Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 139

Good news - all systems go for surgery on Monday

I have the vlog entry over in the margin, but just wanted to post the good news here - my tough regimen has paid off...I do a little Carol Merrill display of my medical doo-hickey devices.

It's an update on my success at keeping my diabetes under tight control with a really tough regimen of frequent blood sugar tests, 2 shots of Lantus/day, 1 shot of Victoza, and 4 Humalog needles most days. Good news is in the numbers - my A1C = 8.5 (down from >11), fructosomine test has my 2 week BGs at normal (non-diabetic) levels. The downside is that I've been experiencing low blood sugar episodes at pretty bad levels (many below 60) on a regular basis, so I have to keep Starburst or Sweetarts with me all the time.

My results were faxed to my surgeon by my fabulous family nurse practitioner Kathy, and my surgeon was pleased with the numbers, so the slice and dice can go ahead.

My hysterectomy will likely be laproscopic, which means my abdomen will be off limits for injections. I'll have to go for the back of my arms, thighs, and argh, the posterior. I hope I don't have to keep as strict a regimen as this once I'm healed up, but I'll have to see what my endo says.

The last week has been hard since I was having my last cycle while on the road at my sister-in-law's wedding, but I made it. As of today it's been 8 days and this period is getting a "second wind" from the fibroids -- for god's sake, I'm really weak this AM.

I am wrapping things up for my last day at work today. My brother and his family are coming down to celebrate an early Thanksgiving with us since I'll be laid up next week.

Many thanks to the baristas, guest posters and diarists who have been providing rich content (and um, getting arrested for the cause) for you while I've been either busy with the above nonsense, or severely under the weather from fibroid-induced pain. I'll probably do one more vlog the night before surgery.

The Peter: 'Should Gay TSA Agents be Barred from Giving 'Same-gender Pat-downs'

The man is cracked in the head. Perhaps he's looking forward to having his "junk" felt up. I have to post this press release he sent out via Christian Newswire in total.

Should Gay TSA Agents be Barred from Giving 'Same-gender Pat-downs'



Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) today questioned the propriety of "same-gender' TSA (Transportation Security Administration) "pat-downs" -- if the TSA agents doing the 'patting down" are homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.

Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano went out of her way yesterday to stress that the TSA pat-downs are "same-gender" -- mostly to reassure women that men will not be groping them at airports in the name of safety.

"But what about homosexual TSA agents?" AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responded. "Isn't it just as inappropriate for a 'gay' male TSA agent to pat down male travelers as it is for a normal, heterosexual male TSA agent to pat down female travelers?

"The reality is, most traveling men would not want Barney Frank to pat them down at the airport security checkpoint," LaBarbera said. "Neither would it be fair to assign Ellen DeGeneres to pat down female travelers. (In the same vein, the Army should no more force normal male soldiers to shower and bunk with homosexual male soldiers than it would force females soldiers to bunk and shower with their male counterparts.)"

The TSA, as a federal agency, is barred from discriminating on the basis of "sexual orientation," thanks to a pro-homosexual Executive Order signed by President Clinton in 1998.

Said LaBarbera: "Obviously Napolitano wants to assure the public that sexual tension will be taken out of the equation. Hence, we must take seriously the self-identified desires of homosexuals. 'Gay' men define themselves as being sexually attracted to other men. Lesbians are sexually attracted to women. And bisexuals are attracted to both." Some observations:

Perhaps some common-sense, healthy "discrimination" is in order: the TSA should put conditions on employment for self-acknowledged homosexuals -- that they not be assigned to pat down travelers so as to avoid being put in sexually compromising situations;It would not be workable to assign, say, gay male TSA agents to pat down female travelers -- as the latter -- thinking the agents to be normal men -- would protest that they are being patted down by males. Chaos would ensue;Does the TSA know which of its employees are homosexual, anyway, and how? If not, is it fair to travelers who may end up getting "groped" by homosexual TSA agents who are secretly getting turned on through the process?Could the TSA be subjected to a sexual harassment lawsuit if the agent who engages in an overly aggressive "same-gender pat-down" -- and gets sued -- turns out to be homosexual?

LaBarbera said that even if it could be assumed that most TSA agents -- regardless of their sexual proclivities -- would act professionally, that is not the issue. Male TSA agents -- no matter how "professional" their conduct -- cannot frisk female travelers.

