Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 134

Video Break: Seattle's wintery answer to Durham's railroad overpass

Typical "snowfall" in Seattle



Seattle Snowpocalypse 2010



It snowed yesterday in Seattle.  In hilly-like-San-Francisco Seattle where it snows too infrequently for people to be practiced in cold-weather driving and too infrequently for the city to invest in adequate plows and salt.  The streets quickly become sheets of ice.  Much hilarity ensues.

When this happens it's best to just stay home and enjoy the local spectator sport: Car Slippage.  Definitely a sport related to Durham Truck Peeling, which Pam has posted about before.

This is an open thread.  What's happening on your streets tonight that's flipcam-worthy?

Back home after my slice-and-dice adventure

If you've been following me on Facebook and Twitter, you know I got online via my phone at the hospital as soon as I could think clearly.

I didn't have the energy to post a diary, but I did upload a thumbs up photo (R) last night. I was in pain, but the nurses kept me on Percocet much of the time, so I was able to sleep.

Well, actually, I didn't sleep much because various nurses came into my room every half-hour or so to check blood sugar, pain meds, blood pressure, etc. I was definitely treated well and carefully monitored. No fever, no chills, thank goodness.

I didn't move most of the night (had catheter), but this AM my discharge was conditional based on whether I could go to the bathroom on my own. Talk about frustrating. I simply couldn't go; and the fatigue from trying was debilitating. This afternoon I had one last try before they were going to have to re-cath me and send me home with that mess. Around 2PM I was successful, and so I was able to leave after I walked around the ward 2x to make sure I could walk without passing out or go into severe pain.

One of the complications I had was some tearing of tissue as the uterus was removed in one piece vaginally after laproscopically detaching it. So that area was swollen and thus affecting my ability to void. It's now off to pathology, with the fibroids intact. I'm really sore, even with the pain meds ratcheted up. Typing this post was challenging; I am almost asleep at the keyboard.

I stayed overnight in the maternity ward, so it was very quiet, and the nurses are all well-versed in gyn stuff. When I was finally able to void this afternoon, they were all excited and doing the happy dance for me. It was hilarious. No one wanted to see me leave with a cath.

So Kate took me home around 3PM, and we stopped to get my painkillers, which I will use sparingly, and we came home to find this on the front porch...

Flowers from sweetie David Mixner.

And speaking of thank yous -- many virtual hugs to all of my colleagues who participated in the "Blogswarm of Love for Pam," as well as those who kindly hit the tip jar or wrote emails/Tweets of support. I don't take health for granted, and given my constellation of inter-related conditions, major surgery is quite a bit more risky than for most folks.

So now I can crash and burn in my own bed with my 5 holes poked in my from the surgery. I report back to the surgeon in a couple of weeks. so hopefully I will beat back any infections.

Now I am going to hit the sack. I'm quite woozy.

Would a Supreme Court Decision Favoring Gay Marriage Decrease Public Support?

When Iowa voters casted out three state judges that voted in favor of gay marriage rights earlier this month, I was reminded how many times a popular vote has been in favor of gay marriage: zero. Even in liberal Maine, voters struck down a gay marriage law.

Instead, gay marriage victories have usually come from the courts. Legalization of gay marriage in Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, D.C., and New Hampshire all resulted from court decisions. Only in Vermont did gay marriage result from a legislative decision, but that still wasn’t a popular vote.

Now five gay marriage lawsuits threaten to bring the issue to the Supreme Court. The issue is whether a Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage would actually decrease public support. Right now, only 41% support letting LGBT people marry. Could this number go down?

The Risk of Backlash

So far court decisions in favor of gay marriage have brought about legislative backlash. Michael Lindenberger explained this week in Time Magazine:

For instance, Hawaii’s ruling pushed Congress to pass the Defense of Marriage Act. The 2003 Goodridge decision legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts but ignited a conservative reaction that saw 11 states vote to amend their constitutions to ban gay marriage — a tide that significantly boosted Republican turnout in critical states in the 2004 elections. . . It happened again just this month when voters tossed out three Iowa Supreme Court justices who had previously ruled in favor of gay marriage.

In fact, when it comes to civil rights, public opinion has historically decreased when courts have ruled against it. Abortion continues to divide the public forty years after the Court ruled in favor of abortion rights in Roe v. Wade.

