chiefs) Admiral Roughead has all but recanted his previous position on repealing DADT legislatively anytime soon, praising the comprehensiveness of the Pentagon study in an echo of Jim Webb's comments late last week.

And, now, Gates has announced the study will be released one day early, on November 30. To Congress. This means hearings on the study can be bumped up sooner, and a vote on a motion to proceed could happen...on schedule.

This is about as good as we could hope for at this point in the lame-duck. Why? Find out, after the jump.

• Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) announced his intention to bring NDAA back to the floor after the Thanksgiving recess, a period which starts on November 29 and could potentially (but likely won't) continue until Christmas Eve.
• SASC Chairman Senator Carl Levin's (D-MI) response was that he would push to see repeal of DADT through and do his damnedest to prevent a filibuster, and mentioned that he also requested Reid hold off on the motion to proceed until panels looking at that notorious DOD work study group are completed. He expects the panels to happen "the first few days of December."
• Earlier in the day, the White House specifically stated they called Levin's office to "reiterate their commitment" to seeing repeal of DADT this year, and vaguely referencing calls to other Senate offices (offices that evidently don't include Lieberman and Collins, if Gibbs is to be believed).

How to interpret all this, after the jump.

So Friday afternoon HRC put out a press release demanding the Pentagon release its study. NOW. In all caps, in case you didn't pick up on HRC's anger. This is the same day Tony Perkins freaked out over leaks coming from the Pentagon on its review. The Pentagon committed to investigating the leaks, but held its ground on releasing the study 'when its ready.' Guess what folks? The study is ready. But because the Pentagon was put on the spot by HRC, any hope of releasing the study early has been dashed because to do otherwise would be the military caving in to lefty gay radicals. Duh.

Outserve and Knights Out intend on endorsing stripping DADT from NDAA. No, seriously. Neither org has any Hill presence, is part of any DC coalition meetings, and therefore has any way of having better knowledge on if we have the votes to pass DADT repeal as a stand alone bill in the lame duck. All signs point to We Don't.

Oh, I'm not done. More, after the jump.

A number of cool DADT events are happening across the country for Vet's day. Jeff Correa and Jason Knight are going on a 40+ mile walk across Northern California right in the vicinity of the military's language school, the Defense Language Institute. Scott Spychala is leading an event with DOD Federal Globe in Indiana. Justin Elzie GetEqual has launched a Veteran's Week to rally for repeal. Plus tons more. All this is to show the LGBT vet community is taking the lame-duck vote seriously, and for that I am eternally proud.

That's it for DADT today. But not for veterans.

I'm going to ask you to spread your scope beyond LGBT vets today, as our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan have created a silent price that will be paid for the rest of our generation, if not longer. More, after the jump.

This is not a story, folks.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is responsible for figuring out how to push NDAA forward this year, if it can. Levin is chair of that committee, McCain the ranking Republican. Levin is an ally, McCain is not. During the negotiations process, options not favorable to us will be floated. This is just one option. Other options such as going forward with a continuing resolution without voting on NDAA, going forward with limiting amendments, etc. will also be discussed. These discussions are not absolutely necessary, but a means to prevent filibuster on a motion to proceed on the bill. With no filibuster, NDAA could be done in a week. And the less time spent on the bill, the more likely it will go forward.

Should you still lose your shit? Absolutely. More, after the jump.