"To allow homosexual agents to conduct same-gender pat-downs is tantamount to a new form of discrimination that must be recognized and prevented," he said.

GetEqual, LGBT vets and advocates protest outside WH secret 'Common Purpose' meeting tonight

It's nice to see more exposure of the kind of underbelly goings-on inside the Beltway. This "Common Purpose" meeting is meant to to streamline messaging and to shut down criticism coming from progressive voices. The Politico has a piece on it. Take a look at who is on the invite list...members of those who purport to represent you -- Gay, Inc.

This evening, seven of the original 13 LGBT veterans and advocates who were arrested yesterday at the White House fence, stood outside of the Capital Hilton (1001 16th Street NW) in Washington, DC to protest the White House's "Common Purpose" meeting, a mostly secret, low-profile gathering of White House officials and institutional, progressive organizations aimed at controlling the agenda and messaging around those issues, which includes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues.  The invite-only meeting, first launched back in 2009 by White House Chief of Staff Rahmn Emanuel, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina and others, has been previously criticized by liberal, progressive bloggers and advocates for its attempt to shut-down any resistance to the White House's strategy by instilling fear of retribution amongst the organizations invited.

Video of this evening's Common Purpose meeting protest will be available shortly at:  www.youtube.com/getequal

The group of seven LGBT veterans and advocates stood outside the Capitol Hilton tonight in the rain, greeting attendees with a simple, direct message:  "There's No Common Purpose Without Equality."  Amongst the list of attendees to the Common Purpose meeting tonight were: David Smith, VP of the Human Rights Campaign and Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force - two of the nation's largest LGBT organizations; and officials from the Center for American Progress (CAP), including Winnie Stachelberg, Senior Vice President for External Affairs, who has claimed credit for drafting the compromise legislation and strategy on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, putting in grave danger the chances of repeal happening this year - despite numerous promises to the contrary.

David Smith, Vice President of Policy and Strategy for the Human Rights Campaign, Winnie Stachelberg, Sr. VP for External Affairs for CAP; Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, were greeted tonight by the protestors and asked to stand with the LGBT community and not attend the meeting.  All three of them chose instead to cross the protest line and enter into the hotel.  Smith refused saying, "I'm running late."

Also, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina and White House Deputy Director of the Office of Public Engagement Brian Bond were also in attendance and greeted tonight by protestors who chanted "What's Your Plan?" and "Tell Obama to Keep His Promise!"

"We stand outside in the rain tonight because we have a simple message to deliver to the White House and those attending this meeting, 'there is no common purpose without equality'," said LGBT veteran Evelyn Thomas, twice arrested at the White House fence for protesting the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and a former Corporal in the United States Marine Corps.  "From the White House fence to the steps of the U.S. Capitol or outside the entrance of the hotel holding your secret, low-profile meeting, we are prepared to go anywhere, at any time of day, until you deliver on your promise of equality for all Americans."

The group of LGBT veterans and advocates held signs at tonight's protest reading:

?         There's No Common Purpose Without Equality;

?         Messina DADT "This Year"?;

?         What's the Plan? (referring to the recent answer President Obama gave to LGBT blogger, Joe Sudbay, that he had a plan to pass the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" during the lame-duck session)

?         Human Rights Campaign Stand With Us!

?         DADT C.A.P. Compromise - What Did It Get Us, Winnie?

Americablog also has coverage.

E-Marriage Project: Over-Hyped, But Still Important

With only 5 states allowing gay marriage, it’s hard for LGBT couples to get married. But e-marriages might change that.

John Wright from the Dallas Voice reported last week about two men who got married while physically in Texas, even though the state bans gay marriage. The marriage ceremony was officiated via teleconference by a D.C. official. Nevertheless, the couple did have to travel to D.C. to get their license beforehand.

Legal Effects

E-marriage sounds exciting, but it won’t do much legally. At the end of the day, an e-marriage is just another marriage.

To be sure, e-marriage will not suddenly make gay marriage legal in states where it is illegal. Instead, the point of e-marriage, advocates say, is to make it easier for gay couples to get married no matter where they live.

Yet, unless the couple lives in New York (which recognizes out of state gay marriages), an e-marriage license will have no legal effect where the couple lives. Professor Mae Kuykendall, Director of the E-Marriage Project at Michigan State University Law School, recently explained:

For controversial marriages, states that do not recognize them would still be able to refuse recognition.