Or, look at what happened after Furman v. Georgia, when the Court ruled that application of the death penalty had to be consistent to be constitutional. A majority of states passed laws favoring the death penalty, and public support for the death penalty has not decreased in the forty years since.

What Will Happen With Gay Marriage

I think, for whatever reason, gay marriage is different. Last year I talked about two reasons why gay marriage public support is higher in states where marriage laws are challenged.

First, judicial challenges raise public awareness of the issue. When a case reaches the state’s highest court, it puts the topic in everyday conversation, forcing people to take sides. Perhaps people don’t want to appear too conservative on social issues, and once forced to support it in conversation, commit to that support.

Second, court cases may be more likely in states where support for gay marriage has already increased. The more public support for gay marriage increases, the less state laws disallowing it reflect what people want. So, it makes it more likely that people will challenge the laws.

In addition, despite the legislative backlash that has so far followed court decisions in favor of gay marriage, public support has not shown a similar backlash. Instead, the nationwide trend of increasing gay marriage support has remained.

Ultimately, while a Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage could decrease public support, I don’t think it will.

[Cross-posted at the Gay Law Report, where I discuss LGBT laws and related news.]

Fox News refuses to run ad about gay troops

Fox News doesn't want you to know that the result of lesbian & gay soldiers serving openly in other countries is... business as usual.  That's according to Generals from allied militaries, who say that gay troops do not undermine combat effectiveness.  Here's The Palm Center's 30-second advertisement that Fox News refuses to run.

Voiceover: As the millitary prepares to end "don't ask, don't tell", our NATO allies have told us what to expect... Business as usual.

Major General Semianiw: "There is no negative impact of having men and women of any sexual orientation fighting together, be it in Afghanistan, be it in Iraq."

Major General Simon VL Willis (ret): "The lifting of the homosexual ban was a bit like Y2K. It was a non-event, and it continues to be a non-event."

Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin stated: "I am surprised that Fox News would reject an ad featuring allied Generals, given that host Bill O'Reilly and guest contributor Liz Cheney have both expressed support for open gay service. This is an important time for input from all sides on this issue, and I hope Fox will reconsider."

From the Palm Center press release:

The ad includes video clips made in May 2010 featuring Major General Walter Semianiw, Chief of Military Personnel in the Canadian Forces, and Major General Simon Willis (retired), former Head of Defence Personnel in the Australian Defence Force. Major General Semianiw has since been promoted to Lieutenant General and leads Canada Command. ...

According to Central Command's International Security Assistance Force (ISAT) fact sheet, there are more than 1,400 Australian troops and 2,800 Canadian forces fighting alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

"We have reached out to other cable news outlets and still fully intend to air this ad," stated Christopher Neff, Deputy Executive Director of the Palm Center.

Aspirational Verses Tactical - A Tale Of Coffee Talk

Whenever I'm in a room with Robin McGehee (the executive director of GetEQUAL), I become so aware that that I don't have a strategic or tactical mind. Robin, and a many of the people she works with, think in terms of message, strategy, and tactics in a way that I so respect and so admire, but I could never emulate.

What I mean is that Robin would be the kind of woman that would probably excel in a game of chess. She would no doubt be able to see the whole game board as the metaphor of the battlefield that it emulates, think five or more moves in advance, while at the same time thinking about what moves her opponent may make -- five or more moves in advance there too.

I know the rules of chess -- I know how the pieces move on the game board -- but if I play against anyone of skill, I pretty much always lose. I perform better at parlor games where winning isn't important, and the interaction between game players -- even cooperation with other game players -- is the point of the game.

So, I prefer to play parlor games in an environment where cooperation is valued over competition, where collaboration is valued over antagonism, and where egalitarianism is valued a hieratical system of winners and losers. I understand there are usually winners and losers in most any parlor game, but even in those parlor games winners and losers I'd rather win as a member of a team than as a individual winner.

But I wasn't playing a parlor game on November 16th, which was the day after my peers and me engaged in three direct actions...followed by a night in jail. I had walked to the HRC's headquarters from the home I was staying at Washington DC -- a home jokingly referred to by some insiders in DC as the "Taligay House" -- I had walked to the HRC's headquarters under a dark cloudy sky, through streets lined with trees displaying the yellow, orange, and red changing leaves of autumn.