So what’s the point?

While e-marriage isn’t a solution to the marriage inequality for LGBT couples, it still benefits these couples just by making marriage, even legally ineffectual marriage, easier. I’m reminded about what I read in Making It Legal, a book by attorneys Hertz and Emily Doskow. It talks about the non-legal benefits of gay marriage:

I’m constantly struck by how often couples tell me that getting married has transformed their relationship, giving them a social recognition by their family and the wider community as well as an emotional solidity that they previously lacked. There’s a lifting of a mantle of disregard and oppression that may have created an atmosphere of invalidity, in ways that many partners had not even been fully aware of. There is the imprimatur of social approval, the resonance of emotional commitment, and the security of legal interconnectedness, all of which work together to strengthen the relationship.

If e-marriage laws make it possible for gay couples to get married in any jurisdiction, without ever having to physically travel there, then couples could realize these non-legal benefits even as the legal ones elude them.

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

My answer to intrusive airport security: kilts!

I've flown in kilts: when you are a guy and have to sit for several hours, they are far more comfortable than pants. I've never worn them "properly" when flying, though. I think it is time to change that policy.

If some minimum-wage federal clerk wants to fondle the boys, why should I make it difficult for him? I mean, since they are going to strip me of my dignity anyway....

"No, really, you do not want me to remove my belt."

I would encourage all men to do the same. There is no need to buy a traditional Scottish and go in full regalia; a nice modern kilt is less expensive, much easier to take care of and goes nicely with comfy shoes and a t-shirt or polo. (Modern kilts can still be pricey, but they are guaranteed never to wear out in the crotch and knees.) Utilikilt and Amerikilt are two brands I highly recommend.

Just, please, don't wrap yourself in a tartan table runner and call it a kilt, ok? You deserve to be detained and arrested if you do.

The times I've flown kilted, I had no problem with security. I have had trouble from the metal snaps, which resulted in getting wanded; other than that, just some funny looks and a lot of compliments. I haven't done it recently, but I think I should, just to see what happens under the new "security" measures.

Massachusetts hate group angry at teachers who shared coming out experiences

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

From that "bastion of Christian fairness," the American Family Association's One News Now, comes this item:

A pro-family group is outraged that a high school in Massachusetts allowed an event on campus at which seven teachers spoke about how they "came out" as homosexuals.

Brian Camenker, president of MassResistance!, tells OneNewsNow a concerned mother first alerted his group of the panel discussion that took place at Concord-Carlisle High School in late October during which seven teachers shared their "coming out" stories and encouraged the reported standing-only audience to do the same.

"They also said that if kids want to discuss their homosexual issues, that their parents will not be informed of anything -- that it's completely private," Camenker reports. "And this was one of the things that really bothered this mother, that...if kids are involved with a dangerous and deadly behavior, the school isn't even going to tell their parents that it's going on."

The entire tone of the article, of which Camenker is the only source by the way, gives an impression of innocent students being "indoctrinated" by a supposed gay agenda.

Of course the truth of the panel discussion is slightly different than Camenker would have us to believe. From the Massachusetts publication The Carlisle Mosquito comes a more detailed version of the panel discussion:

Acknowledging recent national reports of the high-risk for suicide among gay teens, a panel of seven teachers agreed to come forward and talk about their personal experiences at a meeting held at the Concord-Carlisle high school (CCHS) on Friday, October 21. The gathering in the Little Theatre was standing room only. The event was hosted by Spectrum, the gay-straight alliance organization at the school.


Spectrum, with about 12 members of all sexual orientations, meets weekly at the high school on Wednesday afternoons. The teens discuss current events and questions about sexual orientation, gender identity and being an ally. The group was founded in 1992, as a response to Governor William Weld’s Safe Schools initiative aimed at helping lesbian, gay and bi-sexual teens. Spectrum has sponsored film viewings, health-week programs and special events – such as this panel discussion – at the high school. Adult sponsors of the group include guidance counselor Kelli Kirstein and social studies teacher Ben Kendall – well known for his humor and who identified himself at the meeting as “mostly straight.”
The seven speakers included special educator Amelie Atwater-Rhodes, science teacher Brian Miller, English teacher John Woodnal, English teacher Shelley Hull, health and fitness educator Nancy Slocum, physics teacher Kevin Pennucci and math teacher Peter Atlas. Kendall introduced the panel, and said that they were seated from youngest to oldest. He noted that the panel members had agreed to share their personal stories about coming out as gay or lesbian to emphasize that their lives improved as a result. He limited each participant to five minutes, but the speakers – encouraged by applause from the audience after each individual talk – continued on for much longer. The event stretched to an hour and a half before the gathering broke up for pizza.

 

The bottom line is whereas Camenker (and One News Now) tries to push the inane notion that homosexuality was "marketed" to students by teachers, the truth of the matter is that these teachers, alarmed about the recent suicides amongst lgbt youth, decided to not only come out but also share their personal stories as a way of telling lgbt youth that (forgive me for saying something that has become a cliche, albeit a positive one) that "it will get better."
These teachers should be commended.
Camenker, on the other hand, should be looked at warily. And everything he says should be taken with the smallest grain of salt. You see, Camenker's group, Mass Resistance, is one of 14 official hate groups named so by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
According to the SPLC, these groups do not simply speak against homosexuality.

(They) have engaged in the crudest type of name-calling, describing homosexuals as "perverts" with "filthy habits" who seek to snatch the children of straight parents and "convert" them to gay sex. They have disseminated disparaging "facts" about gays that are simply untrue — assertions that are remarkably reminiscent of the way white intellectuals and scientists once wrote about the "bestial" black man and his supposedly threatening sexuality.

In the case of Camenker and Mass Resistance, this includes:

Manufacturing a phony panic about "schools teaching children about homosexuality,"

Claiming in 2005 on Comedy Central's Daily Show that if given time, he would be able to connect gay marriage in Massachusetts to the "reduction" of the quality of life in the state, a spike in homelessness rates, or and a lowering the quality of the air in the state, or

Making a claim in 2006 that "gays were trying to get legislation passed to allow sex with animals" in Massachusetts.

Continuing a vindictive campaign of misinformation against the transgendered community (whom the organization refers to as "men in dresses) .

Most recently, the organization was key in manufacturing inaccurate claims about Obama appointee Kevin Jennings in an attempt to get him dismissed. The watchdog site Media Matters published a list of the lies Camenker and Mass Resistance spread about Jennings.

In one post, Media Matters goes on to say:

  . . .conservative commentator Dean Barnett has stated that the organization "verges on being a hate group." Camenker himself reportedly denied that gays and lesbians were targeted during the Holocaust and has compared the gay rights movement to the Nazis.

If I were a parent, I wouldn't have any problem with my child attending that panel discussion with the lgbt teachers. But I wouldn't let my child get anywhere near Camenker. I wouldn't want that hatred to rub off.

Maggie Gallagher Boils Down Her Opposition to Marriage Equality: It's All About the Children

NOTE FROM PAM: This is the second of two reports for the Blend by Tony Varona , Professor of Law and the Academic Dean of American University's Washington College of Law (right). He contacted me a few weeks ago because he was invited to participate in a symposium on marriage equality and religion at St. John's Law School, held this past weekend. As a reader and fan of the Blend he wanted to contribute an account of the event from his unique perspective. This report is about the panel he served on with Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage.

In addition to former representative Bob Barr's interesting address on how his views have evolved on DOMA (the subject of my earlier post, the St. John's U. School of Law Nov. 12th symposium, "Legal, Secular, and Religious Perspectives on Marriage Equality/Marriage Protection/Same-sex Marriage," brought a number of other notable advocates and scholars to debate marriage equality and analyze the aftermath of the 2008 and 2009 ballot initiative losses for proponents of marriage equality in California, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida and Maine.

Besides Bob Barr, the "pro" side included Yale Law School Professor Ian Ayres discussing his new book, Straightforward: How to Mobilize Heterosexual Support for Gay Rights, as well as a variety of activists and scholars -- like Chapman's Katherine Darmer, UC-Davis's Courtney Joslin, Thomas Jefferson's Kaimi Wenger, and UCLA's Devon Carbado and Russell Robinson. Those opposed to same-sex marriage included Ave Maria Law School's Jane Adolphe, who insisted that same-sex marriage was "inauthentic" and therefore unworthy of legal protections. The University of Pennsylvania's Amy Wax, a renowned conservative, sparked a number of negative audience reactions when she revealed that she would be "disappointed" if one of her children came out as gay or lesbian since that would mean that they likely would have to resort to adoption of biologically unrelated children, rather than enjoy what she characterized as the superior experience of natural heterosexual procreation.