In the lobby of the HRC's headquarters I met my wonderful friend Allyson Robinson -- I didn't want to leave DC without spending some time with her. After we met and shared a warm hug, we took a short walk to a local coffee house that was pretty much just around the corner. It was raining out, so we shared a colorful, wet walk under a pair of umbrellas to reach that nearby coffee house.

At the coffee house, I had the joy of thanking her for her prayer with me before the direct action. I also had the joy of telling her that outfit was gorgeous -- she has such a wonderful bohemian style that she pulls off so very, very well.

Allyson was pretty concerned about how I was treated in jail this time, and she wanted to know if I was okay. Allyson knows I have a bipolar condition, and jail can be traumatic, and she was being an extraordinary, caring friend. I told her that I had been treated with respect in jail, and according to the Park Police policy on transgender prisoners. And too, I felt better than okay -- I felt empowered by this latest action.

You might think that because the HRC has a far less than marvelous history with transgender issues (think Employment Non-Discrimination Act in 2007/2008) that Allyson and I would have an naturally adversarial relationship. I don't have an adversarial relationship at all with her at this point; and I don't want to develop that kind of relationship with her either.

I brought one agenda item -- okay, one agenda item with two parts -- to hers and my coffee house get together. So, I asked her these two questions:

[More below the fold.]

What can I do to help you do your job better? Is there anything you can think of that you might be able to do to help me do my job better?

In real life, as when I play parlor games with others, I prefer cooperation over competition, collaboration over antagonism, and egalitarianism over a hieratical system of winners and losers. I want to be an ally to Allyson in our broader community's fight for freedom, equality, and justice, and I want her to be my ally in the same fight. Being true allies to each other, and to our transgender  subcommunity of our broader lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, seems to require that both of us work to have a relationship built on faith, hope, and trust.

As we left the coffee house, we passed by Joe Solmonese and Robin McGehee -- having what I would humorously characterize as a "Coffee Summit." I knew Robin was meeting with Joe over coffee, but before Robin showed up did a quick introduction to Allyson before scurrying off to meet with Joe, I had no idea we were actually going to be at the same coffee house at the same time in two separate meetings.

Later that afternoon, I asked Robin what the look on Joe's face was as we passed by she and Joe at the coffee house. Robin said Joe looked pretty surprised. Apparently, GetEQUAL keeps a lot of folk rocking back on their heels -- even when there isn't even a designed intent to do so.

Back at the "Taligay House" (prior to the GetEQUAL direct action at the Common Dreams meeting), Robin described the meeting she had with Joe from her perspective that afternoon. I can remember that it was again apparent to me that Robin and Joe both have tactical and strategic mindsets, and their discussions had something to do with tactics and strategy -- probably focusing on the differences between the two organizations' approaches to LGBT issues.

That said, I'm somewhat embarrassed to report that I don't remember much of what Robin said about what was discussed at hers and Joe's "Coffee Summit" -- besides that comment of Robin's about Joe's surprise at seeing Allyson and me together at the coffee house. I'm sad to say I don't remember much of what Robin said because my eyes often glaze over when tactics and strategy are discussed.

I leave strategy and tactics to others -- I feel my job is one of telling narratives, and publicly imagining what a better world might look like for the communities I belong to. Basically, it comes down to me realizing I'm an aspirational idealist instead of tactical thinker.

I find that in a task group, I'm not the one who will function as a task leader -- I'm a different kind of leader. My leadership role is usually a social leader's role, leaning towards  gatekeeping, harmonizing, and/or standard setting.

I deeply respect and admire those with tactical and strategic mindsets, yet I know don't have one. However, I really do appreciate my social leadership roles that find me functioning as an aspirational idealist. I appreciate my somewhat unusual mindset if for no other reason than because my aspirational mindset has brought me to a wonderful place -- a wonderful place of powerful sisterhood with my friend Allyson Robinson.

If you're reading this, Allyson, thank you so much for your friendship. I'm sure you already know how much I cherish your friendship, but I don't believe it can't hurt to often say how much I appreciate our friendship -- as well as to occasionally say how much I appreciate our friendship publicly.

.

Where Are Our Lunch Counters?