I had the privilege of sharing a panel with Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, and perhaps the most prominent opponent of same-sex marriage today. Although I did not agree with almost everything she said, she struck me as more thoughtful and reflective than she has been in other contexts, especially in short media interviews.

Responding to earlier comments about how the Prop 8 supporters' messages were often misleading and distorting, she said, "I assure you that the arguments that were made by the people who supported Prop 8 believed that they were true. So they were not misleading. They are part of our ongoing disagreement about whether changing the public and legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples matters." Of course, Maggie seemed to overlook that it was possible for Prop 8 supporters to have believed their arguments and for those arguments to have been misleading, but I won't quibble.

Gallagher said, "I too favor marriage equality and I oppose discrimination," but then clarified that same-sex unions are not marriages and thus "it is not discrimination to treat different things differently." She added, "I do not think that equality requires the recognition of same-sex unions as marriages."

According to Gallagher, marriage must be defined as being between a man and a woman because "deeply disconnected societies with not the same religion, economy, ecology -- with nothing in common...come up again and again with something that has this basic marriage shape." She summarized her position in this way:

Marriage as a universal human idea has its roots in three persistent truths about human beings everywhere. The overwhelming majority of us are powerfully attracted, and not without reason, to an act that makes new human life. So newsflash!, sex between men and women makes babies. The second truth is that society needs babies. Reproduction is optional for the individual. Not everybody has to do it. But only those cultures that manage to regulate the procreative implications of male-female sexual attraction survived.... The third idea in which marriage is based is that children ought to have a mother and a father. ...Put it this way: when a baby is born there is bound to be a mother somewhere close by, right? If we want fathers to be there for their children, and for the mothers of their children, biology alone is not going to take us very far. We need a cultural mechanism for attaching fathers to the mother-child bond.

Later in her remarks, she added: "Sex makes babies, society needs babies, babies need a mother and father. Out of these truths, an institution arises to try to grapple with a problem to direct human behavior towards the ideal."

Gallagher's arguments were not new. They were some of the same arguments resoundingly rejected by a number of courts examining the various justifications for the same-sex marriage prohibitions -- most notably the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts and California Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's opinion in Perry v. Schwarzenegger striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional.

Gallagher's arguments also are not hard to refute. I opened my remarks by pointing out that I did not see, and would have liked Maggie to explain, how prohibiting same-sex couples from getting civil marriage protections undermines traditional marriage. Could one not be in favor of both traditional marriage for heterosexuals and civil marriage protections for gays and lesbians for whom a "traditional" marriage is out of the question? And if indeed the crux of her argument is now the protection and well-being of children, how exactly does denying same-sex couples the protections of civil marriage protect the children born to heterosexuals and protect the children born to those same-sex unions? Of course, banning civil same-sex marriage does the exact opposite. It harms children, straight and gay, for no good reason. And it denies the reality that same-sex couples can, and do, procreate, and can, and do, adopt children who would be much better off if their parents were not barred from the many important protections offered by civil marriage.

I also wanted to challenge the circularity of Maggie's and her anti-marriage equality colleagues' arguments. At its essence, Maggie's argument is that same-sex marriage is not marriage because only man-woman marriage is marriage. But why exactly can a same-sex union not ever qualify as a marriage? Because, Maggie argues, marriage is only between a man and a woman. The reality, of course, is that the term "marriage" has been a contested and fluid one throughout history, with many forms of marriage (plural, intergenerational, interracial, homosexual, etc.) either solemnized or marginalized by civil and religious authorities in accordance with the social and cultural dynamics of the respective eras.

Sadly, we were unable to enjoy a true debate during the Q&A portion of our panel because Maggie had to leave early, but it was an interesting exchange nevertheless. Most interesting to me was how Maggie started her remarks with a request of the audience to identify their positions by raising their hands, first if they were supporters of same-sex marriage, and then if they were opponents or were undecided. There were approximately 80 audience members in the moot court room of St. John's Law School, a Roman Catholic institution. All but 6 or 7 attendees raised their hands in support of marriage equality. About 5 hands went up in opposition. A telling result, surely dispiriting for Maggie and her colleagues, and a very positive harbinger of what lies ahead on the road to universal marriage equality.

***

Professor Tony Varona teaches Contracts, Administrative Law, Media Law, and Introduction to Public Law. Before joining the WCL faculty, he was an associate professor of law at Pace Law School in New York. Before that, he served as general counsel and legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay civil rights organization. He built HRC's legal department, directed its legislative and regulatory lawyering and appellate amicus work, launched national law fellow and pro bono attorney programs, and served as counsel to HRC's board of directors and the organization's corporate, educational, and media initiatives.

Professor Varona taught as an adjunct law professor for three years at Georgetown University, and served as a Wasserstein Fellow at Harvard Law School. He serves on the board of directors of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), and is a member of the Society of American Law Teachers and the Hispanic Bar Association of Washington. He has served on the boards of the Human Rights Campaign and the Alliance for Justice, was on the New York Advisory Board for the American Constitution Society, was founding chairperson of the AIDS Action Council's Legal Advisory Board, and served as a member of the Judicial Selection Steering Committee of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Powell: Don't pressure Congress to vote if it 'isn't ready' and the DADT study isn't in

WTF? Let's see...Gen. Colin Powell's turn on this is bizarre. While he, as one of the architects of DADT, is now for repeal, apparently the midterm scare is goosing him to urge the political slow-walk now.

Last time I checked, what he's calling "pressuring" -- a.k.a lobbying, calling and holding direct actions to urge Congress to act on legislation before it -- is what citizens are encouraged to do. What is the point of electing people to represent you if you aren't supposed to let them know how important passing a bill or addressing an issue is?

Or do the sensitivities of military homophobes who are queasy about soap dropping in the shower/homos seeing my pee-pee supercede this? Via Igor Volsky @ The Wonk Room:

POWELL: My position has been, it has been 17 years since we put that policy in place. Lots of things have happened. Attitudes have changed within our society. But i always believe, as I believed in 1993, that we have to take into account the views of our military leaders who are responsible for the well-being of the armed forces.

KING: So you support the McCain's view?

POWELL: Yes. But, you know, our military leaders have now spoken. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, there is some, some difference of opinion among the chiefs that will have to be resolved. But I wish that we would just let that study be finished, let it be published and let everybody read it and not leak parts of it. And so I share Senator McCain's view that we ought to let the process unfold and not try to intercept it with court rulings or with people trying to get a vote out of the Congress when the Congress is not ready to vote on it.

Powell: Don't pressure Congress to vote if it 'isn't ready' and the DADT study is in

WTF? Let's see...Gen. Colin Powell's turn on this is bizarre. While he, as one of the architects of DADT, is now for repeal, apparently the midterm scare is goosing him to urge the political slow-walk now.

Last time I checked, what he's calling "pressuring" -- a.k.a lobbying, calling and holding direct actions to urge Congress to act on legislation before it -- is what citizens are encouraged to do. What is the point of electing people to represent you if you aren't supposed to let them know how important passing a bill or addressing an issue is?

Or do the sensitivities of military homophobes who are queasy about soap dropping in the shower/homos seeing my pee-pee supercede this? Via Igor Volsky @ The Wonk Room:

POWELL: My position has been, it has been 17 years since we put that policy in place. Lots of things have happened. Attitudes have changed within our society. But i always believe, as I believed in 1993, that we have to take into account the views of our military leaders who are responsible for the well-being of the armed forces.

KING: So you support the McCain's view?

POWELL: Yes. But, you know, our military leaders have now spoken. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, there is some, some difference of opinion among the chiefs that will have to be resolved. But I wish that we would just let that study be finished, let it be published and let everybody read it and not leak parts of it. And so I share Senator McCain's view that we ought to let the process unfold and not try to intercept it with court rulings or with people trying to get a vote out of the Congress when the Congress is not ready to vote on it.

I'm Out And Safe

Hi all,

Just a quick note to say I'm out of jail, and my experience was a much better experience than my last jail experience last April.

I'll write more tomorrow, but all thirteen of us who handcuffed ourselves to the White House fence today (November 15, 2010) are out of jail after being cited. All are doing well.

Warmest thoughts,

~~Autumn~~