During the black civil rights movement, the African-American community was beset with legally sanctioned segregation and discrimination. One visible place where African-Americans were visibly discriminated against was drug store lunch counters.

When African-American community sought show that segregation was the adultery of an illicit intercourse between injustice and immorality, the community used lunch counters as the focus of non-violent protest.

As a peaceful form of protest, black and white students and others sat at lunch counters that were segregated. They refused to leave until they were served. Often, they were not served, but arrested and taken away to jail. The first such protest took place in a Woolworth's store in early 1960 in Greensboro, South Carolina. Four black students waited for an hour, but they were never served. Their protest was used as an example in nine other states across the U.S., and many lunch counters began to give-in.

Where does the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community have equivalents to lunch counters? Where are we, as a people belonging to a community, exposed to an illicit intercourse between injustice and immorality?

With regards to US Code Title 10, Subtitle G, Section 654: Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces {the federal Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) code}, the LGBT equivalents lunch counters are military recruiting offices. Just as lunch counters were visible locations that symbolized segregation and discrimination for African-American community members, so too are military recruiting offices visible locations that symbolize discrimination.

With regards to US Code Title 1, Section 7: Definition of "Marriage" and "Spouse" {the federal Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) code}, the LGBT equivalents to the Lunch Counter are the local Office of Register offices where LGBT community members are denied marriage licenses, and the state lines where the marriages of LGBT community members' marriages are legally dissolved, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) offices where LGBT community members' marriages aren't legally recognized.

With regards to employment nondiscrimination, the LGBT equivalents lunch counters are the businesses that deny us jobs, and/or deny us equal benefits. Just as lunch counters were visible locations that symbolized segregation and discrimination for African-American community members, so too are Human Resources offices visible locations that symbolize discrimination.

But, the LGBT community has yet to organize non-violent protests at the moral equivalents to the lunch counters of the recent American past -- demanding freedom, equality, and justice from those that would choose to use the power of government to deny its citizens human rights. Even though we members of the LGBT community are often still found languishing in the dark corners of American society -- finding that we are functionally exiles within our own broader society -- we members of the LGBT community aren't as a community at the moral equivalents to the lunch counters of the recent American past demanding freedom, equality, and justice.

Although we know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed, still we in the LGBT community aren't standing up against inequality and discrimination at locations that are the present day moral equivalents to lunch counters of America's recent past.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

~Martin Luther King Jr., "Letter From A Birmingham Jail" (16 April 1963)

I don't believe I'm alone in saying that we are at a point in LGBT civil rights history where we need to expose the illicit intercourse between injustice and immorality at today's moral equivalents to the lunch counters of America's recent past.

Family Research Council, American Family Association named as anti-gay hate groups

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Yesterday, the Southern Poverty Law Center added five more groups to its list of anti-gay hate groups, including some names that are long overdue.

The new groups are:

1. American Family Association
2. Americans for Truth About Homosexuality
3. Dove World Outreach Center
4. Family Research Council
5. Illinois Family Institute

This brings the total of anti-gay hate groups to 18 and all of them are profiled in exact detail by SPLC.

Other groups profiled by SPLC but not designated as official hate groups are:

1. Christian Anti-Defamation Commission
2. Concerned Women for America
3. Coral Ridge Ministries
4. Liberty Counsel
5. National Organization for Marriage

And as an added bonus SPLC also has a page in which they debunk 10 anti-gay myths. And I am sure you have heard of all them before (i.e. gays molest children at a higher rate than heterosexuals, gay have a short lifespan, you can "cure" homosexuality.)

And one thing that cannot be repeated enough is SPLC's reasons to list these organizations as anti-gay hate groups:

Even as some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family moderate their views, a hard core of smaller groups, most of them religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news organizations. Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups (eight were previously listed), reflecting further research into their views; those are each marked with an asterisk. Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.

The last sentence was emphasized by me because it needs to be remembered. Unfortunately when the inaccuracies of various religious right groups are pointed out, the conversation tends to go on a religious direction and this is a mistake.

When we go to the religious direction, we give these groups a chance to cover themselves. "These are merely our personal religious beliefs," they say. 

Religion is immaterial. The bad acts that theses groups commit in the name of religion is the point we should focus on and hammer consistently.
Keep our message short and sweet - these groups knowingly lie about lgbts in attempts to demonize us.

My advice to everyone is to read SPLC's profiles, memorize them, and pass them around to your friends and neighbors.

These groups and their spokespeople are liars and we need to call them as such. We need to hammer that point over and over and over again until it is drilled into the head of America.

Hat tip to People for the American Way and Truth Wins Out

Related posts:

The American Family Association must address Bryan Fischer's hateful comments

10 reasons why Americans for Truth is a hate site

Christian Anti-Defamation Commission defends exorcists and hate groups from the 'scary gays'

Why doesn't Robert Knight want to talk about Paul Cameron? 

National Organization for Marriage needs to address hate in its own ranks 
  
The top 12 lies of Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council

 

DADT and Major Witt: The Third Act is About to Begin.

DADT and Major Witt:  The Third Act is About to Begin.

Tomorrow the Obama Administration and its Department of Justice must decide yet again whether to appeal a Don't Ask, Don't Tell court case they have lost. The sixty-day period the government had to appeal Colonel Fehrenbach, who filed for an injunction to prevent his discharge under DADT; the Air Force is still considering his case.)

In the likely event that there is an appeal, we will be in for many more scenes: another round of requests for stays, requests for denials of stays, and likely more drama at the Supreme Court.

Once the government announces an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, they will have to ask for a stay of Judge Leighton's order; otherwise the Air Force would presumably be forced to let Major Witt serve her country immediately (a tragedy to some, but likely not to the audience, who would cheer).

Unlike in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, which tread on previously uncovered territory (the constitutionality of DADT under any circumstance), Judge Leighton's decision is simply a straightforward application of a ruling handed down by the Ninth Circuit itself.  Therefore, to a layman's understanding of how stays work, it is hard to see how that same Ninth Circuit could rationalize issuing a permanent stay of Judge Leighton's order pending an appellate hearing.

Assuming the Ninth Circuit takes its Witt decision to heart and denies a stay request, the government will presumably appeal the denial-of-stay decision to the Supreme Court -- just as LCR attorneys appealed the unfavorable stay decision they received from the Ninth.  But while it was pretty clear what the Supreme Court was going to do in Log Cabin Republicans (uphold the Ninth Circuit-issued stay, which they did), it is not at all clear what will happen here.

As with LCR, the request for a stay will first go to Judge Kennedy (assigned to handle stay requests for all Ninth Circuit appeals). He can agree to the stay, deny it or refer the decision to the entire Supreme Court.

If no stay is ultimately granted, Major Witt would presumably be reinstated pending appeal. She would serve the entire time it took for this case to be scheduled, heard and decided -- likely more than a year.  If DADT were not to be repealed, and she ultimately lost the case, she would then be re-discharged!

Even if the Senate were to pass the NDAA with Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal in it and it was signed by the President, Major Witt's case would still not necessarily be moot. The repeal of DADT only goes into effect 60 days after the President, the Secretary of Defense and Admiral Mullen certify the report. Even then the Department of Defense would still have the authority to dismiss homosexuals at will until and unless new regulations were issued. All repeal will do is take away the statutory requirement that they be dismissed, not the legality of doing so.  The government could, in theory, continue to argue that Major Witt was correctly dismissed and should remain so.

Who knows? Perhaps three acts will not be enough.

========================================

Quote from Judge Leighton's decision:

The evidence produced at trial overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the suspension and discharge of Margaret Witt did not significantly further the important government interest in advancing unit morale and cohesion. To the contrary, the actions taken against Major Witt had the opposite effect.

The evidence before the Court is that Major Margaret Witt was an exemplary officer. She was an effective leader, a caring mentor, a skilled clinician, and an integral member of an effective team. Her loss within the squadron resulted in a diminution of the unit's ability to carry out its mission. Good flight nurses are hard to find. The evidence clearly supports the plaintiff's assertion that the reinstatement of Major Witt would not adversely affect the morale or unit cohesion of the 446th AES. The only evidence to the contrary comes in the form of survey responses and preference polls.

Witt Lawsuit Timeline:

April 2006: Witt files suit in United States District Court.

Fall, 2007: Witt's case is dismissed by the District Court. She appeals to the Ninth Circuit.

November 5, 2007: Oral arguments are heard by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit.

May 21, 2008: Decision is handed down.

May 3, 2009:  The government declines to appeal, leaving Witt as binding on the Ninth Circuit. The case is remanded back to District Court for trial under this new standard.

September 13, 2010:  Witt's case began anew in District Court.

September 21, 2010:  Trial ends.  Judge Leighton announces a decision to be handed down September 24, 2010.

September 24, 2010: Judge Leighton hands down his decision.

November 23, 2010: Decision by government to appeal or not is due

A Solitary Lesbian of Color on TV

Her name is Special Agent Diana Barrigan. She is honey-brown with the kind of long, flowing, presumably processed hair that is sometimes valued by women of color (including Asians like me) in the professional world. She is a near-perfect shot with a gun. She is lithe and lean. She is small-chested (like me), but her legs are muscular and toned. She is tough and independent, but she still calls her superior at the FBI "Boss," genuflecting annoyingly at every turn. She exudes confidence. She sparks with an easy, powerful intellect. She is beyond efficient. And yes: Special Agent Diana Barrigan is also one of the few (if any) openly lesbian characters-of-color in a currently running scripted, hour-long, fictional television American drama.

(Remember: The L Word went off the air in 2009 and The Real L Word and related shows are "reality TV.")

The drama is called White Collar. It's a mildly diverting contrivance about an expert con artist and art forger who works as a consultant for the FBI's NYC White Collar Crime Division. I don't own a TV. But I have a computer. I download TV shows from amazon.com. I don't know how I discovered Diana. Perhaps I have a nose for these things. Suffice to say that the only reason why I watch White Collar is to catch a glimpse of Diana.

Diana is played by Marsha Thomason, a 34 year old, presumably heterosexual (because she's married to a man named Craig Sykes) British-Jamaican actress who had (for me) the misfortune of playing Eddie Murphy's wife in an otherwise forgettable Disney film called The Haunted Mansion. (Of course, when I think of Eddie Murphy I can't help but remember his homophobic comedy act from the 1980s, an act that made his dalliance with a transgender woman of Samoan descent named Atisone "Shalomar" Seiuli (1976-1998) all the more hypocritical and vicious. Google it.)

It has not been easy to catch a glimpse of Diana. She appeared in the initial pilot for the series. Her lesbianism was played up in one of those eagads moments where the hero is told that the strong, hot women before him is just not into him. But after the pilot she predictably disappeared. I had to download and screen every episode of Season 1 before the final episode when the FBI Detective calls Diana for help. Then, in a cliffhanger, she reappears as a kind of sidekick. For the current season, Diana is a regular lesbian character on Season 2; and by "regular lesbian character" I mean that she's trotted out for torrid subplots--like the time when she goes undercover as a prostitute (surprise) who must negotiate the ignobility of sleeping with men because, if scriptwriters hadn't told you already, she's a lesbian and she doesn't like men.

Yet, curiously, for all her lack of attraction to men, Diana (as played by Marsha Tomason) is quite relaxed and even subservient to her male superiors at the FBI. Moreover, her chemistry with the Con Man who is hired as a consultant (the main hero) is quite strong. There is a buttery, silky, relaxed quality to Marsha Tomason's performances. And you'd never know she was British. Her flat American accent is a marvel of impersonation.

But like so many LGBT characters before her on dramatic and comedic television, Diana is caught in a netherworld shot through with stereotype, sensationalism, fleeting bits of heartfelt authenticity, and exploitation. Like some animal who only gets leftover steak on a holiday, I gobble up even the rancid bits as if Diana's fleeting scenes are the only food I'll have for weeks.

I've often reflected on this longing within me to see LGBTs of color represented on TV and in films. Why do I care so much? Why do I long for LGBT people of color to be subjects and not just objects--characters with as much depth, diversity, and dynamism as the habitually white male hero and anti-heroes that populate TV? Why couldn't Diana be the lead FBI Agent? And why, for the love of the Goddesses, do I still rush to watch the latest episode, pining for Diana, the solitary (to my knowledge) lesbian character-of-color on American TV?

Transgender Travelers and New TSA Policies

Note from Autumn: The National Center For Transgender Equality (NCTE) has come out with a 4-page PDF guide to whole-body imaging, covering some of the same ground and providing more background.